# States would decide on their own abortion laws.  Really?



## Ray From Cleveland

So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine. 

My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?  

I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?



For the same reason that even a leftist super-majority under Obama never passed a law federalizing abortion, the Americans will never pass one outlawing it. The issue belongs with the states.


----------



## toobfreak

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?



I sure hope not.  I can think of at least 81 million post facto abortions I'd still like to see.


----------



## Darkwind

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


I disagree with your premise. 

I doubt that a Federal Law outlawing abortion would be any more popular than one allowing it.  I also don't think that the GOP would lose power for decades for trying.  The electorate is just too damn fickle.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

I'm hopeful that with what's happening here with Roe, more Americans will be ready to divide the country into at least two countries.
IMHO, the sooner we make it official, the more likely we will not be finding ourselves in the middle of a genuine civil catastrophe that will result in a good deal of Americans killed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Uncensored2008 said:


> For the same reason that even a leftist super-majority under Obama never passed a law federalizing abortion, the Americans will never pass one outlawing it. The issue belongs with the states.



I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.  Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Darkwind said:


> I disagree with your premise.
> 
> I doubt that a Federal Law outlawing abortion would be any more popular than one allowing it.  I also don't think that the GOP would lose power for decades for trying.  The electorate is just too damn fickle.



Politicians know we Americans have a short memory.  That's why I'm worried about what Congress and Dementia might do if they lose their ass in November.  If they lose big time, they just might make PR and DC into states and pack the courts as exit legislation.  Sure, all polls show Americans hate the idea of either, but again, voters have very short memories.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.



Survival instinct.

Further, I doubt enough in the GOP even hold that view,



Ray From Cleveland said:


> Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.



Extremely unlikely anyone would try, and they will fail if they do.


----------



## Darkwind

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Politicians know we Americans have a short memory.  That's why I'm worried about what Congress and Dementia might do if they lose their ass in November.  If they lose big time, they just might make PR and DC into states and pack the courts as exit legislation.  Sure, all polls show Americans hate the idea of either, but again, voters have very short memories.


I don't think that they'll manage to do that regardless of how badly they lose.   A simple court filing would put a hold on it until well after the change of leadership.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


Legally yes, practically no.  It will take some time to settle things without RvW so unless the GOP gets a super-majority in the next election, nothing will happen right away.  

By then we may all remember why so many people wanted legal abortions in the first place, babies that face a lifetime of suffering, families torn apart and impoverished, emergency room arrivals of victims of botched, illegal abortions, etc.  

Be careful what you wish for...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Darkwind said:


> I don't think that they'll manage to do that regardless of how badly they lose.   A simple court filing would put a hold on it until well after the change of leadership.



I don't think the court could get involved.  How many justices are on the court is in the sole power of Congress and there is no jurisdiction to put it on hold.


----------



## Darkwind

alang1216 said:


> Legally yes, practically no.  It will take some time to settle things without RvW so unless the GOP gets a super-majority in the next election, nothing will happen right away.
> 
> By then we may all remember why so many people wanted legal abortions in the first place, babies that face a lifetime of suffering, families torn apart and impoverished, emergency room arrivals of victims of botched, illegal abortions, etc.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for...


or maybe, we'll see a renaissance of people actually thinking and taking responsibility for themselves BEFORE another life is involved.


----------



## Darkwind

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't think the court could get involved.  How many justices are on the court is in the sole power of Congress and there is no jurisdiction to put it on hold.


From the election in November until the Change in Congress on Jan. 1st, you think they will increase the number of Justices that can sit the bench, and then nominate and pass enough to fill all those seats?

I don't think that can happen.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> Legally yes, practically no.  It will take some time to settle things without RvW so unless the GOP gets a super-majority in the next election, nothing will happen right away.
> 
> By then we may all remember why so many people wanted legal abortions in the first place, babies that face a lifetime of suffering, families torn apart and impoverished, emergency room arrivals of victims of botched, illegal abortions, etc.
> 
> Be careful what you wish for...



I'm not wishing for it at all.  But I don't see how it being a states right exclusively could last IF there are enough pro-life representatives to pass such a law.  As for myself, my opinion is that most women that do get abortions are Democrats, and the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.  Currently we are mostly aborting future Democrat voters.


----------



## alang1216

Darkwind said:


> or maybe, we'll see a renaissance of people actually thinking and taking responsibility for themselves BEFORE another life is involved.


You should Google what Einstein said about insanity.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Darkwind said:


> From the election in November until the Change in Congress on Jan. 1st, you think they will increase the number of Justices that can sit the bench, and then nominate and pass enough to fill all those seats?
> 
> I don't think that can happen.



I don't see what would stop them.  It's just something I do worry about.


----------



## Darkwind

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't see what would stop them.  It's just something I do worry about.


Time would stop them and even if there was no standing, the time to determine standing would be almost more than the time from election to Congressional changeover.


----------



## Darkwind

alang1216 said:


> You should Google what Einstein said about insanity.


I have no need to.  I see it demonstrated by the left on this forum nearly daily.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Currently we are mostly aborting future Democrat voters.


You're probably right, most abortions are by poor women and women of color.  Maybe the GOP will motivate them to vote?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Darkwind said:


> Time would stop them and even if there was no standing, the time to determine standing would be almost more than the time from election to Congressional changeover.



If you look at what's contained in their so-called Voters Rights act, it's loaded with unconstitutional provisions and they know it.  However if it's passed before the election, it's law until a court reverses it which wouldn't be until after the election. 

You know as well as I you can't trust a Democrat as far as you can throw them.  They'll do anything for power.


----------



## alang1216

Darkwind said:


> I have no need to.  I see it demonstrated by the left on this forum nearly daily.


“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” *Winston Churchill*


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> You're probably right, most abortions are by poor women and women of color.  Maybe the GOP will motivate them to vote?



That remains to be seen.  I'm a little worried about how it will affect state elections, especially among the Independents.  I would hate to see red states turning blue over one issue.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That remains to be seen.  I'm a little worried about how it will affect state elections, especially among the Independents.  I would hate to see red states turning blue over one issue.


You don't think Hunter's laptop will stem the tide?


----------



## Darkwind

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you look at what's contained in their so-called Voters Rights act, it's loaded with unconstitutional provisions and they know it.  However if it's passed before the election, it's law until a court reverses it which wouldn't be until after the election.
> 
> You know as well as I you can't trust a Democrat as far as you can throw them.  They'll do anything for power.


It takes just one challenge on Constitutional grounds and a Judge that knows the Constitution to put a stay on the law until it can be assessed.  That exact thing has been happening with frightening regularity over the past six years.

Hell, Trump and GOP legislation isn't a week old before the left has it in court and a stay issued.


----------



## daveman

toobfreak said:


> I sure hope not.  I can think of at least 81 million post facto abortions I'd still like to see.


Bold of you to assume a lot of those people haven't been dead already for years.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Darkwind said:


> It takes just one challenge on Constitutional grounds and a Judge that knows the Constitution to put a stay on the law until it can be assessed.  That exact thing has been happening with frightening regularity over the past six years.
> 
> Hell, Trump and GOP legislation isn't a week old before the left has it in court and a stay issued.



Well these people are pretty slick.  Look at how many should be in jail that are not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> You don't think Hunter's laptop will stem the tide?



The MSM won't even report on it.  









						FLASHBACK: 16% of Biden voters would have voted differently if Hunter Biden laptop story was not suppressed by media, big tech
					

A poll previously put out by the Media Research Center showed that fully 16 percent of voters who were unaware of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal would have switched their minds and not voted for Joe Biden for president, had they known about it at the time.




					thepostmillennial.com


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” *Winston Churchill*


----------



## task0778

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't see what would stop them.  It's just something I do worry about.



Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.  Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending.  So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about.  And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.

BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished?  The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US.  Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right.  Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.

I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP.  And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.

So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions?  Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House.  IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely.  I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.  

The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO.  But if they did, would that be constitutional?  Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no?  Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court.  I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.


----------



## skews13

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?



No. In states where abortion is, and will remain legal. No law would ever be enforced in those states, no matter what happened at the federal level. 

70% of Americans support a womans right to choose. And that's conservatives, as well as people of all religious faiths included in that 70%. Congress could never get a nationwide ban signed into federal law.


----------



## Ringtone

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.  Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.


That's just it, Ray.  Uncensored2008 is saying that for political reasons, such a thing would never happen.


----------



## initforme

As you will agree Ray with big wealth comes big corruption.   Always and in every case.   My view of america.


----------



## whitehall

Lefties seem to think that most Americans favor abortion so why are they so afraid of leaving it up to the voters? I think it was Hillary's husband who said "abortion should be rare" but the concept morphed into abandoning unwanted newborn babies on a cold stainless table without food or medicine until they die. That's what happens when liberal democrats are in charge.


----------



## initforme

We do need a drop in birth rate but abortion is not the route.


----------



## skews13

task0778 said:


> Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.  Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending.  So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about.  And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.
> 
> BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished?  The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US.  Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right.  Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.
> 
> I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP.  And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.
> 
> So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions?  Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House.  IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely.  I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.
> 
> The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO.  But if they did, would that be constitutional?  Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no?  Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court.  I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.



The filibuster exists nowhere in the Constitution. It is an archaic Senate rule. A short primer...

_The loophole that permits a senator’s right to speak endlessly on the senate floor dates to Vice President Aaron Burr, who declared in 1805 that the Senate need not be burdened by too many procedural rules. Back then a process to end debate on legislation, known as the “previous question” motion, was rarely used, so upon Burr’s recommendation, the senate dropped it in 1806._

What the Constitution says...

_“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. … The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”_

Federalist Paper 22; What Hamilton said...

_“If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated.”_

Federalist Paper 58; What Madison said...

_ “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority. Were the defensive privilege limited to particular cases, an interested minority might take advantage of it to screen themselves from equitable sacrifices to the general weal, or, in particular emergencies, to extort unreasonable indulgences.”_

The Manual Of Parliamentary Practice; What Jefferson said...

_“No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. … The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, &c. where not otherwise expressly provided.”_

Burr was wrong. The very nature of parliamentary practice is a debate that is tempered, and time limited, and then voted upon, with a majority deciding. 

How that works in the following elections, where the people decide by majority, is another thread.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Ringtone said:


> That's just it, Ray.  Uncensored2008 is saying that for political reasons, such a thing would never happen.



That's always iffy.  The point is that it could happen.  If Republicans gain so much momentum they might figure they have the wiggle room to try something like that.  Likely happen? Perhaps not.  Could it happen?  Without a doubt.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

skews13 said:


> No. In states where abortion is, and will remain legal. No law would ever be enforced in those states, no matter what happened at the federal level.
> 
> 70% of Americans support a womans right to choose. And that's conservatives, as well as people of all religious faiths included in that 70%. Congress could never get a nationwide ban signed into federal law.



Why is that?  What would be stopping them?  States do have rights, but not to go against federal law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President unless it presents the possibility of being unconstitutional which in this case, I don't see it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

task0778 said:


> Right now, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation.  Except for reconciliation which is limited to budgetary fixes for revenue and/or spending.  So, while I wouldn't mind seeing a super GOP majority in the Senate, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that to come about.  And I don't see them passing a total abortion ban even if they win the WH in 2024 and keep the Senate majority.
> 
> BUT - what about what happens if the filibuster gets abolished?  The democrats are talking about that right now, eliminating the filibuster so they can pass their Women's Productive Rights Act, which among other things prevents abortion bans in the US.  Doesn't look like that will happen (abolishing the filibuster) for the foreseeable future, but I can see the possibility eventually occurring if we see elections swinging back and forth between the Left and the Right.  Sooner or later the democrats will get their 50 votes and then it's Katy bar the door.
> 
> I do not see the GOP eliminating the filibuster if and when they take back the Senate, but I can see the democrats doing it if they ever get the 50 votes plus the VP.  And of course once the filibuster is gone, it's gone for good and we could see vast wholesale changes one way or the other, a little bit like we do now when one party loses and the other assumes office, but probably more severe and widespread.
> 
> So - would it be constitutional for the Right to ban all abortions?  Don't know, but it would take a GOP prez, a 60-vote GOP Senate, and a GOP House.  IOW, not any time soon, getting a 60-vote Senate just doesn't strike me as likely.  I think it would be a bad idea politically, IMHO too many people would not like that.
> 
> The Left will certainly pass a law to prevent abortion bans as soon as they can, but they ain't going to get a 60-vote Senate anytime soon either IMHO.  But if they did, would that be constitutional?  Depends on the SCOTUS composition, no?  Imagine at some point the liberal progressives hold a 5-4 advantage or better on the Court.  I think we all know that such a Court wouldn't be ruling on the meaning of the constitution but instead on the politics of the issue.



If it does happen it won't happen anytime soon.  I think if the courts rule that Roe is not constitutionally protected, we're going to see protests and possibly riots all over the country.  The Democrats (like they did in other riots) will allow them to continue right up to, or as close as they can get to election time.  So the environment for a national ban wouldn't be right.  I also think that any attempt to ban states from making laws against abortion would be a violation of states rights.  Unless it's a constitutional issue like gay marriages, the federal government can't tell a state what laws they cannot enact.


----------



## justoffal

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


I doubt it since the states have started doing their own thing already.


----------



## easyt65

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?


Authority NOT specifically given to the federal government by the US Constitution is 'states' rights'.

This has always been the case.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> For the same reason that even a leftist super-majority under Obama never passed a law federalizing abortion, the Americans will never pass one outlawing it. The issue belongs with the states.



Oklahoma is passing a law making it illegal to get an abortion, from conception, even if you go to another state, you are, a criminal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Oklahoma is passing a law making it illegal to get an abortion, from conception, even if you go to another state, you are, a criminal.



You actually don't grasp the distinction between states and federal government.


----------



## task0778

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.



I don't see that either, but I think the SC will say that such a right is not in the US Constitution and the Roe v Wade ruling will be overturned.  But that does not mean the US Congress can't legislate abortion rights as a civil right rather than a constitutional one;  I do not believe the SC would overturn that law, whatever it is.

BUT - unless the filibuster gets abolished, such a law would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate and I do not see that happening.  They are supposedly working on a bipartisan abortion bill as we speak, but I don't believe the chances for that bill to pass to be very likely.  So, IMHO the issue will end up at the state level to do as they please.  And they will answer to their electorate if they go too far


----------



## Uncensored2008

task0778 said:


> I don't see that either, but I think the SC will say that such a right is not in the US Constitution and the Roe v Wade ruling will be overturned.  But that does not mean the US Congress can't legislate abortion rights as a civil right rather than a constitutional one;  I do not believe the SC would overturn that law, whatever it is.
> 
> BUT - unless the filibuster gets abolished, such a law would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate and I do not see that happening.  They are supposedly working on a bipartisan abortion bill as we speak, but I don't believe the chances for that bill to pass to be very likely.  So, IMHO the issue will end up at the state level to do as they please.  And they will answer to their electorate if they go too far



True.

Problem is that the ghouls don't have popular support. Only the fringe left from deep blue inner cities will vote to nationalize abortion.

That's why the corrupt Burger court created the unconstitutional law in the first place, because congress could never pass one.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> True.
> 
> Problem is that the ghouls don't have popular support. Only the fringe left from deep blue inner cities will vote to nationalize abortion.


That 'fringe left' adds up to a majority of the country.  Granted it is not evenly distributed but it means Blue states will continue on as before and Red states will have to deal with the horror stories of illegal abortions, disabled and unadoptable children, and the ruined lives of mothers unable to have abortions.  Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Burgermeister

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


McConnell has already said that a federal ban on abortions would be possible if the ruling comes out that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. Quickest way to keep a check on GOP success would be an overreach like that, and Bitch McConnell knows it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> That 'fringe left' adds up to a majority of the country.  Granted it is not evenly distributed but it means Blue states will continue on as before and Red states will have to deal with the horror stories of illegal abortions, disabled and unadoptable children, and the ruined lives of mothers unable to have abortions.  Be careful what you wish for.



Nope, three quarters of Americans support restrictions on Abortion.

Do you support post birth abortions? I mean, if clinics can charge a premium for them?


----------



## skews13

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?



So a womans rights depends on her address?

Because a corrupt, or unconstitutional state government has rights, but not the woman citizen of that state?

I believe this issue was settled in 1865.


----------



## task0778

Burgermeister said:


> McConnell has already said that a federal ban on abortions would be possible if the ruling comes out that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right.



Link?

I do not believe that is true, there is no way in hell the democrats would support that and the GOP would have to get 60 votes to pass it and Biden would have to sign it even if it did get to his desk.  Which he won't.


----------



## Burgermeister

task0778 said:


> Link?
> 
> I do not believe that is true, there is no way in hell the democrats would support that and the GOP would have to get 60 votes to pass it and Biden would have to sign it even if it did get to his desk.  Which he won't.


Here you go, you lazy fuck - Mitch McConnell Acknowledges a National Abortion Ban Is “Possible” if ‘Roe’ Is Overturned


----------



## task0778

Burgermeister said:


> Here you go, you lazy fuck - Mitch McConnell Acknowledges a National Abortion Ban Is “Possible” if ‘Roe’ Is Overturned



I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut.  I don't see any chance in hell that a national abortion ban could ever happen.  All he's doing there is elevating the opposition.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nope, three quarters of Americans support restrictions on Abortion.


