I know a girl who has 3 kids by 2 different men and just had a miscarriage of her 4th kid by a 3rd man. She doesn't even take care of the 3 she has now. You know what should happen in that case instead of keeping her up with Govt assistance?
Debate Thread?
- Thread starter vhcat70
- Start date
I would argue you are correct but the 25% that due are a heavy voting bloc of one political party in this country. It carried some candidates in the past but, much like many other social issues, isn't widely viewed negatively anymore.
Since one political party tied their boat to that group it has become a sticking point that they need to find a way to traverse without appearing out of sync with the majority of the country.
Trump struggles with this because he just wants to appeal to the 25% by saying he got Roe v wade overturned then appears disingenuous when trying to walk it back.
It's like Harris being the anti fracking queen in 2019 and now suddenly being OK with it (and rightfully so as it spurred our best output for domestic oil ever).
You just made a case for a third party. I like to call it: The Sane 60 If there WAS a Sane 60 party, we certainly wouldn't have elections like we're currently facing.
Is there a place for a guy like me who thinks we should cut both welfare and military spending? Who's OK with how you want to live your life but not OK with you dictating how I talk? Who wants to see the US address the root of issues abroad (like that whole drug cartel problem we started in the 80s and are really reaping the rewards of now)?
That used to be libertarian but now all they do is talk about weed and for profit prisons. They can fvck right off too.
I just feel like any time you are stopping a beating heart from continuing to do so you are murdering that being. There are many adults that are parasites on society and guess what? I dont think they should be killed either.
20 weeks is too far along.
If abortion is your #1 issue in this election then you are a wretch, imo. There are much more important things going on in the US right now than that issue.
20 weeks is too far along.
If abortion is your #1 issue in this election then you are a wretch, imo. There are much more important things going on in the US right now than that issue.
Unfortunately that's your opinion and it's not widely shared by the rest of this country (or world for that matter). I can symparhize with that notion but the same group of people who are adamantly against abortion tend to also be against sex education, contraceptives and funding aid for children born into these horrendous circumstances.
Surely something has to give somewhere, no? As I said previously though, there isn't an easy answer because we can't go sterilizing people and we can't exactly force abstinence either (sorry coach Stacie, who made me write her an abstinence promise in middle school).
So we either have better failsafes for children born into poverty, allow the parent to make a decision about keeping the child or opt for putting the child up for adoption (and we know how that goes in the US).
Not an easy option to be found there.
How do you feel about voluntary sterilization? Sanger suggested that we reward stupid people who don't reproduce:
Margaret Sanger said:
There are some people, like me who saw a 4D ultrasound of their son at 20 weeks and knew he looked like me, who will never think killing a baby at 20 weeks is acceptable (with one obvious exception where there is risk to the life of the baby and or mother). You do you.
The MN policy that allows it up until birth, and has let kids die after, is demonic.
You are never, ever going to convince people setting an arbitrary week limit for killings is acceptable.
I dont vote on the issue. It doesn’t impact me. But if I’m forced to listen to two candidates talk about the goddam issue, I’m going to side with the ones who leaves the absurd MN baby killing policies in MN, and doesn’t want to blanket the country with their evil.
So let’s just leave it to the states. Plenty of places your free to kill babies.
I voted libertarian candidate in the 12, 16, and 2020 elections. This years libertarian candidate is fine letting children decide what gender they are. If I let my kids decided what they wanted for dinner every night it would be a mix between takis and ice cream every day.
He’s leading in the crypto market, which favors Trump. As cited in article, 99% chance of losing in non-crypto market on the same site. Trump probably will lose (don’t hate the messenger).
I have a standing bet to this board of $250-$500 to the first taker willing to bet on Trump winning heads up.
I’d agree with that, but no party actually represents any kind of center any more. It’s all about picking a political label and rarely challenging the e party platform itself.
In a presidential general election year we typically do see more movement to the center though
If Trump just made observational smartass comments about everyone else, and left himself out of the narrative, he'd kill it. Because, when he sticks to that he's brutally funny.
Minnesota is also in the minority, you aren't listening to what I'm saying. Just like you, I've never had a need for an abortion nor do I consider it a top priority when I head into the voting booth in November. However, I do take issue when we say "let's leave it to the states" and you have places like Texas demanding medical records from neighboring states, threatening travel bans and advocating for national bans on contraceptives.
Couple that with Justice Thomas saying he wanted to go back and look at Griswold v. Connecticut through a new lens in the Dobbs decision and you can see this is no longer about just abortion, it's about legislating control.
The difference there is pretty stark.
I don’t think the federal government should be involved in abortion, contraceptives, marriage or a plethora of other things. There’s absolutely no reason people in Seattle should have any say in what people in Miami are doing in their bedrooms. No reason for the federal government to be involved (if they want to bucket people into different classes like married and unmarried, the federal government can adjust its tax policy, not have the courts create rights).
Though I’m not an expert, I’d imagine the behaviors you list from Texas, like bans on interstate travel, are unconstitutional no matter how you look at it. And if Texas is that restrictive, people can stop flooding there from CA and go to AZ instead. Other options.
Okay, not to be a smartass, but we're talking about politics here and I'm afraid "this piece of shit" is just a little too ambiguous. Can you identify which one you're referring to?