Restrictions, which I agree with and RvW validated, are a far cry from a total ban.


Uncensored2008 said:


> Do you support post birth abortions? I mean, if clinics can charge a premium for them?


I don't even know what that is.  Sounds like a Right wing oxymoron.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Restrictions, which I agree with and RvW validated, are a far cry from a total ban.
> 
> I don't even know what that is.  Sounds like a Right wing oxymoron.



If you can get a buck for killing a baby, isn't that what the whole Abortion Industrial Complex is about?


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> If you can get a buck for killing a baby, isn't that what the whole Abortion Industrial Complex is about?


Nope.  It is called health care.  Is there a Cancer Industrial Complex?


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Nope.  It is called health care.  Is there a Cancer Industrial Complex?



So, does the baby end up more healthy once you get done? Nah, but the ghouls sure do get richer.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, does the baby end up more healthy once you get done? Nah, but the ghouls sure do get richer.


I noticed you didn't ask about the mother.  Could it be you don't care about human beings?


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> I noticed you didn't ask about the mother.  Could it be you don't care about human beings?


Ah, dehumanizing your victim, how very Nazi of you. 

No, the mother doesn't end up more healthy after killing her child. The mental toll is often severe.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ah, dehumanizing your victim, how very Nazi of you.
> 
> No, the mother doesn't end up more healthy after killing her child. The mental toll is often severe.


Do you think she makes the decision lightly?  You call her a killer, not someone forced to make a terrible choice, I'd say that qualifies as dehumanizing your victim.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

task0778 said:


> I wish he'd kept his big mouth shut.  I don't see any chance in hell that a national abortion ban could ever happen.  All he's doing there is elevating the opposition.



Oh, it could happen but likely won't as abortion is an evenly divided issue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

task0778 said:


> Link?
> 
> I do not believe that is true, there is no way in hell the democrats would support that and the GOP would have to get 60 votes to pass it and Biden would have to sign it even if it did get to his desk.  Which he won't.



Of course he wouldn't but this next election looks like a slaughter.  He's talking down the road as in 2024 or beyond.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

skews13 said:


> So a womans rights depends on her address?
> 
> Because a corrupt, or unconstitutional state government has rights, but not the woman citizen of that state?
> 
> I believe this issue was settled in 1865.



It was?  Where in the Constitution does it say that abortion is a right?  To my knowledge, abortion, marriage or religion in school is not even mentioned in the Constitution.


----------



## Burgermeister

alang1216 said:


> Do you think she makes the decision lightly?  You call her a killer, not someone forced to make a terrible choice, I'd say that qualifies as dehumanizing your victim.


All you pro-abortion people do is dehumanize the victim. It's the only way you can justify it to yourselves - those of you with a conscience.


----------



## task0778

alang1216 said:


> Do you think she makes the decision lightly?  You call her a killer, not someone forced to make a terrible choice, I'd say that qualifies as dehumanizing your victim.



Some people see the unborn fetus/baby as a dehumanized victim by the Left.  Like it's no more than a pimple.


----------



## alang1216

Burgermeister said:


> All you pro-abortion people do is dehumanize the victim. It's the only way you can justify it to yourselves - those of you with a conscience.


Anti-abortion types see only one side and dehumanize the other victim, the mother.


----------



## alang1216

task0778 said:


> Some people see the unborn fetus/baby as a dehumanized victim by the Left.  Like it's no more than a pimple.


You don't seem able to talk about the mother.  I wonder why that is?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> Do you think she makes the decision lightly?  You call her a killer, not someone forced to make a terrible choice, I'd say that qualifies as dehumanizing your victim.



Do you think differently today than when you were 16 years old?  I know I have and most people do as well.  A girl may choose to have an abortion without thinking much about it.  Later on in life when she has a baby she wants and is holding it in her arms, she may be tortured by a decision she made as a kid herself.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Do you think differently today than when you were 16 years old?  I know I have and most people do as well.  A girl may choose to have an abortion without thinking much about it.  Later on in life when she has a baby she wants and is holding it in her arms, she may be tortured by a decision she made as a kid herself.


So it is your concern for how she may feel in the future that makes you want to force a decision on her now.  Got it.


----------



## task0778

alang1216 said:


> You don't seem able to talk about the mother.  I wonder why that is?



OK, let's talk about the mother.  She's the one that gets pregnant, right?  She's the one chose to have unprotected sex and did not use any birth control, for which there are many choices, right?  She's the one that didn't require her partner to use a condom, right?  She's the one who didn't check to see if she got pregnant and could've taken a morning after pill, right?  And here's the kicker:

She's the one who will still be alive after the abortion.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> So it is your concern for how she may feel in the future that makes you want to force a decision on her now.  Got it.



Who is forcing anything?  It's not like pregnancy is an affliction of some sort; a woman is walking down the street and WHAM!  She is pregnant.  Other girls are so lucky they didn't get hit with this.  

Your comment was that a girl doesn't make the decision of abortion lightly.  She may have very well made that decision lightly because she thought very differently at the time.  She may have thought it was the smartest thing she could have done later on in life, and she may live with guilt the rest of her life.  I know I did things when I was younger I regret now.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> That 'fringe left' adds up to a majority of the country.  Granted it is not evenly distributed but it means Blue states will continue on as before and Red states will have to deal with the horror stories of illegal abortions, disabled and unadoptable children, and the ruined lives of mothers unable to have abortions.  Be careful what you wish for.


Gosh, having kids sounds so dangerous.  Perhaps it should be outlawed.


----------



## alang1216

task0778 said:


> OK, let's talk about the mother.  She's the one that gets pregnant, right?  She's the one chose to have unprotected sex and did not use any birth control, for which there are many choices, right?  She's the one that didn't require her partner to use a condom, right?  She's the one who didn't check to see if she got pregnant and could've taken a morning after pill, right?  And here's the kicker:
> 
> She's the one who will still be alive after the abortion.


Your empathy is duly noted and you're right of course, she must be punished.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Gosh, having kids sounds so dangerous.  Perhaps it should be outlawed.


There is a reason RvW has always been popular.  We may find out all over again why that was.  Will outlawing abortion end abortion or just end safe abortion?


----------



## 22lcidw

alang1216 said:


> Anti-abortion types see only one side and dehumanize the other victim, the mother.


The mother has already dehumanized herself. Abortion was not granted to be a flippant contraceptive. And that is what it has become.


----------



## task0778

alang1216 said:


> Your empathy is duly noted and you're right of course, she must be punished.



It's not a question of punishment, that's bullshit.  It's a question of the right to live vs the right to end a life that you yourself irresponsibly created.  People make mistakes;  IMHO they should pay for them rather than passing it off to someone else.  Which in this case is an unborn child.

Which should have precedence, the right to live or the right to kill for convenience sake?

And BTW, where's your empathy for the dead unborn baby?  Mama gets to move on but the aborted baby doesn't.


----------



## Burgermeister

Libs have to misidentify their issues because it's the only way their "solutions" makes sense. Witness the position that abortion is a women's health issue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> There is a reason RvW has always been popular.  We may find out all over again why that was.  Will outlawing abortion end abortion or just end safe abortion?



The high court doesn't rule based on popularity, it rules based on the constitutionally of law. It was never meant to rule on popularity which is why we don't elect supreme court justices via the voting process.  

There is this leftist myth going around that if Wade is overturned, all abortions will be illegal.  It's an out and out lie.  Abortions will still be legal in states that want abortions, but it won't allow a state to be forced to have them if they don't want.  Or prohibit their restrictions.  

Could an entirely Republican government outlaw abortions nationwide?  It's possible, but slightly possible.  The Republican party will always have their Romney's, McCain's and Collin's around.  They will always have to be concerned about public opinion if they want to get or remain in power.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> There is a reason RvW has always been popular.  We may find out all over again why that was.  Will outlawing abortion end abortion or just end safe abortion?


Every attempt to make abortion clinics safer has been met with howls of outrage from leftists.  

You don't want it safer, and you _damn_ sure don't want it rare.


----------



## daveman

Burgermeister said:


> Libs have to misidentify their issues because it's the only way their "solutions" makes sense. Witness the position that abortion is a women's health issue.


If women want healthcare, there are far, far more places to get it than Planned Parenthood.


----------



## task0778

alang1216 said:


> Will outlawing abortion end abortion or just end safe abortion?



My guess: no and no.  First of all, IMHO the SC is not going to outlaw abortion, they're just going to say it ain't in the Constitution.  Which leaves that question up to either the US Congress or the states, which I think is where it belongs.  If that is the case, abortions will still be legal in some places but maybe not in others.  More than likely we'll see abortions by mail, where women can get medications to abort a baby; at the moment I believe the limit for that is about 10 weeks, beyond that it gets a little hairy.  Women would have to travel to an abortion state for the procedure or just have the baby.  

Interesting to see if the US Congress can do anything about it, but it'll have to be bipartisan and I dunno about how likely that is.


----------



## alang1216

22lcidw said:


> The mother has already dehumanized herself. Abortion was not granted to be a flippant contraceptive. And that is what it has become.


Thanks for the honest confirmation.


----------



## alang1216

task0778 said:


> It's not a question of punishment, that's bullshit.  It's a question of the right to live vs the right to end a life that you yourself irresponsibly created.  People make mistakes;  IMHO they should pay for them rather than passing it off to someone else.  Which in this case is an unborn child.
> 
> Which should have precedence, the right to live or the right to kill for convenience sake?
> 
> And BTW, where's your empathy for the dead unborn baby?  Mama gets to move on but the aborted baby doesn't.


I don't accept your premise of what a fertilized egg is.  Being human, IMHO, is defined by our brains not our DNA.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The high court doesn't rule based on popularity, it rules based on the constitutionally of law. It was never meant to rule on popularity which is why we don't elect supreme court justices via the voting process.


We confirm them by a vote.  That is why the last 2 nominees had to lie to get a seat on the court.  If decisions were only based on the constitution why would a precedent ever be overturned?


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Every attempt to make abortion clinics safer has been met with howls of outrage from leftists.


Except for attempts to make it harder for clinics to operate without a medical justification.


----------



## alang1216

task0778 said:


> My guess: no and no.  First of all, IMHO the SC is not going to outlaw abortion, they're just going to say it ain't in the Constitution.  Which leaves that question up to either the US Congress or the states, which I think is where it belongs.  If that is the case, abortions will still be legal in some places but maybe not in others.  More than likely we'll see abortions by mail, where women can get medications to abort a baby; at the moment I believe the limit for that is about 10 weeks, beyond that it gets a little hairy.  Women would have to travel to an abortion state for the procedure or just have the baby.
> 
> Interesting to see if the US Congress can do anything about it, but it'll have to be bipartisan and I dunno about how likely that is.


Reasonable guess but history says desperate women without means will end up with back alley abortions.  I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm right.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You actually don't grasp the distinction between states and federal government.


So you don't mind your local taliban government telling you what to do but federal, god forbid.  What a sap you are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> So you don't mind your local taliban government telling you what to do but federal, god forbid.  What a sap you are.



You are astoundingly stupid.

I know you're trolling, but even so it's a profound level of stupid.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> We confirm them by a vote.  That is why the last 2 nominees had to lie to get a seat on the court.  If decisions were only based on the constitution why would a precedent ever be overturned?



Because different justices interpret the constitution different ways.  You see the argument all the time when it comes to guns.  The left claims that firearms are only protected if you are in a militia and the right claims it's a protection for all people.  

As for the nomination of judges that is left to the President and Senate.  They get to choose the nominee, not us.  Our only control is who we vote for in the Senate and for President.


----------



## bendog

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


'I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?"

That was the situation pre-Roe.  4 States fully legalized abortion and about around 15 others "liberalized" their laws to allow women to have access to abortion.








						File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikimedia Commons
					






					commons.wikimedia.org
				




In theory anyway, Fillibuster still applies to social legislation, so while it may constitutionally be possible to either nationally codify Roe or ban abortion entirely even for rape incest and health of the woman, I don't see that happening .... without eliminating the fillibuster.  And imo that will happen as a result of Alitos opinion ... one way or the other.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bendog said:


> 'I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?"
> 
> That was the situation pre-Roe.  4 States fully legalized abortion and about around 15 others "liberalized" their laws to allow women to have access to abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> File:Map of US abortion laws pre-1973.svg - Wikimedia Commons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> commons.wikimedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In theory anyway, Fillibuster still applies to social legislation, so while it may constitutionally be possible to either nationally codify Roe or ban abortion entirely even for rape incest and health of the woman, I don't see that happening .... without eliminating the fillibuster.  And imo that will happen as a result of Alitos opinion ... one way or the other.



Perhaps but technically, McConnell is correct.  It could lead to a national law against abortion.  Mind you I'm far from any McConnell fan.


----------



## bendog

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Perhaps but technically, McConnell is correct.  It could lead to a national law against abortion.  Mind you I'm far from any McConnell fan.


Agreed, theoretically we could see national law banning abortion totally or with some exceptions.  And some dems was a law making Roe the law in the US.  I don't know what will happen.


----------



## WhyDontYouKnow

Yes, really it is a good thing the states get to decided. The Federal Gov. Should have never been in it in the first place. It was used to kill and the black community is finally figuring it out. Get the dad out of the house pump out babies while getting more money. Do you see how they train people to rely on the system.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> We confirm them by a vote.  That is why the last 2 nominees had to lie to get a seat on the court.  If decisions were only based on the constitution why would a precedent ever be overturned?



There is no litmus test, though you Nazis want one. No one lied - except you - both justices refused to take a loyalty oath to your Reich. You demanded that they swear allegiance to the most sacred and holy ritual infant sacrifice, they refused to kiss your ring.









						Amy Coney Barrett refuses to answer questions on abortion, Obamacare and Trump delaying election
					

Any specific cases involving such topics, the Supreme Court nominee said, would need to be considered on an individual basis, and it would be irresponsible for her to have any predetermined dispositions.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You are astoundingly stupid.
> 
> I know you're trolling, but even so it's a profound level of stupid.


No I think you are for big government.  In your bedroom.  In your doctors office.  On your TV.  You just like local government.  You don't want federal government to tell you what to do but locally and by state you give government great power.  Authoritarian.

And let's be honest, if it's a Republican led federal government, you're no better than a Russian who supports Putin or a Nazi who supported Hitler.

We may be going back to Nazi days only it'll be called something different of course.  And you'll deny it until after the election.  After the next coup where your opponents will never win again even if we win the popular vote.  And you will toss out democratic votes.  You already do.  Do you honestly think red state elections are not rigged?


----------



## sealybobo

alang1216 said:


> Reasonable guess but history says desperate women without means will end up with back alley abortions.  I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm right.


Most will have the kids.  Right now only 30% of inmates in prison get a yearly visit from a "loveone".  That's a lot of unwanted people.  

How many abortions do American women get every year?  So by definition those will be unwanted children.  Who will get about as much attention and love as the people we have in prison right now.  Well, 70% of them.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> No I think you are for big government.  In your bedroom.  In your doctors office.  On your TV.  You just like local government.  You don't want federal government to tell you what to do but locally and by state you give government great power.  Authoritarian.
> 
> And let's be honest, if it's a Republican led federal government, you're no better than a Russian who supports Putin or a Nazi who supported Hitler.
> 
> We may be going back to Nazi days only it'll be called something different of course.  And you'll deny it until after the election.  After the next coup where your opponents will never win again even if we win the popular vote.  And you will toss out democratic votes.  You already do.  Do you honestly think red state elections are not rigged?



As I said, you're astoundingly stupid, and a troll.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> As I said, you're astoundingly stupid, and a troll.


Soon, coming to a red state near you.  No gay marriage, no gay butt sex, no trannies using the ladies rooms, no abortions, no even going to another state to get one, etc...what else?

You know what?  I wish you guys would use states rights to opt out of Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security.  Be gone with you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Soon, coming to a red state near you.  No gay marriage, no gay butt sex, no trannies using the ladies rooms, no abortions, no even going to another state to get one, etc...what else?
> 
> You know what?  I wish you guys would use states rights to opt out of Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security.  Be gone with you.



Heil Soros.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Heil Soros.


You need a new boogie man like we need to stop referring to rush.


----------



## Failzero

Sanctuary States ?


----------



## sealybobo

Failzero said:


> Sanctuary States ?


Just don’t go back to Oklahoma if you go murder your baby or wife in California. You’ll burn here ya pedo lib commy


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You need a new boogie man like we need to stop referring to rush.



Rush is dead.

Fuhrer Soros probably is too, but your Reich ain't going to admit it.


----------



## Penelope

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


the bible is the rule of the land. Welcome to the taliban.


----------



## Osiris-ODS

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.  Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.


Wrong. 10th amendment. To put it another way, where in the Constitution do you see anything that gives the federal government authority to regulate abortion? The 10th amendment is not just a suggestion. It's the law of the land that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states.


----------



## task0778

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.



Is that legally possible?  Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too.  Until that happens, it ain't possible.  No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.

My take right now:  the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v Wade, saying that abortions are not a constitutional right.  The US Congress will fail to find enough common ground to pass any abortion legislation, thus leaving the matter up to the individual states.  BUT - I think too many states will go overboard on the issue and put a total ban on abortions and their constituencies won't like that, and so in the not too distant future some of those state legislatures and governors will be voted out of office and the democrats will change those laws and back and forth it'll go.  Maybe eventually there will be a national abortion law but I'm not seeing that anytime soon.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Osiris-ODS said:


> Wrong. 10th amendment. To put it another way, where in the Constitution do you see anything that gives the federal government authority to regulate abortion? The 10th amendment is not just a suggestion. It's the law of the land that any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is reserved for the states.



It doesn't mention marriage either but the court ruled all states must allow and accept gay marriages.  The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting or denying religion, but you can't say the name Jesus Christ in a public school funded by local taxpayers without a threat from the ACLU.  Where in the Constitution does is say the federal government has the right to threaten your job and actually have you fired for not taking a shot you don't want or maybe don't need?  I used to be a truck driver.  Where in the Constitution does it say the feds can have jurisdiction over state laws?  They do.  I know because I was pulled over twice for not wearing my seat belt.  Our state law says it's a secondary offense and the police can't pull you over just for not wearing a seat belt..... but they can for a truck driver because we are regulated by the federal government regardless what the states laws are. 

So the 10th has it's limitations as well because it says the powers (not laws) not delegated to the federal government belong to the state.  That's why we have all kinds of federal laws not in the Constitution that apply to all states.


----------



## Uncensored2008

task0778 said:


> Is that legally possible?  Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too.  Until that happens, it ain't possible.  No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.



They'll need 66 to override the veto that would absolutely occur.

When Mitch made his claim, he was just campaigning for the democrats - there is no truth to it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

task0778 said:


> Is that legally possible?  Yeah, I guess so if you have a repub Senate with 60 votes and all 60 will support the measure, and a repub House, and a repub president too.  Until that happens, it ain't possible.  No democrat is going to support a total national ban on abortions.



I don't think it would happen either.  But the possibility still exists down the road.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Penelope said:


> the bible is the rule of the land. Welcome to the taliban.



If you actually believe that abortion is rejected on religious grounds only.  But I'm sure a lot of non-religious people just feel like it's murder from a moral point of view less than religious.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Soon, coming to a red state near you.  No gay marriage, no gay butt sex, no trannies using the ladies rooms, no abortions, no even going to another state to get one, etc...what else?
> 
> You know what?  I wish you guys would use states rights to opt out of Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security.  Be gone with you.



It sounds like you support my idea of dividing the country into two countries instead.  Welcome aboard!!!


----------



## Penelope

I can tell you stories of other RC, and one had 3 abortions and she still received communion.

They don't as you for your name of anything.  If the republicans get in, we understand that it will go to the taliban,

Sass you father and it death to you.


Ray From Cleveland said:


> If you actually believe that abortion is rejected on religious grounds only.  But I'm sure a lot of non-religious people just feel like it's murder from a moral point of view less than


----------



## Penelope

Penelope said:


> I can tell you stories of other RC, and one had 3 abortions and she still received communion.
> 
> They don't as you for your name of anything.  If the republicans get in, we understand that it will go to the taliban,
> 
> Sass you father and it death to you.



No, I'm for the United States of American, but it won't be that way long, when the republincans take care, it will either be you poor or your rich.


----------



## Penelope

they will have ghettos where all the poorer people live, fly over, hear about it.


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Because different justices interpret the constitution different ways.  You see the argument all the time when it comes to guns.  The left claims that firearms are only protected if you are in a militia and the right claims it's a protection for all people.
> 
> As for the nomination of judges that is left to the President and Senate.  They get to choose the nominee, not us.  Our only control is who we vote for in the Senate and for President.


Unless the Senate refuses to vote on the President's nominee.  That seems to indicate our vote for president is ignored.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> There is no litmus test, though you Nazis want one. No one lied - except you - both justices refused to take a loyalty oath to your Reich. You demanded that they swear allegiance to the most sacred and holy ritual infant sacrifice, they refused to kiss your ring.


Kav and Comy both said RvW was established precedent that should be respected.  Until they were confirmed of course.


----------



## Osiris-ODS

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It doesn't mention marriage either but the court ruled all states must allow and accept gay marriages.  The Constitution says Congress shall make no laws respecting or denying religion, but you can't say the name Jesus Christ in a public school funded by local taxpayers without a threat from the ACLU.  Where in the Constitution does is say the federal government has the right to threaten your job and actually have you fired for not taking a shot you don't want or maybe don't need?  I used to be a truck driver.  Where in the Constitution does it say the feds can have jurisdiction over state laws?  They do.  I know because I was pulled over twice for not wearing my seat belt.  Our state law says it's a secondary offense and the police can't pull you over just for not wearing a seat belt..... but they can for a truck driver because we are regulated by the federal government regardless what the states laws are.
> 
> So the 10th has it's limitations as well because it says the powers (not laws) not delegated to the federal government belong to the state.  That's why we have all kinds of federal laws not in the Constitution that apply to all states.


You're not wrong if you're arguing that all of those are examples of federal over-reach that lack Constitutional support. Two more examples are the federal Department of Education, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. People have just gotten so used to these federal agencies being ever present that it's hard to imagine a time before they existed. But there is no Constitutional authority for either to exist, and both of those bloated bureaucracies that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars each year should be axed, hopefully by a future president that runs as a fiscal and constitutional conservative AND actually governs that way.

As for your OSHA vaccine mandate example, the Supreme Court actually struck that down, so at least that example of federal overreach was reigned in.

As for the trucking example, the purported Constitutional authority for the federal government to issue and enforce the FMCSRs and HMRs is the Commerce Clause. But that's probably the most misapplied section of the entire Constitution, as the federal government almost always tries to justify unconstitutional federal overreach by invoking the Commerce Clause. Those attempts have been shot down many times, but it's also gone unchallenged many times, and also upheld a few times involving rather tenuous applicability.

As for the topic at hand, I don't envision Congress passing any federal abortion legislation in the foreseeable future, given that the forthcoming SCOTUS decision (if consistent with the leaked draft) clearly spells out the absence of Constitutional support for a federal position on abortion. Any such legislation would be ripe for immediate challenge to the Supreme Court.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> I don't accept your premise of what a fertilized egg is.  Being human, IMHO, is defined by our brains not our DNA.


Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Except for attempts to make it harder for clinics to operate without a medical justification.


Gosh.  Medical procedures require a medical justification.  Oh, the humanity.


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?


If a person (clearly evil and mad) was standing before a huge fire holding an infant in one hand and a test tube with an embryo in tbe other, and threatened to chuck them in…you can only save one…which would it be and why?


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> Every attempt to make abortion clinics safer has been met with howls of outrage from leftists.
> 
> You don't want it safer, and you _damn_ sure don't want it rare.


Are they unsafe?


----------



## Failzero

sealybobo said:


> Just don’t go back to Oklahoma if you go murder your baby or wife in California. You’ll burn here ya pedo lib commy


Ditto Far left & Left think they can have Sanctuary States for Illegals ( but not Guns )


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> Gosh.  Medical procedures require a medical justification.  Oh, the humanity.


What medical justification do boob implants, vasectomies, Botox injections and tummy tucks have?


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> If a person (clearly evil and mad) was standing before a huge fire holding an infant in one hand and a test tube with an embryo in tbe other, and threatened to chuck them in…you can only save one…which would it be and why?


IS GOD SO POWERFUL THAT HE MAKE MAKE A ROCK TOO BIG FOR HIM TO LIFT HA HA CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEIVERS

It's easy to win if you stack the deck, isn't it?


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> Are they unsafe?


They can be...but the death cult doesn't care.


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> What medical justification do boob implants, vasectomies, Botox injections and tummy tucks have?


Does a human being die on purpose during those procedures?

Take your time.


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> They can be...but the death cult doesn't care.


Healthrisks and maternal mortality are significantly higher in pregnancy and birth than an abortion.  Does that make it a death cult?


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> Does a human being die on purpose during those procedures?
> 
> Take your time.


No need to.

You referred to medical procedures, now you are moving the goalposts.


----------



## Coyote

daveman said:


> IS GOD SO POWERFUL THAT HE MAKE MAKE A ROCK TOO BIG FOR HIM TO LIFT HA HA CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEIVERS
> 
> It's easy to win if you stack the deck, isn't it?


Can’t answer eh?


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> Healthrisks and maternal mortality are significantly higher in pregnancy and birth than an abortion.  Does that make it a death cult?


abortions end in a death 99.99% of the time, birth seldom does,,


----------



## rightnow909

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


hope so

The deccision should never have been taken away from the states but the thing is, we are talking about MURDER and the unborn not having Constitutional rights

you have all your rights wiped out, obviously, when you cease to exist...  

so yeh, the scotus should ditch the damn R v W... throw it.. not into the cornfield but into the sewer where it belongs... 

=


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> abortions end in a death 99.99% of the time, birth seldom does,,


Death of of what?  A handful of cells that have the potential to become a fully realized human being.  For some reason it’s rights outweighs those of the body it is inhabiting.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> Death of of what?  A handful of cells that have the potential to become a fully realized human being.  For some reason it’s rights outweighs those of the body it is inhabiting.


maybe that body should have thought about that before she committed the act that created that other body,,

she made her choice now she has to live with it


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> maybe that body should have thought about that before she committed the act that created that other body,,
> 
> she made her choice now she has to live with it


We will certainly not agree on that..not then, not now.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> We will certainly not agree on that..not then, not now.


only because the truth and reality scare you,,


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> only because the truth and reality scare you,,


No, because we’ve replayed this track so many times the tape is going to snap.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> No, because we’ve replayed this track so many times the tape is going to snap.


you do know you are also just a handful of cells??


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> you do know you are also just a handful of cells??


Yup.  But I’m not inhabiting another person’s body.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> Yup.  But I’m not inhabiting another person’s body.


but that mother made the choice to comitt the act that caused that child to occupy her body,,


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> Healthrisks and maternal mortality are significantly higher in pregnancy and birth than an abortion.  Does that make it a death cult?


Goodness, pregnancy sounds so dangerous.  Perhaps it should be outlawed.


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> No need to.
> 
> You referred to medical procedures, now you are moving the goalposts.


Not at all.  Why are you afraid to answer my question?  Do you simply not believe abortion is a medical procedure?


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> Can’t answer eh?


And I bet you thought you scored a devastating point, too.  

Oh, well.


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> Death of of what?  A handful of cells that have the potential to become a fully realized human being.  For some reason it’s rights outweighs those of the body it is inhabiting.


Science says humans are human from the moment of conception.  

Leftists sure do hate science.


----------



## daveman

Coyote said:


> We will certainly not agree on that..not then, not now.


Right, because women have absolutely no say in getting pregnant.  They have no input in the process at all.  It just happens.


----------



## cnm

Uncensored2008 said:


> Nope, three quarters of Americans support restrictions on Abortion.


lol. Which means a small minority want to ban it.

Abortion: support by age and level of legalization U.S. 2021 | Statista​


----------



## cnm

daveman said:


> Science says humans are human from the moment of conception.


How does any human get the right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

daveman said:


> IS GOD SO POWERFUL THAT HE MAKE MAKE A ROCK TOO BIG FOR HIM TO LIFT HA HA CHECKMAET SKY BUDDY BELEIVERS
> 
> It's easy to win if you stack the deck, isn't it?



That's plagiarism.  Good thing for you Carlin is no longer with us.


----------



## cnm

daveman said:


> Right, because women have absolutely no say in getting pregnant. They have no input in the process at all. It just happens.


And now you want to give them absolutely no say in not being pregnant. At least you're consistent.


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's plagiarism. Good thing for you Carlin is no longer with us.


Do you really think Carlin was the first with that?


----------



## daveman

cnm said:


> How does any human get the right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent?


_Because your actions led directly to putting it there, and you knew it was a possibility, you damn retard._

"I never dreamed that if I stuck my hand in a bear trap it would snap down on my arm!!"

Do leftists simply not know how human reproduction works?  Are you all that stupid?


----------



## daveman

cnm said:


> And now you want to give them absolutely no say in not being pregnant. At least you're consistent.


It's so very, insanely _easy_ to not get pregnant.

Actions have consequences.  If you're not willing to accept them, don't commit the action.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Osiris-ODS said:


> You're not wrong if you're arguing that all of those are examples of federal over-reach that lack Constitutional support. Two more examples are the federal Department of Education, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. People have just gotten so used to these federal agencies being ever present that it's hard to imagine a time before they existed. But there is no Constitutional authority for either to exist, and both of those bloated bureaucracies that cost the taxpayers billions of dollars each year should be axed, hopefully by a future president that runs as a fiscal and constitutional conservative AND actually governs that way.
> 
> As for your OSHA vaccine mandate example, the Supreme Court actually struck that down, so at least that example of federal overreach was reigned in.
> 
> As for the trucking example, the purported Constitutional authority for the federal government to issue and enforce the FMCSRs and HMRs is the Commerce Clause. But that's probably the most misapplied section of the entire Constitution, as the federal government almost always tries to justify unconstitutional federal overreach by invoking the Commerce Clause. Those attempts have been shot down many times, but it's also gone unchallenged many times, and also upheld a few times involving rather tenuous applicability.
> 
> As for the topic at hand, I don't envision Congress passing any federal abortion legislation in the foreseeable future, given that the forthcoming SCOTUS decision (if consistent with the leaked draft) clearly spells out the absence of Constitutional support for a federal position on abortion. Any such legislation would be ripe for immediate challenge to the Supreme Court.



You're only half right on the SC decision on shots.  They said Dementia could not enforce that on private industry, but he can in health facilities because they get government money.  Kind of tells you where we'd be at with vaccines if we had an all government healthcare system.  

The point I was making is that we do have all kinds of federal laws and regulations not in the Constitution so I would question if the 10th could stop a national law against all abortions.  Bureaucracies?  As far as I'm concerned they are all anti-constitutional as well as un-American.  Our founders gave the responsibility of writing laws, penalties, taxation and regulations to the Congress so that the general public could have redress which you don't get with bureaucracies.  Politicians use those bureaucracies to institute laws that they know would be unpopular with the general public.  Trump not addressing that problem is one of the few disappointments I have about him.  Maybe in 2024.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Do you really think Carlin was the first with that?



Yep.  He wrote that joke in the 70's.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> And now you want to give them absolutely no say in not being pregnant. At least you're consistent.



That's like saying we don't want to give bank robbers no say in being locked up in a cage.  You robbed the bank, you took the chance, and you got caught.  Now you have to pay the price.


----------



## donttread

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


If this ruling stands it would prohibit federal determination of abortion law and hand it back to the states. However if the court upholds abortion federally then the topic is confirmed as federal business which could then be banned by an anti-abortion government. 
Either it is a federal concern or it is then the feds could ban it


----------



## sealybobo

Failzero said:


> Ditto Far left & Left think they can have Sanctuary States for Illegals ( but not Guns )



A lot of illegals work in big Republican factories and farms that are not sactuary cities.  They are in red states. 

Is Mara Lago in a sactuary city?  Trump hired illegals.


----------



## Failzero

sealybobo said:


> A lot of illegals work in big Republican factories and farms that are not sactuary cities.  They are in red states.
> 
> Is Mara Lago in a sactuary city?  Trump hired illegals.


Was the Chinese Spy Driver of 20 years for Diane Feinstein an illegal ?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> A lot of illegals work in big Republican factories and farms that are not sactuary cities.  They are in red states.
> 
> Is Mara Lago in a sactuary city?  Trump hired illegals.



He hired foreigners but they weren't actually illegal.  From one of your own, CNN:  

*The U.S. Department of Labor has confirmed to CNN that between 2013 and fall 2015, Trump's Mar-a-Lago club posted 250 seasonal job openings and filled just 4 of those jobs with American workers. The club requested the rest of the staff be temporarily imported through the Federal government's H-2B visa process. Basically, Mar-a-Lago brings in its seasonal staff from overseas.*









						Trump's Mar-a-Lago hires hundreds of foreign workers
					

Donald Trump is running for president on a platform of bringing jobs back to the U.S. But at the Mar-A-Lago club in south Florida, he has filled his staff almost exclusively with imported foreign workers.



					money.cnn.com


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

donttread said:


> If this ruling stands it would prohibit federal determination of abortion law and hand it back to the states. However if the court upholds abortion federally then the topic is confirmed as federal business which could then be banned by an anti-abortion government.
> Either it is a federal concern or it is then the feds could ban it



My question was what if (down the road of course) the Republicans gain a huge majority in Congress with a Republican President.  What would stop them from making abortion illegal nationally if it's ruled that the Constitution doesn't provide protections for abortion?


----------



## cnm

daveman said:


> It's so very, insanely _easy_ to not get pregnant.


Palin's daughter proved that.


----------



## sealybobo

Failzero said:


> Was the Chinese Spy Driver of 20 years for Diane Feinstein an illegal ?


IDK let me know.


----------



## cnm

daveman said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does any human get the right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent?
> 
> 
> 
> Because your actions led directly to putting it there, and you knew it was a possibility, you damn retard.
Click to expand...

Obviously, consent to intercourse is not consent to pregnancy. Tell you what, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, otherwise STFU.


----------



## cnm

daveman said:


> Actions have consequences.


And the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is abortion. Simple.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> Palin's daughter proved that.


By then she had given birth to son Tripp, and was no longer with the baby's father, Levi Johnston. 