“There is no credible verified notarized time stamped evidence” say the people who talked about Russia collusion and secret videos of hookers pissing on Trump for years.
Are you saying that you think states should be allowed to legislate what goes on in people’s bedrooms?
In our republic, yes to an extent. Within the bounds of the Constitution. Certainly preferred over the federal government doing it.
If I may. I think he's saying that that is preferable to the Federal government doing it. Which isn't really an endorsement per se.
Have you even tried to research it? I watched the body cam of the arrest. It happened. I’m not saying every Haitian immigrant is eating people’s pet but it happened at least once. Also another man is at a city council meeting saying others were yanking ducks out of the public pond and cutting their heads off and leaving with them. Presumably for some duck stew which is actually good
I think the federal government has a right to indicate to the states that there are certain aspects of our society that the majority finds, for lack of a better word, tolerable or intolerable (i.e. slavery, rights of homosexuals, etc). I don't think the federal government should spend taxpayer money on abortions (and they don't to my recollection) and I agree that they shouldn't be involved in many other areas UNLESS the states try to unlawfully restrict what would otherwise be legal (see contraceptives above).
You're stating this as if the government has abortion clinics and brands of condoms.
Good to see we also agree that Texas and most of their southeastern neighbors are attempting to unconstitutionally restrict people from getting the help they need (with the exception of gender affirming care, I don't think minors should be able to make that decision but I also don't think a 16 year old should be able to get a boob job and here we are anyway).
Ultimately, you and I will always disagree about abortion, but there will be a situation where a prominent political candidate in one of these states has a situation where their wife needs medical care for their unborn child and either some high wire hypocrisy or outright subterfuge will be the only solution.
Wasn't just the hard cores . He could of won some states with that but not the nomination. Unless you count anyone willing to admit they support trump as hard core. Most Trump supporters I know do so because there's not a choice.
Any of the gop canidates other than Vivek beats Harris. We chose Trump who likely now loses to the 2 worst potus canidates in at least 100 years.
DeSantis would have destroyed her on the debate stage last night. Moderators and Kamala were baiting trump from the get go.
Is this the only debate we are going to have?
Is this the only debate we are going to have?
^^ This is all over the place. It should not be a state issue, but polling shows a 60/40 split? Abortion is only a religious Christian issue? Whether it is healthcare has some correlation to “harsh restrictions?”
The issue is not too nuanced to be debated, but your post is a bit of a hot mess.
Slavery is barred by the constitution. I don’t really know what the rights of homosexuals are that need federal legislative protection that differ from the rights of everyone else.
At the end of the day, I don’t need people in manhattan and LA dictating what life should look like in NKY. There are certain aspects of society they’ve voted upon themselves, and if like the consequences of their poor judgment to stay localized.
Of course there will be. They should summer the blowback.
Many Western nations have abortion laws that are less than 20 weeks. Seems that aspect of his opinion is right in line with much of the western world.
I don’t know pro-life people who are against sex education. Most are okay with contraceptives. And, many adopt or support nonprofits who care for orphans and families in need. These generalizations you are tossing around as fact do not help the discussion.
Trump started great he always does . As soon as Kamala made the comment poking at the size of his rallies at tail end of an i.portant subject ........ me an my wife looked at each other at sane time said OH SHIT! We knew Trump was cooked. He swallowed that bait whole an every other bait after.
Trump killed Trump the first biden 2020 debate an he may of did worse last night.
Only slight silver lining is Kamala is so bad and maybe some dirt or a story might break in next 2 months to help.
Trump killed Trump the first biden 2020 debate an he may of did worse last night.
Only slight silver lining is Kamala is so bad and maybe some dirt or a story might break in next 2 months to help.
Thomas understands the fallacy of substantive due process. It’s an example of intellectual honesty. The Roe mentality that bad law is somehow good because we like the result is not respecting the constitution or the rule of law. The Dems claim to NOW be a rule of law party. Thomas’s concurrence is sincerely part of that discussion, regardless of how political snake oil salesmen peddle it.
Polling indicates that the majority of the country supports some abortion rights (not free range abortion) and roe v wade allowed states to work within that guideline. I'm not arguing that that split is the same in every state as I am sure there is a much bigger split in places like Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. However, I believe the people of those states deserve a basic set of Healthcare options available to them. Agree to disagree I suppose.
The religious aspect is only important in the sense that only one of the major three religions outright think abortion has no place in society. It's the majority religion in the US but people split widely based on their unique Christian beliefs (protestants VS catholics etc). This is important because it explains why we would consider it to be immoral when the majority of the rest of western nations disagree. Not trying to say Christianity is wrong but it is unique here as Islam and Judaism have exceptions.
As for the harsh restrictions and is it even Healthcare I don't see the issue. Modern developed nations have some level of access to abortion and it varies depending on location. We now have essentially have 22 states that ban it or put harsh restrictions on it and the remainder allow it. That's a weird concept to me as a woman shouldn't have to worry if she will die from an ectopic pregnancy because of where she lives.
And, again, the recent court rulings and attempts by states with bans to impose their rules across the country is my bigger concern., which is why roe v wade held significance.
If the majority finds a certain way, explain to us why federal government involvement is required?
Similar threads