Soon after son Tripp was born, Bristol Palin began doing speaking engagements, encouraging teens to stay abstinent as the most foolproof way to prevent pregnancy. Then became a parent again in 2015 when she gave birth to a daughter, Sailor Grace. She did eventually wed the baby's father, Dakota Meyer, the next year and had another child, but the marriage didn't last. She was thrilled to take to Instagram and introduce the world to her new boyfriend, Zach Towers

Sarah Palin learned her husband Todd wanted a divorce through an email from his attorney, which she received a week after they marked their 31st wedding anniversary. It turns out that Todd filed for divorce on his birthday, three months prior. 

Read More: Who Is Piper Palin, Sarah Palin's Daughter? - The List


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's like saying we don't want to give bank robbers no say in being locked up in a cage. You robbed the bank, you took the chance, and you got caught. Now you have to pay the price.


Whatever. You should learn about double negatives. In any case, I'll leave you to your hick sharia laws, life really is too short for this.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> And the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is abortion. Simple.


It should be.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He hired foreigners but they weren't actually illegal.  From one of your own, CNN:
> 
> *The U.S. Department of Labor has confirmed to CNN that between 2013 and fall 2015, Trump's Mar-a-Lago club posted 250 seasonal job openings and filled just 4 of those jobs with American workers. The club requested the rest of the staff be temporarily imported through the Federal government's H-2B visa process. Basically, Mar-a-Lago brings in its seasonal staff from overseas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Mar-a-Lago hires hundreds of foreign workers
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is running for president on a platform of bringing jobs back to the U.S. But at the Mar-A-Lago club in south Florida, he has filled his staff almost exclusively with imported foreign workers.
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com


Yes we know how Trump does it









						This Is How Trump Relies on Undocumented Labor for His Resorts
					

“If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter,” one former employee said




					www.rollingstone.com
				




Despite Trump's rhetoric demonizing undocumented migrants, his businesses have hired them. A series of reports by _The Washington Post _detailed how the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, allegedly knowingly hired undocumented migrants. 









						Fox News host calls out Trump's "hypocrisy" due to undocumented immigrants working at his golf resort
					

Fox News's Chris Wallace pointed to The Washington Post's report that found that Trump's golf club in New Jersey had employed "a steady stream of illegal immigrants for years, and that the managers at the club knew they were illegal."




					www.newsweek.com
				












						Report: Trump Happily Employing Undocumented Workers Amid ICE Raids
					

The president is fine with an immigrant “invasion” when it’s benefitting him financially.




					www.vanityfair.com
				




We were all over him for it in 2019 so he stopped hiring illegals.

You say these people hae visas?  Not talking about those workers.  I'm talking about the undocumented workers working for him.  He has those too.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> Whatever. You should learn about double negatives. In any case, I'll leave you to your hick sharia laws, life really is too short for this.


I'm watching Boston Celtics beat Miami Heat to tie up the series.  Republicans even politicize sports.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?


Ask yourself what is the legal justification for overturning Rowe. Although there are strong arguments on both sides as to the fetus's right to live.  The question of whether a fetus has constitutional rights is impossible to answer so the court is left with one other argument and that is the states right argument.  It seems much more likely that the court decision will be based on the states right argument.

Assuming the court overturns Rowe because they decide abortion is a state issue, then it will be difficult to pass any federal abortion legislation that is not overturned by the courts, such as making abortion illegal or legal throughout the country.  However, the high court could strike down portions state legislation because it violates federal law or the constitution.

Republicans, will have a real problem in passing very strict legislation in many states because 37% of republicans believe a women should have some right of choice and 42% of republican women believe women should have a choice.  Secondly, abortion as a national issue is twice as important to democrats as republicans.

If Rowe is overturned I believe:

Solid Red and Blue states will immediately deny or protect a women's right to abortion.
In swing states, laws will be enacted and changed as party control of  goverment changes. At the federal level, changes will occur also as control of goverment and the high court changes.
I think we will most likely end up after a few decades like Europe with every state having different laws ranging from no abortion to complete freedom of choice.  Organizations like Planned Parenthood will be providing information as to where women can get an abortion based on their particular case.









						Wide partisan gaps in abortion attitudes, but opinions in both parties are complicated
					

Public attitudes about the legality of abortion are largely divided along partisan lines – and to a greater extent than in past decades.




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Ask yourself what is the legal justification for overturning Rowe. Although there are strong arguments on both sides as to the fetus's right to live. The question of whether a fetus has constitutional rights is impossible to answer so the court is left with one other argument and that is the states right argument. It seems much more likely that the court decision will be based on the states right argument.
> 
> Assuming the court overturns Rowe because they decide abortion is a state issue, then it will be difficult to pass any federal abortion legislation that is not overturned by the courts, such as making abortion illegal or legal throughout the country. However, the high court could strike down portions state legislation because it violates federal law or the constitution.



The SC is not ruling on whether states have a right to ban abortion or not, they are ruling on it's constitutional protections which I believe there are none.  In other words the only reason it will fall back to the state is if there is no longer any constitutional protection to stop a state from making various laws.  

Unpopular?  I'm sure it will be for a lot of people, but it's those people in the states that need to vote based on that issue if it's that important to them.  It could indeed cost Republicans leadership and votes in those states if they go a little too far. 

As for myself it's not an issue I would use to decide who to vote on.  I will vote Republican right down the ticket no matter what laws against abortion they make.  I'm 62 years old so it's not an issue for me.  If I were 22, that would be a different story.  

So I still hold the opinion that it is possible to make abortions illegal on the federal level.  Would they do it or not if given the opportunity is the question.  I'm a small government conservative.  My friends are small government conservatives.  That is the greater issue for us than abortion.  The less government, the better.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Yes we know how Trump does it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Is How Trump Relies on Undocumented Labor for His Resorts
> 
> 
> “If you’re a good worker, papers don’t matter,” one former employee said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rollingstone.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite Trump's rhetoric demonizing undocumented migrants, his businesses have hired them. A series of reports by _The Washington Post _detailed how the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, allegedly knowingly hired undocumented migrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fox News host calls out Trump's "hypocrisy" due to undocumented immigrants working at his golf resort
> 
> 
> Fox News's Chris Wallace pointed to The Washington Post's report that found that Trump's golf club in New Jersey had employed "a steady stream of illegal immigrants for years, and that the managers at the club knew they were illegal."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Report: Trump Happily Employing Undocumented Workers Amid ICE Raids
> 
> 
> The president is fine with an immigrant “invasion” when it’s benefitting him financially.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were all over him for it in 2019 so he stopped hiring illegals.
> 
> You say these people hae visas?  Not talking about those workers.  I'm talking about the undocumented workers working for him.  He has those too.



So what you are saying is CNN lied in their reporting.  Good to know.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

cnm said:


> Whatever. You should learn about double negatives. In any case, I'll leave you to your hick sharia laws, life really is too short for this.



No constitutional protections for abortion is sharia law?  Leaving it up to states is sharia law?


----------



## cnm

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Leaving it up to states is sharia law?


In the hick states, absolutely.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?


You can define 'people' any way you choose.  And so can I.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Gosh.  Medical procedures require a medical justification.  Oh, the humanity.


I don't believe my GP is also on the staff of our local hospital yet he can perform many medical procedures.  To require similar procedures to have different requirements is unjustified and obviously a political and not a medical decision.


----------



## Penelope

daveman said:


> Not at all.  Why are you afraid to answer my question?  Do you simply not believe abortion is a medical procedure?


Care for the fetus, not the life of the baby. See all those state are republican.









						Status of Medicaid Expansion
					






					www.commonwealthfund.org
				




and they make laws for abortion,NOT.


----------



## Penelope

*Georgia has the worst maternal mortality ratio of any state in the country*. 1 Black women in Georgia are 3.3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women are. 2 Georgia's own health experts believe that more than half of confirmed pregnancy-related deaths in the state are preventable.
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/USPA-MHRI-GA-FS-Final-ForPrint-Pages.pdf
Maternal Health in Georgia - Center for Reproductive Rights​-----------------------------------------
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/USPA-MHRI-GA-FS-Final-ForPrint-Pages.pdf
They want all blacks to die, and kick the bucket, the fetuses too.


----------



## Penelope

That the way I see it, goodbye to blacks.


----------



## Penelope

Didn't the white men bring them here to have cheap labor!! Now they are costing to much.


----------



## Penelope

Georgia has the worst maternal mortality ratio of any state in the country.*1 Black women in Georgia are 3.3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women are.*2 Georgia’s own health experts believe that more than half of confirmed pregnancy-related deaths in the state are preventable.3 Public policies that seek to improve maternal health4 must be informed by evidence, respect human rights,5 and enable every pregnant person in Georgia to attain the best health possible
-------------------------------
thats why they love anti abortion.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No constitutional protections for abortion is sharia law?  Leaving it up to states is sharia law?


So as long as the BIG government is local, you're ok with being told what to do? What's the difference?  Are you an American or an Ohioian?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> So as long as the BIG government is local, you're ok with being told what to do? What's the difference?  Are you an American or an Ohioian?



When you have government being brought down to local levels, you actually have smaller government.  You have more control over your representatives. 

Our founders designed this country so that states could operate like tiny countries, and only have the federal government involved on federal issues.  They didn't want to see what we currently have today which is an all powerful federal government that a majority depend upon to live life.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Penelope said:


> That the way I see it, goodbye to blacks.



If that would ever happen, my property value would double.


----------



## Zincwarrior

Next up for Texas pro-abortion lawmakers: banning companies that help employees obtain abortions outside the state.
Elon Musk is going to be peeved! Tesla just finished their multibillion dollar plant and were moving their headquarters here.









						Businesses that help employees get abortions could be next target of Texas lawmakers if Roe v. Wade is overturned
					

Fourteen GOP legislators warned Lyft that they’d seek to ban companies that pay for abortions from doing business in Texas.




					www.khou.com
				











						Texas lawmakers look at banning companies that help employees seek abortions
					

The letter reportedly outlined a plan that would include the introduction of bills in the next legislative session that would ban companies from doing business in the state if they offer abortion-r…




					www.kxan.com
				











						Businesses that help employees get abortions could be next target of Texas lawmakers if Roe v. Wade is overturned
					

Fourteen GOP legislators warned Lyft that they’d seek to ban companies that pay for abortions from doing business in Texas. The extent of support for the idea is unclear.




					www.texastribune.org
				



_With Texas poised to automatically ban abortion if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, some Republicans are already setting their sights on the next target to fight the procedure: businesses that say they’ll help employees get abortions outside the state.

Fourteen Republican members of the state House of Representatives have pledged to introduce bills in the coming legislative session that would bar corporations from doing business in Texas if they pay for abortions in states where the procedure is legal._


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Kav and Comy both said RvW was established precedent that should be respected.  Until they were confirmed of course.



That is a direct lie, as I have already proven with citations. They REFUSED to kiss your ring.

I'm curious about your handle, "Alan G?" Was "Adolf H" already taken?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> Well, that sure makes it easier to justify killing people, doesn't it?



Especially when there is a buck to be made.

Margret Sanger and Adolf Hitler are the mother and father of eugenics and abortion. But Alan Guttmacher is the one who turned abortion into a cash cow, creating the hundred billion dollar Abortion Industrial Complex that eats up so many federal dollars.

Guttmacher made himself an obscenely rich man on that mountain of dead babies.


----------



## BlackSand

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


.

It really depends on how the Court's Decision is written and where they base the reasoning behind possible reversal.

Should the Decision indicate it is under State's Rights (Tenth Amendment), they would be separating the issue of Abortion from the Federal Government.
Should the Decision vary, and address other concerns or Rights, they still may leave some kind of open door back to the Federal level.

Some states have 'trigger laws" already ... Legislators in those states have already passed legislation that may outlaw or limit Abortion.
Those laws will be triggered and go into effect the moment Roe v Wade may be overturned.

.​


----------



## Uncensored2008

Coyote said:


> If a person (clearly evil and mad) was standing before a huge fire holding an infant in one hand and a test tube with an embryo in tbe other, and threatened to chuck them in…you can only save one…which would it be and why?



You don't actually grasp how the whole pregnancy thing works, do you?

Despite what the Temple of Moloch (Planned Parenthood) might tell you, embryos are not grown in test tubes, and the stork doesn't bring babies. The ritual sacrifice you love so dearly actually kills babies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

cnm said:


> How does any human get the right to use someone else's body without expressed and ongoing consent?


Sex is expressed consent.

Sorry ghoul.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> That is a direct lie, as I have already proven with citations. They REFUSED to kiss your ring.
> 
> I curious about your handle, "Alan G?" Was "Adolf H" already taken?


Why don't we hear from someone who was there?
Susan Collins slams Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh over 'completely inconsistent' draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade​


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Why don't we hear from someone who was there?
> Susan Collins slams Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh over 'completely inconsistent' draft Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade​



Gorsuch bowed to you ghouls, slightly.

You lied that Kavanaugh and Barrett did. Both refused to kiss your ring.

{During Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to state that having an abortion is a right that women have.}

{ Kavanaugh wrote: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since [the] Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”}









						Brett Kavanaugh Refuses to Say that a Woman has a “Right” to an Abortion - California Family Council
					

During Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to state that having an abortion is a right that women have. Senator Diane Feinstein from California attempted to bait Judge Kavanaugh into answering whether or not he agreed that women have a right to abortion. Senator...




					www.californiafamily.org
				




You are a total fucking liar.


----------



## Penelope

I really believe they want to rid blacks , the poorer blacks, the rich ones can afford a fly over or take off from work. They want the rich and poor. Republicans are also poorer , who want an abortion.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Gorsuch bowed to you ghouls, slightly.
> 
> You lied that Kavanaugh and Barrett did. Both refused to kiss your ring.
> 
> {During Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to state that having an abortion is a right that women have.}
> 
> { Kavanaugh wrote: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since [the] Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brett Kavanaugh Refuses to Say that a Woman has a “Right” to an Abortion - California Family Council
> 
> 
> During Senate confirmation hearings yesterday, Judge Brett Kavanaugh refused to state that having an abortion is a right that women have. Senator Diane Feinstein from California attempted to bait Judge Kavanaugh into answering whether or not he agreed that women have a right to abortion. Senator...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.californiafamily.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a total fucking liar.


Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe was an important precedent and now seems to have done a 180 on that point.  

Roe v. Wade is 'precedent,' Kavanaugh says, but there's more to the future of abortion | CNN Politics


----------



## Penelope

alang1216 said:


> Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe was an important precedent and now seems to have done a 180 on that point.
> 
> Roe v. Wade is 'precedent,' Kavanaugh says, but there's more to the future of abortion | CNN Politics


They all lied, even thomas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe was an important precedent and now seems to have done a 180 on that point.
> 
> Roe v. Wade is 'precedent,' Kavanaugh says, but there's more to the future of abortion | CNN Politics



Bullshit, as already demonstrated, Kavanaugh REFUSED to take a loyalty oath to your ghoul cult. That's why you filthy fascist vermin did the Ford attack - BECAUSE he refused to bow to you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Penelope said:


> They all lied, even thomas.



Fuck off Ahmed. You're irrelevant to what happens in America. Stick to trying to kill Jews over in Gaza.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bullshit, as already demonstrated, Kavanaugh REFUSED to take a loyalty oath to your ghoul cult. That's why you filthy fascist vermin did the Ford attack - BECAUSE he refused to bow to you.


You really don't know much about the law?


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> You really don't know much about the law?



You really lie profusely.

Kavanaugh did not lie during confirmation, but you sure lie a lot.

You ghouls demand that all SCOTUS nominees bow and scrape to you cult. You were OUTRAGED that the last two refused.

And what you did to Kavanaugh when he defied you fascist vermin is treason - you interfered in the peaceful transfer of judicial power with your insurrection when you stormed and occupied the capitol.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When you have government being brought down to local levels, you actually have smaller government.  You have more control over your representatives.
> 
> Our founders designed this country so that states could operate like tiny countries, and only have the federal government involved on federal issues.  They didn't want to see what we currently have today which is an all powerful federal government that a majority depend upon to live life.


Still we see Republicans ultimately want to give a lot of authority to their local government and to Trump.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He hired foreigners but they weren't actually illegal.  From one of your own, CNN:
> 
> *The U.S. Department of Labor has confirmed to CNN that between 2013 and fall 2015, Trump's Mar-a-Lago club posted 250 seasonal job openings and filled just 4 of those jobs with American workers. The club requested the rest of the staff be temporarily imported through the Federal government's H-2B visa process. Basically, Mar-a-Lago brings in its seasonal staff from overseas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Mar-a-Lago hires hundreds of foreign workers
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is running for president on a platform of bringing jobs back to the U.S. But at the Mar-A-Lago club in south Florida, he has filled his staff almost exclusively with imported foreign workers.
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com


What do Trump's employees who have *H-2B visas have to do with the undocumented workers who work for him?*


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He hired foreigners but they weren't actually illegal.  From one of your own, CNN:
> 
> *The U.S. Department of Labor has confirmed to CNN that between 2013 and fall 2015, Trump's Mar-a-Lago club posted 250 seasonal job openings and filled just 4 of those jobs with American workers. The club requested the rest of the staff be temporarily imported through the Federal government's H-2B visa process. Basically, Mar-a-Lago brings in its seasonal staff from overseas.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's Mar-a-Lago hires hundreds of foreign workers
> 
> 
> Donald Trump is running for president on a platform of bringing jobs back to the U.S. But at the Mar-A-Lago club in south Florida, he has filled his staff almost exclusively with imported foreign workers.
> 
> 
> 
> money.cnn.com



Nicknamed the "Einstein Visa", the EB-1 is reserved for people who are highly acclaimed in their field - the government cites Pulitzer, Oscar, and Olympic winners as examples - as well as respected academic researchers and multinational executives.

Mrs Trump began applying for the visa in 2000, when she was Melania Knauss, a Slovenian model working in New York and dating Donald Trump. She was approved in 2001

Becoming a citizen in 2006 gave her the right to sponsor her parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, who are now in the US and in the process of applying for citizenship.

The reports of how Mrs Trump obtained her EB-1 visa will rankle with some, at a time when her husband is railing against immigrants and attempting to scrap the right of new citizens to sponsor family members. And questions have been raised about her suitability for the extraordinary ability category.


----------



## Flopper

sealybobo said:


> So as long as the BIG government is local, you're ok with being told what to do? What's the difference?  Are you an American or an Ohioian?


Most women who are pro-life see abortion in the abstract; that is murder of babies by evil doctors and bad women, prostitutes and women who frequent abortion mills as just another means of contraception.  It is not a personal issue.  However, when their pregnant teen says I'm going to kill myself rather than give birth, the state says you're  going have to give birth to a malformed fetus and care for it as long as it lives, or you'll  have prove to the state that you were actually raped before you can get an abortion, then the issue becomes personnel, very personnel.

This is going to be a big problem for republicans in solid red states with strict abortion laws. While republican men overwhelming support pro-life, about 38% of republican women are not near as supportive.  They want to see the abusive use of abortion stopped but still have abortion available when it is really needed.  And there lies the problem.  The law can not take into account all the issues surrounding the pregnancy and need for the abortion.  That can only be done by the woman, her doctor, and her family.


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> Most women who are pro-life see abortion in the abstract; that is murder of babies by evil doctors and bad women, prostitutes and women who frequent abortion mills as just another means of contraception.  It is not a personal issue.  However, when their pregnant teen says I'm going to kill myself rather than give birth, the state says you're  going have to give birth to a malformed fetus and care far it as long as it lives, or you'll  to have prove to the state that you were actually raped before you can get an abortion, then the issue becomes personnel, very personnel.
> 
> This is going to be a big problem for republicans in solid red states with strict abortion laws. While republican men overwhelming support pro-life, about 40% of republican women are not near as supportive.  They want to see the abusive use of abortion stopped but still have abortion available when it is really needed.  And there lies the problem.  It is a personal issue that politicians can not capture in the law.


This from 2019









						Who are the 1 in 4 American women who choose abortion?
					

In an essay originally published by The Conversation, Luu Ireland writes about the abortion debate from the perspective of an obstetrician/gynecologist who understands the stories of the 1 in 4 women who choose abortion.




					www.umassmed.edu
				




Approximately 25 percent of women in the U.S. will undergo an abortion before the age of 45.

53% of white women voted for Trump.  Of course he lied about this

Trump said 52% of women voted for him in 2016. That’s misleading. It refers only to white women​


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If that would ever happen, my property value would double.



Trump said 52% of women voted for him in 2016. That’s misleading. It refers only to white women​
How many of them wouldn't have voted for Trump if they knew abortion would be made illegal like Republicans are doing now?

So much for not legislating from the bench btw.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> Most women who are pro-life see abortion in the abstract; that is murder of babies by evil doctors and bad women, prostitutes and women who frequent abortion mills as just another means of contraception.



Zatrite? You talk to them? 

Sounds like you're just spewing ghoul bullshit against enemies.



Flopper said:


> It is not a personal issue.  However, when their pregnant teen says I'm going to kill myself rather than give birth, the state says you're  going have to give birth to a malformed fetus and care for it as long as it lives, or you'll  have prove to the state that you were actually raped before you can get an abortion, then the issue becomes personnel, very personnel.



What about when the state says "you're going to kill your baby no matter how much you resist."

I mean, since we're making up total lies and all.



Flopper said:


> This is going to be a big problem for republicans in solid red states with strict abortion laws. While republican men overwhelming support pro-life, about 38% of republican women are not near as supportive.  They want to see the abusive use of abortion stopped but still have abortion available when it is really needed.  And there lies the problem.  The law can not take into account all the issues surrounding the pregnancy and need for the abortion.  That can only be done by the woman, her doctor, and her family.



Well, then you fascists should be happy.

UNLESS you know that it really isn't going to hurt Republicans at all.


----------



## daveman

cnm said:


> Palin's daughter proved that.


And so many people were angry that she didn't abort the child.

Meanwhile, it's so very, insanely _easy_ to not get pregnant.


----------



## daveman

cnm said:


> Obviously, consent to intercourse is not consent to pregnancy. Tell you what, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one, otherwise STFU.


I was right.  Leftists simply don't know how human reproduction works.

"Obviously, stepping off a cliff isn't consent to falling!"

That's you.  That's how stupid you sound.


----------



## daveman

cnm said:


> And the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy is abortion. Simple.


Yes, you death cultists demand your blood sacrifice.

There is absolutely no way you come off looking like the good guy here.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> You can define 'people' any way you choose.  And so can I.


Yes, but science doesn't support your view.

But then, leftists don't much give a shit about science unless they can exploit it to gain power.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> I don't believe my GP is also on the staff of our local hospital yet he can perform many medical procedures.  To require similar procedures to have different requirements is unjustified and obviously a political and not a medical decision.


Yes, we get it.  The left has no interest in ensuring the safety of mothers seeking abortion.


----------



## daveman

Penelope said:


> Care for the fetus, not the life of the baby. See all those state are republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Status of Medicaid Expansion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commonwealthfund.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and they make laws for abortion,NOT.


You didn't answer my question.  Do you believe abortion is a medical procedure?


----------



## daveman

Penelope said:


> They want all blacks to die, and kick the bucket, the fetuses too.


No.  Margaret Sanger, noted eugenicist, racist, and founder of Planned Parenthood, was one of yours.


----------



## daveman

Penelope said:


> Georgia has the worst maternal mortality ratio of any state in the country.*1 Black women in Georgia are 3.3 times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications than white women are.*2 Georgia’s own health experts believe that more than half of confirmed pregnancy-related deaths in the state are preventable.3 Public policies that seek to improve maternal health4 must be informed by evidence, respect human rights,5 and enable every pregnant person in Georgia to attain the best health possible
> -------------------------------
> thats why they love anti abortion.


Abortion is legal in Georgia.


----------



## daveman

Penelope said:


> I really believe they want to rid blacks , the poorer blacks, the rich ones can afford a fly over or take off from work. They want the rich and poor. Republicans are also poorer , who want an abortion.


Most everything you believe is bullshit, so there's that.


----------



## daveman

sealybobo said:


> Still we see Republicans ultimately want to give a lot of authority to their local government and to Trump.


You see it.  Doesn't mean it's there.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Trump said 52% of women voted for him in 2016. That’s misleading. It refers only to white women​
> How many of them wouldn't have voted for Trump if they knew abortion would be made illegal like Republicans are doing now?
> 
> So much for not legislating from the bench btw.



Well first off this isn't about making it illegal, it's about if constitutional protections for abortion exist.  Secondly, it's also about states rights.  The state lost that right back in 73 when the SC ruled on R vs W.  If a state didn't want abortion or strict limits on them, they were forbidden by that ruling from doing so.  

So there is no legislating from the bench since legislation is not even part of this issue.  It's a simple matter of determining if our founders or the editors thereafter wanted abortion to be a protected right in this country.


----------



## Flopper

Penelope said:


> I really believe they want to rid blacks , the poorer blacks, the rich ones can afford a fly over or take off from work. They want the rich and poor. Republicans are also poorer , who want an abortion.


The prohibition of abortions reminds me of when I was a kid visiting my uncle in a town in Mississippi where the sale or possession of alcoholic beverages was  prohibited.   However, there was no problem in getting liquor.  You could buy it from a produce stand in the city or  go outside the city limits.   My uncle would have a drink when he came home from work and wine was served at meals.  When I pointed out the hypocrisy in having such a law, he explained the town needed to keep up appearance.  I think this is exactly what many red state legislatures will be doing, keeping up appearances because although the people expect the legislature to make abortions illegal, they expect that there will be ways to get abortions if needed.

Strict abortion laws will have little effect on abortions except in the poorest communities. Families of moderate means will travel out of state for abortions, abortion pills will be sold on the streets likes narcotics and in poor communities there will always be some quack performing abortions.   Also, there will transportation assistance for the poor seeking abortions.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Most women who are pro-life see abortion in the abstract; that is murder of babies by evil doctors and bad women, prostitutes and women who frequent abortion mills as just another means of contraception.  It is not a personal issue.  However, when their pregnant teen says I'm going to kill myself rather than give birth, the state says you're  going have to give birth to a malformed fetus and care for it as long as it lives, or you'll  have prove to the state that you were actually raped before you can get an abortion, then the issue becomes personnel, very personnel.
> 
> This is going to be a big problem for republicans in solid red states with strict abortion laws. While republican men overwhelming support pro-life, about 38% of republican women are not near as supportive.  They want to see the abusive use of abortion stopped but still have abortion available when it is really needed.  And there lies the problem.  The law can not take into account all the issues surrounding the pregnancy and need for the abortion.  That can only be done by the woman, her doctor, and her family.



Nobody is actually stuck.  If people reject harsh abortion laws they are free to support representatives that will reverse any harsh laws.  With a majority any law can be rescinded. 

Will it hurt Republicans, that remains to be seen.  If you can't reverse leadership of a state, maybe it's time to consider moving to a state with your values.  None of us are moving to NY or Cali, their people are leaving those states to come to our states, and of course like everywhere else, try to ruin it for us.  

When you're in my town breathing my air, you do what you're told.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Nicknamed the "Einstein Visa", the EB-1 is reserved for people who are highly acclaimed in their field - the government cites Pulitzer, Oscar, and Olympic winners as examples - as well as respected academic researchers and multinational executives.
> 
> Mrs Trump began applying for the visa in 2000, when she was Melania Knauss, a Slovenian model working in New York and dating Donald Trump. She was approved in 2001
> 
> Becoming a citizen in 2006 gave her the right to sponsor her parents, Viktor and Amalija Knavs, who are now in the US and in the process of applying for citizenship.
> 
> The reports of how Mrs Trump obtained her EB-1 visa will rankle with some, at a time when her husband is railing against immigrants and attempting to scrap the right of new citizens to sponsor family members. And questions have been raised about her suitability for the extraordinary ability category.



Trump didn't write the laws that he or his wife adhered to, they were already there.  He wasn't even thinking about politics at the time.  

And trump has said many times he was not against immigration, just illegal immigration.  Even if we could stop every illegal from entering the country today, that would have had no barring on the million people we allow to become citizens or the near million Visa's or green cards we pass out every year.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Still we see Republicans ultimately want to give a lot of authority to their local government and to Trump.



Trump left office a year and a half ago and we have no idea if or when he's coming back.  We can't give him diddly except for our votes in possibly 2024, and currently federal representative which all he supported were nominated.  

Yes we want to give ultimate authority to our states, and so did our founders.  That's the reason for states rights in the Constitution.  If it were up to me, there would be no bureaucracies, no government benefits by the federal government.  SS, Medicare, HUD and all other 80 welfare programs would be funded by the state IF THEY WANTED THEM!  And most of the tax money collected would be by the state and not the federal government which is now 30 trillion in the hole and predicted to go much higher.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe was an important precedent and now seems to have done a 180 on that point.
> 
> Roe v. Wade is 'precedent,' Kavanaugh says, but there's more to the future of abortion | CNN Politics



That's why they're trying to calm the savages.  SC justices often change their minds.  For all we know, they may uphold R vs W.  We just can't depend on a supposed leak.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> It really depends on how the Court's Decision is written and where they base the reasoning behind possible reversal.
> 
> Should the Decision indicate it is under State's Rights (Tenth Amendment), they would be separating the issue of Abortion from the Federal Government.
> Should the Decision vary, and address other concerns or Rights, they still may leave some kind of open door back to the Federal level.
> 
> Some states have 'trigger laws" already ... Legislators in those states have already passed legislation that may outlaw or limit Abortion.
> Those laws will be triggered and go into effect the moment Roe v Wade may be overturned.
> 
> .​



I agree and while no legal scholar, to my knowledge the SC only hears cases where there is question whether a law was followed or it has constitutional protections.  I've yet to know a case where the SC ruled that X was exclusively a states right and the federal government can't touch it.  Maybe you do, I don't know, but I don't recall one.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well first off this isn't about making it illegal, it's about if constitutional protections for abortion exist.  Secondly, it's also about states rights.  The state lost that right back in 73 when the SC ruled on R vs W.  If a state didn't want abortion or strict limits on them, they were forbidden by that ruling from doing so.
> 
> So there is no legislating from the bench since legislation is not even part of this issue.  It's a simple matter of determining if our founders or the editors thereafter wanted abortion to be a protected right in this country.


Although it is not about making abortion illegal it is the trigger event that will make it illegal in 13 states.

We assume that states rights will be the reason for overturning Rowe.  Since such a ruling would lay the foundation for overturning the federal ruling on gay marriage, and a number of other laws and ruling that have shaped society, the court may not be will to do that far.  Will the court fall back to the constitution right of unborn as a basis for overturning Rowe. Criminal laws now hold the unborn to be persons. 

Also basing the decision to overturn Rowe on the right of unborn would allow for federal law to make abortion illegal throughout the country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Although it is not about making abortion illegal it is the trigger event that will make it illegal in 13 states.
> 
> We assume that states rights will be the reason for overturning Rowe.  Since such a ruling would lay the foundation for overturning the federal ruling on gay marriage, and a number of other laws and ruling that have shaped society, the court may not be will to do that far.  Will the court fall back to the constitution right of unborn as a basis for overturning Rowe. Criminal laws now hold the unborn to be persons.
> 
> Also basing the decision to overturn Rowe on the right of unborn would allow for federal law to make abortion illegal throughout the country.



It could if a super majority of Republicans lead the federal government, which could happen as soon as 2024.  It's just a question of whether they would do it or not being such a divided issue in the country.


----------



## sealybobo

daveman said:


> You see it.  Doesn't mean it's there.


If the state requires you have healthcare, you're ok with that.
If the state tells you ya can't have an abortion, you're ok with that
If your state tells you ya have to wear a mask you're ok with that

What can't they tell you to do?


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nobody is actually stuck.  If people reject harsh abortion laws they are free to support representatives that will reverse any harsh laws.  With a majority any law can be rescinded.
> 
> Will it hurt Republicans, that remains to be seen.  If you can't reverse leadership of a state, maybe it's time to consider moving to a state with your values.  None of us are moving to NY or Cali, their people are leaving those states to come to our states, and of course like everywhere else, try to ruin it for us.
> 
> When you're in my town breathing my air, you do what you're told.


Until enough of us move there and turn you blue bitch!


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It could if a super majority of Republicans lead the federal government, which could happen as soon as 2024.  It's just a question of whether they would do it or not being such a divided issue in the country.


The same way the Nazi's took power is how Republicans are going to take power.  Voters are stupid.  They don't realize what voting for Bush or Trump means.  Now they're getting a taste.  But then inflation is bad and people are getting shot and they forget just how bad Republicans are, especially the election denier Republicans.  So in the midterm women are stupid and won't vote out Republicans.  Then Trump will win in 2024 and I hope to god they make abortion illegal.  Why wouldn't they?  It's murder after all right Ray?


----------



## sealybobo

Republicans didn't think Bush could do that much harm.  After 8 great years of Obama, we allowed another Bush to steal his way into the white house.  1 major 9-11 attack, 2 wars and 2 recessions later.......


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It could if a super majority of Republicans lead the federal government, which could happen as soon as 2024.  It's just a question of whether they would do it or not being such a divided issue in the country.


Like many people on each side, I have no chips in the game.  Since, I live in a strong democrat state, women will continue to have the right to an abortion here.  However, my concern is that striking down Rowe will exacerbate already existing conflicts and perhaps provide new conflicts that we haven't yet seen in regard to marriage, healthcare,  interstate travel, and commerce.   And as control switches back and forth between liberals and conservatives, will we see retaliation at a level we have never seen against the opposition. Rowe could be the fuse that blows the country apart.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Republicans didn't think Bush could do that much harm.  After 8 great years of Obama, we allowed another Bush to steal his way into the white house.  1 major 9-11 attack, 2 wars and 2 recessions later.......



You don't grasp that Bush was BEFORE the "Great Divider" was in power?

Your level of stupidity is utterly stunning.


----------



## daveman

sealybobo said:


> If the state requires you have healthcare, you're ok with that.


No, I'm not.  That should be an individual decision.


sealybobo said:


> If the state tells you ya can't have an abortion, you're ok with that


I believe in the sanctity of life.  Abortion supporters don't.


sealybobo said:


> If your state tells you ya have to wear a mask you're ok with that


No, I'm not.  That should be an individual decision.


sealybobo said:


> What can't they tell you to do?


You seem to be terribly confused.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Yes, but science doesn't support your view.
> 
> But then, leftists don't much give a shit about science unless they can exploit it to gain power.


Science does not define 'people', only biology.  The Right is the side of climate deniers and anti-vaxers so spare me the moral outrage.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Yes, we get it.  The left has no interest in ensuring the safety of mothers seeking abortion.


It is the Right that will make medical decisions based on politics, not medicine.


----------



## flan327

ABORTIONS will always exist


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> If the state requires you have healthcare, you're ok with that.
> If the state tells you ya can't have an abortion, you're ok with that



If the state tells you that you can't kill your spouse - you have a problem with that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> The same way the Nazi's took power is how Republicans are going to take power.  Voters are stupid.



So, with violent brown shirts waging Kristallnach across the nation?

Wait, you misspelled democrats - stupid fuck.



sealybobo said:


> They don't realize what voting for Bush or Trump means.



Slowing you Nazi scum down in your overthrow of the Republic.



sealybobo said:


> Now they're getting a taste.



Uh, Xi Jinping is in charge, with his front man Quid Pro on TV.

We're getting a taste alright, and damned well fed up with it.



sealybobo said:


> But then inflation is bad and people are getting shot and they forget just how bad Republicans are, especially the election denier Republicans.  So in the midterm women are stupid and won't vote out Republicans.  Then Trump will win in 2024 and I hope to god they make abortion illegal.  Why wouldn't they?  It's murder after all right Ray?



You Nazis are set to be slaughtered in the midterms.

Your vile party may never recover. Like the Whigs, you may well have to go underground and reemerge as a different party so no one remembers what traitorous scum you are.

Nazi democrats and liberty are not compatible, both cannot exist in America.

So you evil fascist fucks are going to have to go.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Science does not define 'people', only biology.  The Right is the side of climate deniers and anti-vaxers so spare me the moral outrage.



So, the right is the side of science, and you Nazis are the side of social contagions and propaganda.

We knew that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

flan327 said:


> ABORTIONS will always exist



So will rape and assault.

That doesn't mean we ignore it.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You don't grasp that Bush was BEFORE the "Great Divider" was in power?
> 
> Your level of stupidity is utterly stunning.


Your grasp of history is weak


----------



## sealybobo

flan327 said:


> ABORTIONS will always exist


No it won't because women are dumb.  You'll see come this midterm.  You see these anti abortionists are suddenly emboldened and telling you their true intentions.  The morning after pill will be murder.  Going to another state to murder your baby will still be murder in Oklahoma.  

They're still trying to soft shoe around it but this is their ultimate goal.  And if this court decision stands, then ending a pregnancy is murder.  And murder is against the law.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Your grasp of history is weak




Got it, so Bush was president after Barry da Fairy.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Got it, so Bush was president after Barry da Fairy.


No.  You're forgetting how bad Bush was.  Bush took over Carter's title of being the worst president ever.  Carter never really was, but Bush was.

Trump was handed a great economy and did a few good things just to protect his image and deliver on a couple campaign promises, so I might still give Bush the title, although Trump was the WORST tbh.  1 termer.  At least Bush got re elected.  Actually, he stole 2004 Ohio.  Ken Blackwell rigged Ohio.  Jeb rigged 2000 Florida.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> No.  You're forgetting how bad Bush was.  Bush took over Carter's title of being the worst president ever.  Carter never really was, but Bush was.
> 
> Trump was handed a great economy and did a few good things just to protect his image and deliver on a couple campaign promises, so I might still give Bush the title, although Trump was the WORST tbh.  1 termer.  At least Bush got re elected.  Actually, he stole 2004 Ohio.  Ken Blackwell rigged Ohio.  Jeb rigged 2000 Florida.



You're a retard.

You claimed that Bush came after the Great Divider.

You are one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever encountered.

No surprise you're a fascist leftist.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're a retard.
> 
> You claimed that Bush came after the Great Divider.
> 
> You are one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever encountered.
> 
> No surprise you're a fascist leftist.


Except I didn't claim that so it's probably you who's dumb.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're a retard.
> 
> You claimed that Bush came after the Great Divider.
> 
> You are one of the dumbest motherfuckers I've ever encountered.
> 
> No surprise you're a fascist leftist.


You know if you are having a retard in Oklahoma you can't abort it?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> No.  You're forgetting how bad Bush was.  Bush took over Carter's title of being the worst president ever.  Carter never really was, but Bush was.
> 
> Trump was handed a great economy and did a few good things just to protect his image and deliver on a couple campaign promises, so I might still give Bush the title, although Trump was the WORST tbh.  1 termer.  At least Bush got re elected.  Actually, he stole 2004 Ohio.  Ken Blackwell rigged Ohio.  Jeb rigged 2000 Florida.



Why do you leftists continually repeat these lies?  Jeb had no ability to rig anything.  He was the Governor and recused himself in any decisions made by the courts. 

*Past Conspiracy Theories*


Remember the swirl of stories around Diebold Election Systems and its CEO, Walden O’Dell, in 2004? O’Dell was an Ohio resident who held a fundraiser at his home for President Bush and wrote a fundraising letter promising to help “Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” Some took him too literally, claiming that Bush “stole” Ohio’s electoral votes and the 2004 election.


But even the liberal _New York Times _editorial board waved off that conspiracy theory as nonsense. There were some glitches, as expected, with the machines on Election Day, but, as the _Times_ wrote, there was “no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”




> *New York Times editorial, Nov. 14, 2004*: It’s important to make it clear that there is no evidence such a thing happened.











						Does Tagg Romney 'Own' Ohio Voting Machines? - FactCheck.org
					

Q: Does Mitt Romney’s son Tagg own Ohio’s electronic voting machines? A: There’s no evidence of that. A spokesman for Tagg Romney’s private equity firm states that it has no stake in Hart InterCivic, a supplier of voting machines in two of Ohio’s 88 counties.  FULL QUESTION Is it true that Tagg...




					www.factcheck.org


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why do you leftists continually repeat these lies?  Jeb had no ability to rig anything.  He was the Governor and recused himself in any decisions made by the courts.
> 
> *Past Conspiracy Theories*
> 
> 
> Remember the swirl of stories around Diebold Election Systems and its CEO, Walden O’Dell, in 2004? O’Dell was an Ohio resident who held a fundraiser at his home for President Bush and wrote a fundraising letter promising to help “Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.” Some took him too literally, claiming that Bush “stole” Ohio’s electoral votes and the 2004 election.
> 
> 
> But even the liberal _New York Times _editorial board waved off that conspiracy theory as nonsense. There were some glitches, as expected, with the machines on Election Day, but, as the _Times_ wrote, there was “no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Tagg Romney 'Own' Ohio Voting Machines? - FactCheck.org
> 
> 
> Q: Does Mitt Romney’s son Tagg own Ohio’s electronic voting machines? A: There’s no evidence of that. A spokesman for Tagg Romney’s private equity firm states that it has no stake in Hart InterCivic, a supplier of voting machines in two of Ohio’s 88 counties.  FULL QUESTION Is it true that Tagg...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.factcheck.org


STFU Ray


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> No it won't because women are dumb.  You'll see come this midterm.  You see these anti abortionists are suddenly emboldened and telling you their true intentions.  The morning after pill will be murder.  Going to another state to murder your baby will still be murder in Oklahoma.
> 
> They're still trying to soft shoe around it but this is their ultimate goal.  And if this court decision stands, then ending a pregnancy is murder.  And murder is against the law.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> STFU Ray



The truth hurts, doesn't it?


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The truth hurts, doesn't it?


No, I'm not going into all the ways Bush stole 2000 and 2004 and how Biden won fair and square.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> The same way the Nazi's took power is how Republicans are going to take power.  Voters are stupid.  They don't realize what voting for Bush or Trump means.  Now they're getting a taste.  But then inflation is bad and people are getting shot and they forget just how bad Republicans are, especially the election denier Republicans.  So in the midterm women are stupid and won't vote out Republicans.  Then Trump will win in 2024 and I hope to god they make abortion illegal.  Why wouldn't they?  It's murder after all right Ray?



Again, it's too controversial to say.  It could happen but it likely won't IMO.  The Republican party will never rid themselves of people like Romney, Collins, Merkowski so they wouldn't have the votes even with a 60 majority lead. 

We seen what voting for the Communists did.  Highest inflation in 40 years.  Highest gasoline prices in 12 years. The worst border problem in 20 years according to the BP, supply chain shortage, labor shortage, bumping heads with a nuclear armed country and receiving threats not seen since the cold war, Un firing test missiles again, the Chinese buying our farmland, baby formula shortage, the list goes on and on.  In fact you can't tell me one positive thing this administration has done in the last year and a half.  Every decision they made is a disaster. 

And now you say women are too stupid to vote out Republicans?  They are too stupid to want affordable energy, buy products they need in the store, not have to worry about diseased illegals sending their kids to our schools holding up their kids because they don't speak the language?  Want to see their IRA's grow instead of taking great losses?  Yeah, how stupid of them to want that back.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> No, I'm not going into all the ways Bush stole 2000 and 2004 and how Biden won fair and square.



I used one of your very own sources who sited another one of your very own sources, the NYT.  You have no argument.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Again, it's too controversial to say.  It could happen but it likely won't IMO.  The Republican party will never rid themselves of people like Romney, Collins, Merkowski so they wouldn't have the votes even with a 60 majority lead.
> 
> We seen what voting for the Communists did.  Highest inflation in 40 years.  Highest gasoline prices in 12 years. The worst border problem in 20 years according to the BP, supply chain shortage, labor shortage, bumping heads with a nuclear armed country and receiving threats not seen since the cold war, Un firing test missiles again, the Chinese buying our farmland, baby formula shortage, the list goes on and on.  In fact you can't tell me one positive thing this administration has done in the last year and a half.  Every decision they made is a disaster.
> 
> And now you say women are too stupid to vote out Republicans?  They are too stupid to want affordable energy, buy products they need in the store, not have to worry about diseased illegals sending their kids to our schools holding up their kids because they don't speak the language?  Want to see their IRA's grow instead of taking great losses?  Yeah, how stupid of them to want that back.


We can't go about getting those things by doing it the GOP way.  Pollution and Global warming are real.  You cons will destroy the planet one of 4 ways.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Except I didn't claim that so it's probably you who's dumb.



#226

"Republicans didn't think Bush could do that much harm*. After 8 great years of Obama, we allowed another Bush to steal his way into the white house.*" - Silly Bonobo

You fucking retard - did you really think you could lie your way out of it?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> #226
> 
> "Republicans didn't think Bush could do that much harm*. After 8 great years of Obama, we allowed another Bush to steal his way into the white house.*" - Silly Bonobo
> 
> You fucking retard - did you really think you could lie your way out of it?


OH MY GOD!  I meant Bush Clinton Bush my bad.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> OH MY GOD!  I meant Bush Clinton Bush my bad.



One had to wonder when you said "8 great years of Obama.."

Like saying "8 great years of cancer."


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> One had to wonder when you said "8 great years of Obama.."
> 
> Like saying "8 great years of cancer."


Yea, it was horrible

A record 75 straight months of job growth under Obama


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> One had to wonder when you said "8 great years of Obama.."
> 
> Like saying "8 great years of cancer."


You didn't like Obama's 2.2% growth?  I remember you and Trump complained about it constantly back then.  You said Trump would give us 3, 4, 5 even SIX % growth.  Remember that?  Trump gave us 2.3% growth in 2019.  After that massive tax bill he passed?  I'd call that a fucking complete failure.  Or, I should say, he gave way all those tax breaks and all he got in return was .1% out of it?  PATHETIC!!!!  Art of the Deal?


----------



## Flopper

sealybobo said:


> You didn't like Obama's 2.2% growth?  I remember you and Trump complained about it constantly back then.  You said Trump would give us 3, 4, 5 even SIX % growth.  Remember that?  Trump gave us 2.3% growth in 2019.  After that massive tax bill he passed?  I'd call that a fucking complete failure.  Or, I should say, he gave way all those tax breaks and all he got in return was .1% out of it?  PATHETIC!!!!  Art of the Deal?


We have not had an annual 5% growth rate that was not associated with high inflation in over 50 years. There are a number of reasons, some valid and others just political BS.  In the US population growth has been a significant factor in economic growth.  The highest economic grow since WWII occurred the 1950's with population grow of 1.5% a year.  By 2021, population growth had slowed to .4%.   Also, achieving a high percentage economic growth is much harder in large economy than a much smaller one.  In mid 1950's the size of US economy was about 2.5 trillion dollars.  In 2021, the US economy had grown to over 19 trillion.

In coming decades as our economy continues to grow, I think the percent economic annual growth will continue to decrease slightly.  I doubt we ever see 5% annual growth that is not accompanied by high inflation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Yea, it was horrible
> 
> A record 75 straight months of job growth under Obama



Getting almost down to 9% unemployment....




Obama was a complete fuckup - not Quid Pro, but still a fool.

I'll grant you that Bill Clinton had a good economy.


----------



## Flash

I like the abortion bill that Oklahoma passed this week.

Abortion only allowed for when the mother's life is in jeopardy or in the case of rape and incest if health professionals agree.

No more on demand for the sake of convenience.

That is "reasonable" abortion law.


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> We have not had an annual 5% growth rate that was not associated with high inflation in over 50 years. There are a number of reasons, some valid and others just political BS.  In the US population growth has been a significant factor in economic growth.  The highest economic grow since WWII occurred the 1950's with population grow of 1.5% a year.  By 2021, population growth had slowed to .4%.   Also, achieving a high percentage economic growth is much harder in large economy than a much smaller one.  In mid 1950's the size of US economy was about 2.5 trillion dollars.  In 2021, the US economy had grown to over 19 trillion.
> 
> In coming decades as our economy continues to grow, I think the percent economic annual growth will continue to decrease slightly.  I doubt we ever see 5% annual growth that is not accompanied by high inflation.


I know that.  You know that.  Trump knows this is true.  But the people he bragged to on the campaign trail, they didn't know that.  And they don't seem to care.  They only cared that Obama only had 2.2% growth at the time and they said they'd do much better.

Trump actually would have done much better than the 2.3% he had in 2019 if it weren't for the trade war he started with China.  Republicans at the time said what better time to take China on than when the economy was good?  Fine.  I even accept that excuse.  So maybe they should accept the reasons why Obama had less than 3% growth.  

a.  Not willing to give rich people more tax breaks to achieve that growth
b.  Not willing to deregulate unnecessarily

I also remember Republicans said Obama's economy was fake because the interest rate was so low.  It remained that low on Trump's watch right?  So was his economy fake?  Nope.  Not according to hypocrites who play politics with the facts.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> I like the abortion bill that Oklahoma passed this week.
> 
> Abortion only allowed for when the mother's life is in jeopardy or in the case of rape and incest if health professionals agree.
> 
> No more on demand for the sake of convenience.
> 
> That is "reasonable" abortion law.


Thank you Flash.  I'm sick of Republicans lying about their true position on this.  RayfromCleveland is trying to pretend you aren't trying to ban abortions.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Thank you Flash.  I'm sick of Republicans lying about their true position on this.  RayfromCleveland is trying to pretend you aren't trying to ban abortions.


This is not banning abortion.  It is "common sense" abortion law.

When will the Moon Bats stop denying that they want to ban the right to keep and bear arms?


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> This is not banning abortion.  It is "common sense" abortion law.
> 
> When will the Moon Bats stop denying that they want to ban the right to keep and bear arms?


Excuse me?  If I get pregnant and just don't want to have it, can I get the abortion or not, liar?

Your common sense abortion law says you can't have one.  That's banning abortion.  How stupid do you think we are?


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> This is not banning abortion.  It is "common sense" abortion law.
> 
> When will the Moon Bats stop denying that they want to ban the right to keep and bear arms?



That's the funny thing.  I have guns and don't want them banned.  I just want common sense gun legislation and regulations.

And like I am a liberal with guns, a lot of cons get abortions.  You may lose votes with this.  I know it's a gamble you are willing to take.  

Are you in a well regulated militia btw?


----------



## Flopper

sealybobo said:


> Excuse me?  If I get pregnant and just don't want to have it, can I get the abortion or not, liar?
> 
> Your common sense abortion law says you can't have one.  That's banning abortion.  How stupid do you think we are?


Yes, if the court strikes down Rowe, you will still be able to get an abortion in the US.  And do to the court's reasoning, states rights, congress in the future would not be able to create a law to make abortion illegal nationally.

There are 26 states that will almost surely ban abortions and several more will enact new abortion laws.  Almost all of these states will allow abortions in the case where the mother's life would be in danger, or pregnancy due to rape or incest.  Some of these 26 states will also allow abortions in the first 15 weeks and most of the rest will restrict abortion to the first 6 weeks.  A couple of states will make no exceptions at least as the law stands now.

If you're not able to qualify in these states you will have to travel.  However that may not be that bad because 17 of these 26 states border states where abortion will be available on demand.  In most of these states and at a the national level, organizations are working to ease the travel problem.

Although the number of abortions will go down if Rowe is struct down, I expect the number is going to be a lot less that pro-lifers expect.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Science does not define 'people', only biology.  The Right is the side of climate deniers and anti-vaxers so spare me the moral outrage.


Anyone who wants inconvenient people killed does not hold the moral high ground.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> It is the Right that will make medical decisions based on politics, not medicine.


Your drama queening is useless.


----------



## Flash

sealybobo said:


> Excuse me?  If I get pregnant and just don't want to have it, can I get the abortion or not, liar?
> 
> Your common sense abortion law says you can't have one.  That's banning abortion.  How stupid do you think we are?


If you are a pain in the ass to me can I murder you?

Because that is what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.

"Common sense" abortion laws like was enacted in Oklahoma says that you can't kill a child for the purpose of convenience, only for legitimate medical reasons.  Good law.  We can all agree on that.


----------



## Flopper

Flash said:


> If you are a pain in the ass to me can I murder you?
> 
> Because that is what abortion on demand for the sake of convenience is all about.
> 
> "Common sense" abortion laws like was enacted in Oklahoma says that you can't kill a child for the purpose of convenience, only for legitimate medical reasons.  Good law.  We can all agree on that.


Only if you agree that this fetus is a child


----------



## Flash

Flopper said:


> Only if you agree that this fetus is a child


I took classes in Biology in school.  You dumbass Moon Bats don't know any more about Biology than you know about Economics, History, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.

Not only are you confused about a fetus being a human being but you dumb mutherfuckers think that a man can get pregnant and think there are more than two genders.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, the right is the side of science, and you Nazis are the side of social contagions and propaganda.
> 
> We knew that.


I suspect you know as little about science as you do about Nazis.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Anyone who wants inconvenient people killed does not hold the moral high ground.


Anyone who doesn't see a difference between an adult person and a few strands of DNA is not fit to judge the morality of others.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Your drama queening is useless.


Facts can be so inconvenient.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Anyone who doesn't see a difference between an adult person and a few strands of DNA is not fit to judge the morality of others.


Wow.  You're a piece of shit.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Facts can be so inconvenient.


He posted none.  He was wringing his hands over leftist fantasies.  He's repeating his programming.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> I suspect you know as little about science as you do about Nazis.



ROFL

That's hilarious.

What do you think "science" is, Adolf?

For instance, you lie that an unborn baby isn't human. What is it you think a woman carries? Maybe a T-Rex? 

Be real "sciencey."


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Anyone who doesn't see a difference between an adult person and a few strands of DNA is not fit to judge the morality of others.



Few strands of DNA, Adolf?

Tell us again how you ghouls are all about "science?"


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?



Yes. Mitch McConnell has already stated that is the goal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> Wow.  You're a piece of shit.



He's a Nazi. He needs to dehumanize his victims to justify killing them for profit.

The abortion industrial complex brings in a hundred billion dollars of federal money a year.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Facts can be so inconvenient.



When have you ever posted a fact?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragonlady said:


> Yes. Mitch McConnell has already stated that is the goal.



Fucking liar.

You of the CCP never tell the truth.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> When have you ever posted a fact?


Here's one: It is the Right that will make medical decisions based on politics, not medicine.

Abortion restrictions put women’s health, safety and wellbeing at risk
Abortion in the United States is an extremely safe procedure. Restrictions imposed in some states are not based on medical evidence and will do nothing to improve women’s health and safety. In fact, these requirements put women at risk by standing in the way of safe reproductive care.​


----------



## Dragonlady

Uncensored2008 said:


> Fucking liar.
> 
> You of the CCP never tell the truth.



If you had a brain, you'd check whether something is true or not before you call anyone a liar.  But you don't have the sense God gave a goose.  I'm not of the CCP, so now you try to lie about me. 









						Mitch McConnell Acknowledges a National Abortion Ban Is “Possible” if ‘Roe’ Is Overturned
					

The top Senate Republican explained that a federal abortion ban is on the table in his most explicit comments to date about what the SCOTUS draft leak could mean going forward.




					www.vanityfair.com


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Here's one: It is the Right that will make medical decisions based on politics, not medicine.
> 
> Abortion restrictions put women’s health, safety and wellbeing at risk
> Abortion in the United States is an extremely safe procedure. Restrictions imposed in some states are not based on medical evidence and will do nothing to improve women’s health and safety. In fact, these requirements put women at risk by standing in the way of safe reproductive care.​



LOL

So when asked about fact, you post ghoul propaganda.

Tell me ghoul. should abortion be mandatory for all birthing persons? (since you have replaced and eliminated women in your war on them.)


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragonlady said:


> If you had a brain, you'd check whether something is true or not before you call anyone a liar.  But you don't have the sense God gave a goose.  I'm not of the CCP, so now you try to lie about me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mitch McConnell Acknowledges a National Abortion Ban Is “Possible” if ‘Roe’ Is Overturned
> 
> 
> The top Senate Republican explained that a federal abortion ban is on the table in his most explicit comments to date about what the SCOTUS draft leak could mean going forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com



But you claimed Mitch said it was "the goal."

You're a fucking liar.

McConnell is a fool and swamp creature, I tore him to shreds in a thread on this subject - but you're flat out lying - as is your nature.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> Yes. Mitch McConnell has already stated that is the goal.



He did?  When?  To my knowledge, all he said is that it's possible, not that it was his goal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> Although the number of abortions will go down if Rowe is struct down, I expect the number is going to be a lot less that pro-lifers expect.



I think if the numbers do go down it will be in states that enact tough abortion laws causing women to be more responsible with their sexual activities.  Would that be such a bad thing?


----------



## daveman

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I think if the numbers do go down it will be in states that enact tough abortion laws causing women to be more responsible with their sexual activities.  Would that be such a bad thing?


Leftists hate people being responsible about sex.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> We can't go about getting those things by doing it the GOP way.  Pollution and Global warming are real.  You cons will destroy the planet one of 4 ways.



Then how did we avoid destroying it under Trump?


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then how did we avoid destroying it under Trump?
> 
> View attachment 650278


You guys don't even believe global warming is real right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> You guys don't even believe global warming is real right?



Yes and no.  We believe in climate change because the climate has been changing since God made the place.  However most of us also believe that man has little or nothing to do with it.  We believe the climate goes in cycles.  It may get a little colder for a couple of hundred of years, then a little warmer for a couple of hundred years, but it all balances out in the end. 

Man can no more change the climate than he can the amount of hurricanes or tornadoes that happen on this earth.  We also believe the hoax was created for government control.  After all, politicians (particularly on the left) have been wanting more and more control over the people as time went on.  To some degree, they've been very successful.  The only two entities that stop them from total control are healthcare and energy.  Once the government has control over those two things, they will have total control over the people since all of our lives revolve around it.

In our system of governance, the government can't march in with the military and takeover these things.  They need for people to beg them to take care of these problems for us.  Make energy too expensive (as they are doing now) make healthcare unaffordable for many, scare people to death over it, and eventually people will capitulate to the desires of these control freaks.

We on the right are not falling for it because we see the man behind the curtain.  We know what their ultimate goals are.  A current example:  Dementia ordered that all companies make sure their employees (over 150) get the government mandated vaccine.  It was fought to the Supreme Court where they ruled that Dementia couldn't do that to private industry, but he is allowed to do it to healthcare companies.  Why only healthcare businesses?  Because all healthcare facilities exist because of government money. 

So now imagine what kind of control they could have over every American if we went to an all government plan.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So when asked about fact, you post ghoul propaganda.


You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.  Unless something conforms to your ideology it can be dismissed out of hand.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Tell me ghoul. should abortion be mandatory for all birthing persons? (since you have replaced and eliminated women in your war on them.)


A war on women would entail telling them what to do and then forcing them to do it.  Why is it that the Right rails against big, intrusive government and for individual freedom until they don't like someone's choice?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Ray From Cleveland said:


> He did?  When?  To my knowledge, all he said is that it's possible, not that it was his goal.



ChiComlady lies - always.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> Leftists hate people being responsible about sex.



Leftists hate people.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You guys don't even believe global warming is real right?



Remember Silly Bonobo, you know less than nothing about science - you don't even know how many genders there are.

You're a trained monkey flinging shit for your Reich, nothing more.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you.  Unless something conforms to your ideology it can be dismissed out of hand.



We'll never find out from your posts - which are certified fact free.



alang1216 said:


> A war on women would entail telling them what to do and then forcing them to do it.



A war on women would entail trying to erase and replace them.





What is it you Nazis are always saying? "The only good woman is a man?"





alang1216 said:


> Why is it that the Right rails against big, intrusive government and for individual freedom until they don't like someone's choice?



I support a womans right to abort herself.

Hell, you Nazis claim men can get pregnant, so go ahead and abort yourself. Rip your arms and legs off, have fun.





But you want to pull the arms and legs off of another person, and have the federal government pay you for it.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes and no.  We believe in climate change because the climate has been changing since God made the place.  However most of us also believe that man has little or nothing to do with it.  We believe the climate goes in cycles.  It may get a little colder for a couple of hundred of years, then a little warmer for a couple of hundred years, but it all balances out in the end.
> 
> Man can no more change the climate than he can the amount of hurricanes or tornadoes that happen on this earth.  We also believe the hoax was created for government control.  After all, politicians (particularly on the left) have been wanting more and more control over the people as time went on.  To some degree, they've been very successful.  The only two entities that stop them from total control are healthcare and energy.  Once the government has control over those two things, they will have total control over the people since all of our lives revolve around it.
> 
> In our system of governance, the government can't march in with the military and takeover these things.  They need for people to beg them to take care of these problems for us.  Make energy too expensive (as they are doing now) make healthcare unaffordable for many, scare people to death over it, and eventually people will capitulate to the desires of these control freaks.
> 
> We on the right are not falling for it because we see the man behind the curtain.  We know what their ultimate goals are.  A current example:  Dementia ordered that all companies make sure their employees (over 150) get the government mandated vaccine.  It was fought to the Supreme Court where they ruled that Dementia couldn't do that to private industry, but he is allowed to do it to healthcare companies.  Why only healthcare businesses?  Because all healthcare facilities exist because of government money.
> 
> So now imagine what kind of control they could have over every American if we went to an all government plan.


I didn't even read past your first sentence.  Your first sentence proves you don't believe in man made global warming.  You're a fucking idiot.  Anti abortion, science denying, election stealing mother fucker.  Got it.  You're a Nazi Ray.  Just embrace it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I didn't even read past your first sentence.



No wonder, it takes 20 minutes for you to figure out what the words on screen say.



sealybobo said:


> Your first sentence proves you don't believe in man made global warming.



Ah, you shun those not of your faith.



sealybobo said:


> You're a fucking idiot.  Anti abortion, science denying, election stealing mother fucker.  Got it.  You're a Nazi Ray.  Just embrace it.



It's you who denies science. You have only your Reich.

You don't even know how many genders there are. You think men can get pregnant.


----------



## daveman

sealybobo said:


> I didn't even read past your first sentence.  Your first sentence proves you don't believe in man made global warming.  You're a fucking idiot.  Anti abortion, science denying, election stealing mother fucker.  Got it.  You're a Nazi Ray.  Just embrace it.


No one has any obligation to believe what you believe they should believe.

But your tantrums are entertaining, so Kerry on.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> I didn't even read past your first sentence.  Your first sentence proves you don't believe in man made global warming.  You're a fucking idiot.  Anti abortion, science denying, election stealing mother fucker.  Got it.  You're a Nazi Ray.  Just embrace it.



Oh, you read the entire thing, it's just that truth pisses you off so much.  How can I tell?  Because you asked how we on the right feel about it and when I answered in and adult way, you responded with personal insults, a dead giveaway it caused you to lose sleep last night.  

But I'll reply anyway:  Since you are on the climate change side, tell me, what would it take to shut you up forever?  I don't mean you personally, but your entire clan?  What metrics would we need to meet to make you happy?  CO2 levels?  One billionth of one particle of something?  What?  And if you can present me this goal of yours, what would it cost us to reach that goal? 

More truth for you to lose sleep over:  You can't give me an answer to that question because you have no answer.  Don't feel bad, nobody on the MMCC side can.  Because deep down inside, you know there is no goal.  Just keep pouring more and more money down this bottomless money pit and it makes you feel like you're accomplishing something.  Trust me, I've watched the anti-pollution people over 50 years ago, then the man made global warming people, and since global warming was proven to be a hoax, the climate change people.  In spite of the trillions it already cost us for this mission of yours, you people are more pissed off today than you were 55 years ago.  And if we pour another 10 trillion into it, you'll be more pissed off in 50 years from now than you are today.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> A war on women would entail telling them what to do and then forcing them to do it. Why is it that the Right rails against big, intrusive government and for individual freedom until they don't like someone's choice?



We on the right think choice is great.  You decided to have sex unprotected, got pregnant, you made a choice.  People who make better choices don't have to deal with that problem.

If you ask me, a war on women is letting weirdos into their private bathrooms and changing rooms and nothing can be legally done about it.  A war on women is when one of these weirdos steals an athletic trophy and quite possibly a college scholarship from somebody's daughter because there is no way she could compete against a guy with lipstick.  A war on women is telling nurses they have to take a vaccine they don't want to take, and if they don't, lose their job with no unemployment benefits so they can't even afford to feed their family.  That's what I call a real war on women.


----------



## sealybobo

T


Uncensored2008 said:


> No wonder, it takes 20 minutes for you to figure out what the words on screen say.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you shun those not of your faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's you who denies science. You have only your Reich.
> 
> You don't even know how many genders there are. You think men can get pregnant.


his is xactly what Germany was like in 1939. Thank god I don’t make my political beliefs known out in public. Thank god I’m a rich white man. I can pretend to be Christian when you’re rounding atheist up.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Oh, you read the entire thing, it's just that truth pisses you off so much.  How can I tell?  Because you asked how we on the right feel about it and when I answered in and adult way, you responded with personal insults, a dead giveaway it caused you to lose sleep last night.
> 
> But I'll reply anyway:  Since you are on the climate change side, tell me, what would it take to shut you up forever?  I don't mean you personally, but your entire clan?  What metrics would we need to meet to make you happy?  CO2 levels?  One billionth of one particle of something?  What?  And if you can present me this goal of yours, what would it cost us to reach that goal?
> 
> More truth for you to lose sleep over:  You can't give me an answer to that question because you have no answer.  Don't feel bad, nobody on the MMCC side can.  Because deep down inside, you know there is no goal.  Just keep pouring more and more money down this bottomless money pit and it makes you feel like you're accomplishing something.  Trust me, I've watched the anti-pollution people over 50 years ago, then the man made global warming people, and since global warming was proven to be a hoax, the climate change people.  In spite of the trillions it already cost us for this mission of yours, you people are more pissed off today than you were 55 years ago.  And if we pour another 10 trillion into it, you'll be more pissed off in 50 years from now than you are today.


Hones I didn’t. If you started off lying why keep reading? It’ll just infuriate me. I didn’t know you found the lord ray? I didn’t think you were illogical and irrational oh wait. Yes I did.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> Hones I didn’t. If you started off lying why keep reading? It’ll just infuriate me. I didn’t know you found the lord ray? I didn’t think you were illogical and irrational oh wait. Yes I did.



Fair enough.  What did I ever lie about?


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We on the right think choice is great.  You decided to have sex unprotected, got pregnant, you made a choice.  People who make better choices don't have to deal with that problem.


So you're OK with abortion in cases of rape?   To save the life of the mother?   What if the child will be severely disabled?


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Fair enough.  What did I ever lie about?


When a climate change denier says they believe in it, they are being obtuse. What you are stating is you believe the obvious. That climate change happened before man made climate change. Then that opens up an entire discussion where basically you admit through your comments that you don’t actually believe in man made climate change.

So let’s not have that dance dummy. It’s old.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> T
> 
> his is xactly what Germany was like in 1939.



Yes, you democrats are the Nazi party - pure and simple.

Whites are your Jews.



sealybobo said:


> Thank god I don’t make my political beliefs known out in public.



I suspect a Nazi like you might not be real popular



sealybobo said:


> Thank god I’m a rich white man.



Oh look, another Nazi troll on the interwebz who is FABULOUSLY WEALTHY! 



sealybobo said:


> I can pretend to be Christian when you’re rounding atheist up.



Or you can pretend to be "rich" on a message board.

The only ones who want to round up political prisoners are you Nazis.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> So you're OK with abortion in cases of rape?   To save the life of the mother?   What if the child will be severely disabled?



Would you be okay with abolishing abortion in cases that don't match the above?

Between contraceptives, the morning after pill, and plan B, no woman gets pregnant who doesn't want to. This includes rape victims.

But then you fascists claim that men get pregnant....


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Would you be okay with abolishing abortion in cases that don't match the above?


No.  Before the embryo develops a brain it is just human tissue on the path to becoming a person.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Between contraceptives, the morning after pill, and plan B, no woman gets pregnant who doesn't want to. This includes rape victims.


I suspect many young women don't have all the education and information they may need to make these decisions.



Uncensored2008 said:


> But then you fascists claim that men get pregnant....


So you're saying a woman who identifies as a man is a man?  Enlightened I guess.  Since that is the only way I know of for a man to get pregnant, you must be a fascist.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> No.  Before the embryo develops a brain it is just human tissue on the path to becoming a person.



so, 5 weeks gestation then?



alang1216 said:


> I suspect many young women don't have all the education and information they may need to make these decisions.



I suspect you personally profit from the Abortion Industrial Complex. There is no excuse for abortion. 



alang1216 said:


> So you're saying a woman who identifies as a man is a man?



I leave such idiocy to you science deniers.



alang1216 said:


> Enlightened I guess.  Since that is the only way I know of for a man to get pregnant, you must be a fascist.











						Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
					

Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, told Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., that she believes men can get pregnant and have abortions.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Captain Caveman

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


Would someone living in one State not simply pop over the border to another State for an abortion?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Captain Caveman said:


> Would someone living in one State not simply pop over the border to another State for an abortion?



Of course, that's exactly what's going to happen.  However it is a little inconvenient and that's what the left are all upset about.  IMO to avoid that discomfort, people will start having more responsible sex if their state doesn't have liberal abortion policies.  I can't say that's a bad thing.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> I suspect many young women don't have all the education and information they may need to make these decisions.



Wow, I feel like a genius now.  I knew this shit since the age of 11.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

sealybobo said:


> When a climate change denier says they believe in it, they are being obtuse. What you are stating is you believe the obvious. That climate change happened before man made climate change. Then that opens up an entire discussion where basically you admit through your comments that you don’t actually believe in man made climate change.
> 
> So let’s not have that dance dummy. It’s old.



I said from the get go that the climate changes so there is no lie there.  Temperatures change, climate changes, it's all quite natural really and it's been taking place since the earth was created.  We didn't end the ice age with cars and factories.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

alang1216 said:


> So you're OK with abortion in cases of rape?   To save the life of the mother?   What if the child will be severely disabled?



Actually I'm not against abortion at all.  There are different factions of the Republican party and my faction is the smaller the government, the better. 

I believe that if somebody gets pregnant and is considering an abortion, that's their own choice, not mine  If it's a minor, that choice should be made by the girl and her parents.  If it's a woman with religious values, that decision should be made between her and her clergy.  In most all cases the choice should be made between the girl and the suspected father.  But I don't believe the choice should be between the girl and her government. 

That being said, I don't care for abortion, but it's not a constitutionally protected right.  If they do overturn Wade, I'm all for it as it never should have been decided that abortion had any constitutional protections in the first place.


----------



## task0778

Osiris-ODS said:


> As for the topic at hand, I don't envision Congress passing any federal abortion legislation in the foreseeable future, given that the forthcoming SCOTUS decision (if consistent with the leaked draft) clearly spells out the absence of Constitutional support for a federal position on abortion. *Any such legislation would be ripe for immediate challenge to the Supreme Court.*



No doubt any abortion legislation by the US Congress would be challenged in court by one side or the other depending on the wording, but that doesn't mean the SC would throw it out because it has no constitutional basis.  I think it depends on what the legislation says, if the Congress passes a law and Biden signs it that says abortion is legal for the first 13 weeks (1st trimester) and it also makes contraceptives and morning after pills legal then I think the SC would accept that as the will of the people.  Such a law would not declare constitutional rights, but instead civil rights that could be amended at a later date.  Same as state laws, unless a state amends their state constitution whatever they pass can be changed at a later date.  Or they could even change the state constitution back to whatever it was or something else.  Same as the US Constitution, it can be amended too.  There's a process for that.


----------



## Osiris-ODS

task0778 said:


> No doubt any abortion legislation by the US Congress would be challenged in court by one side or the other depending on the wording, but that doesn't mean the SC would throw it out because it has no constitutional basis.  I think it depends on what the legislation says, if the Congress passes a law and Biden signs it that says abortion is legal for the first 13 weeks (1st trimester) and it also makes contraceptives and morning after pills legal then I think the SC would accept that as the will of the people.  Such a law would not declare constitutional rights, but instead civil rights that could be amended at a later date.  Same as state laws, unless a state amends their state constitution whatever they pass can be changed at a later date.  Or they could even change the state constitution back to whatever it was or something else.  Same as the US Constitution, it can be amended too.  There's a process for that.


Well this probably isn't what you were suggesting, but I wasn't entirely sure, so just wanted to note on the relationship between your first and last points that enacting federal legislation isn't the same thing as amending the US Constitution.


----------



## task0778

Osiris-ODS said:


> Well this probably isn't what you were suggesting, but I wasn't entirely sure, so just wanted to note on the relationship between your first and last points that enacting federal legislation isn't the same thing as amending the US Constitution.



That's very true.  The Congress can pass legislation to regulate abortions as they see fit, and IMHO the Supreme Court will honor that unless the new laws overly restrict individual constitutional rights.  Assuming the Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will no longer be considered a constitutional right under the current laws.  All I'm saying is that if Congress can pass abortion legislation and the president signs it then abortion could be a civil right subject to whatever limitations Congress provides, now and in the future.  And since abortion won't be a constitutional right then the states can create their own abortion rights as they see fit, as long as the state legislation does not override whatever Congress passes (if anything).

BUT - in the above cases, abortion would not be a constitutional right.  If the Congress can pass a resolution by a 2/3 majority in both the Senate and the House then the matter would fall to the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.  If 3/4 of the states ratify that amendment then it becomes a constitutional right that no state can deny.

And it might be worth mentioning that no matter how the Supreme Court or what Congress does, it's going to be a constant struggle to change the law back and forth depending on who is in power.  But that has been the case ever since Roe v Wade, so the fight will continue no matter what.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yes, you democrats are the Nazi party - pure and simple.
> 
> Whites are your Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect a Nazi like you might not be real popular
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look, another Nazi troll on the interwebz who is FABULOUSLY WEALTHY!
> 
> 
> 
> Or you can pretend to be "rich" on a message board.
> 
> The only ones who want to round up political prisoners are you Nazis.


1 person condo paid off. Putting 30% of my pay in my 401k. Make about $100k. Take all that into account I’m upper class. I’m certainly not having a hard time making ends meet, dealing with inflation or saving 30%. No mortgage o student debt to deal with.

And I’m the poor one in my family. My rich brother and son are voting for trump in 2024. They should. They’re privileged and rich. Now anyways. We came from detroit. Immigrant parents. That scene from the jerk? Tha was us. Born a poor black child. He now makes $1 million a year. Only in America. We should vote republican. I just can’t.


----------



## sealybobo

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I said from the get go that the climate changes so there is no lie there.  Temperatures change, climate changes, it's all quite natural really and it's been taking place since the earth was created.  We didn't end the ice age with cars and factories.


You’re a man made climate change denier. I’ll clarify from now on. But you knew what I meant. That reply you gave was you thinking you’re slick or clever. You’re not. If you didn’t know you were making that mistake it’s because you’re just repeating a right wing talking point.


----------



## sealybobo

You can’t take back the thumbs down. I know you’re not lol


----------



## daveman

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course, that's exactly what's going to happen.  However it is a little inconvenient and that's what the left are all upset about.  IMO to avoid that discomfort, people will start having more responsible sex if their state doesn't have liberal abortion policies.  I can't say that's a bad thing.


It's not like most abortion-seeking women in Texas didn't have to drive for hours to begin with.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> so, 5 weeks gestation then?


I'm no biologist but that seems too short for a human brain, I'd say at least 20 weeks.  







Uncensored2008 said:


> I suspect you personally profit from the Abortion Industrial Complex. There is no excuse for abortion.


Wrong on both counts.  If the mother's life is in danger I'd say that is a very good 'excuse'.



Uncensored2008 said:


> I leave such idiocy to you science deniers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dem witness tells House committee men can get pregnant, have abortions
> 
> 
> Aimee Arrambide, the executive director of the abortion rights nonprofit Avow Texas, told Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C., that she believes men can get pregnant and have abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com


So you agree that anyone who calls themselves a "man" is a man?


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Wow, I feel like a genius now.  I knew this shit since the age of 11.


Where did you learn it, genius?


----------



## alang1216

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Actually I'm not against abortion at all.  There are different factions of the Republican party and my faction is the smaller the government, the better.
> 
> I believe that if somebody gets pregnant and is considering an abortion, that's their own choice, not mine  If it's a minor, that choice should be made by the girl and her parents.  If it's a woman with religious values, that decision should be made between her and her clergy.  In most all cases the choice should be made between the girl and the suspected father.  But I don't believe the choice should be between the girl and her government.


Very reasonable.



Ray From Cleveland said:


> That being said, I don't care for abortion, but it's not a constitutionally protected right.  If they do overturn Wade, I'm all for it as it never should have been decided that abortion had any constitutional protections in the first place.


I don't care for it either but I'm not such a devotee of the original Constitution.  There are no rights granted to Blacks and holding them as slaves was upheld by the SCOTUS for decades.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> I'm no biologist but that seems too short for a human brain, I'd say at least 20 weeks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong on both counts.  If the mother's life is in danger I'd say that is a very good 'excuse'.
> 
> 
> So you agree that anyone who calls themselves a "man" is a man?



So you agree there is no reason to have an abortion.

{
When does a fetus grow a brain?​Fetal brain development starts before you even know you have a baby. *The first neural cells that form the nervous system are formed when you are just 5 weeks pregnant*}






__





						Fetal Brain Development: When Your Baby Develops a Brain
					

Medical review policy You should always know the source of the information you are reading. Learn more about itOur policies on medical review When does ... Read more



					rec-canada.com
				




Try again.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> 1 person condo paid off. Putting 30% of my pay in my 401k. Make about $100k. Take all that into account I’m upper class. I’m certainly not having a hard time making ends meet, dealing with inflation or saving 30%. No mortgage o student debt to deal with.
> 
> And I’m the poor one in my family. My rich brother and son are voting for trump in 2024. They should. They’re privileged and rich. Now anyways. We came from detroit. Immigrant parents. That scene from the jerk? Tha was us. Born a poor black child. He now makes $1 million a year. Only in America. We should vote republican. I just can’t.




That's not upper class at all. That's purely middle class - the Bourgeoisie you are so desperately trying to eradicate. You Nazis are some stupid fucks.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> So you agree there is no reason to have an abortion.
> 
> {
> When does a fetus grow a brain?​Fetal brain development starts before you even know you have a baby. *The first neural cells that form the nervous system are formed when you are just 5 weeks pregnant*}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetal Brain Development: When Your Baby Develops a Brain
> 
> 
> Medical review policy You should always know the source of the information you are reading. Learn more about itOur policies on medical review When does ... Read more
> 
> 
> 
> rec-canada.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again.


BUT THATS NOT A _HUMAN_ HUMAN BRAIN IT DOESNT COUNT

There, covered that for you, alang.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> That's not upper class at all. That's purely middle class - the Bourgeoisie you are so desperately trying to eradicate. You Nazis are some stupid fucks.


There's a little town on the lake the next county over.  A few years ago, the owners of a $300K house with a Volvo wagon parked in front, right across the street from a park with a beach and marina, put a sign in their yard:  "WE ARE THE 99%".

Bitch, _please_.  Around here, you're the 1%.  But then, they were Yankees, so they had no idea how Southerners felt.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So you agree there is no reason to have an abortion.


Agreed.  Assuming you don't care about the life of the mother.  Wait, I do, do you?



Uncensored2008 said:


> When does a fetus grow a brain?​Fetal brain development starts before you even know you have a baby. *The first neural cells that form the nervous system are formed when you are just 5 weeks pregnant*}
> 
> Try again.


I believe even starfish have neurons, would you consider them equivalent to a human brain?  Try again.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Agreed.  Assuming you don't care about the life of the mother.  Wait, I do, do you?
> 
> 
> I believe even starfish have neurons, would you consider them equivalent to a human brain?  Try again.


Are starfish genetically human?

SPOILER ALERT

No, they are not.  You don't have a point.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Are starfish genetically human?
> 
> SPOILER ALERT
> 
> No, they are not.  You don't have a point.


What makes humans different from starfish? 
We have brains, they have neurons


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> What makes humans different from starfish?
> We have brains, they have neurons


Do you know what brains are?

A collection of neurons.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Do you know what brains are?
> 
> A collection of neurons.


I guess you can't tell one collection of neurons from another.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> BUT THATS NOT A _HUMAN_ HUMAN BRAIN IT DOESNT COUNT
> 
> There, covered that for you, alang.



I asked Alan the Ghoul what exactly the baby is? The anti-science types must think women carry a T-Rex until the miracle transformation of the magic vagina turns the T-Rex into a baby as it passes through.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> There's a little town on the lake the next county over.  A few years ago, the owners of a $300K house with a Volvo wagon parked in front, right across the street from a park with a beach and marina, put a sign in their yard:  "WE ARE THE 99%".
> 
> Bitch, _please_.  Around here, you're the 1%.  But then, they were Yankees, so they had no idea how Southerners felt.



In my neck of the woods, a 2 BD 600 Sq Ft house is $700K..

I'm just saying.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Agreed.  Assuming you don't care about the life of the mother.  Wait, I do, do you?



So you agree that abortion does nothing to safeguard the life of the mother.  



alang1216 said:


> I believe even starfish have neurons, would you consider them equivalent to a human brain?  Try again.



Ah yes, you ghouls are science rejectors.

So women carry a STARFISH before the magic vagina transmogrifies it into a baby.  

You do grasp that you're really quite insane, and a danger to society..


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> Are starfish genetically human?
> 
> SPOILER ALERT
> 
> No, they are not.  You don't have a point.



Remember, to ghouls it's all magic. A birthing person - which could be a man or one of 56 other genders - carries a *starfish* until THE POWER OF THE VAGINA COMPELS IT to become a baby as it passes through..

If vermin like alang1216 understood 8th grade biology, they wouldn't be ghouls.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So you agree that abortion does nothing to safeguard the life of the mother.


Not sure where you got that from, certainly not from me.  Though rare there are times when a pregnancy does threaten the life of the mother, both physically and mentally.



Uncensored2008 said:


> Ah yes, you ghouls are science rejectors.
> 
> So women carry a STARFISH before the magic vagina transmogrifies it into a baby.
> 
> You do grasp that you're really quite insane, and a danger to society..


Sorry but that is so silly it doesn't merit a reply.


----------



## surada

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.  Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.


Abortion wasn't always illegal... not until 1880.









						The surprising history of abortion in the United States | CNN
					

Abortion was once simply part of life in the United States. Then, for about 100 years, it was illegal. How we got there and got to where we are now may surprise you.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## flan327

whitehall said:


> Lefties seem to think that most Americans favor abortion so why are they so afraid of leaving it up to the voters? I think it was Hillary's husband who said "abortion should be rare" but the concept morphed into abandoning unwanted newborn babies on a cold stainless table without food or medicine until they die. That's what happens when liberal democrats are in charge.


STOP
LYING


----------



## flan327

surada said:


> Abortion wasn't always illegal... not until 1880.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The surprising history of abortion in the United States | CNN
> 
> 
> Abortion was once simply part of life in the United States. Then, for about 100 years, it was illegal. How we got there and got to where we are now may surprise you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnn.com


Abortions will always exist


----------



## surada

flan327 said:


> Abortions will always exist


 Of course. Before Roe vs Wade every town in America had an abortionist across the tracks.


----------



## flan327

surada said:


> Of course. Before Roe vs Wade every town in America had an abortionist across the tracks.


Did they use a wire hanger?


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> I guess you can't tell one collection of neurons from another.


You sure are desperate to justify the killing of inconvenient human beings.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> In my neck of the woods, a 2 BD 600 Sq Ft house is $700K..
> 
> I'm just saying.


Things are a little cheaper around here.


----------



## flan327

daveman said:


> You sure are desperate to justify the killing of inconvenient human beings.


CHOICE
CHOICE
CHOICE


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> You sure are desperate to justify the killing of inconvenient human beings.


As you are desperate to show you that you know what is the correct moral for others and what is not.    What have you done in the past to help mothers who decide to have their babies despite emotional or physical hardship?


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> As you are desperate to show you that you know what is the correct moral for others and what is not.    What have you done in the past to help mothers who decide to have their babies despite emotional or physical hardship?


Would that make you feel morally superior for insisting inconvenient human beings should be killed?


----------



## daveman

flan327 said:


> CHOICE
> CHOICE
> CHOICE


Yes, that's the word the death cult hides behind.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Would that make you feel morally superior for insisting inconvenient human beings should be killed?


You're just projecting.  If I felt I was morally superior to the mother, I'd have no problem telling her what to do.


----------



## flan327

daveman said:


> Yes, that's the word the death cult hides behind.


Post reported


----------



## flan327

alang1216 said:


> As you are desperate to show you that you know what is the correct moral for others and what is not.    What have you done in the past to help mothers who decide to have their babies despite emotional or physical hardship?


Absolutely NOTHING


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> You're just projecting.  If I felt I was morally superior to the mother, I'd have no problem telling her what to do.


No, you feel you're morally superior to me -- despite insisting the killing of inconvenient human beings is a positive thing.


----------



## daveman

flan327 said:


> Post reported


Hurting your feelings is not against the rules, kid.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> No, you feel you're morally superior to me -- despite insisting the killing of inconvenient human beings is a positive thing.


Was the killing of German and Japanese civilians as inconvenient human beings in WWII bombing campaigns a positive or negative thing.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Was the killing of German and Japanese civilians as inconvenient human beings in WWII bombing campaigns a positive or negative thing.


I'm going to guess you'd say it was a negative thing -- at the same time as you support killing the unborn.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Not sure where you got that from, certainly not from me.



What, only you can do that?



alang1216 said:


> Though rare there are times when a pregnancy does threaten the life of the mother, both physically and mentally.



So you agree that since no pregnancy is unplanned, there is really never a reason for abortion.



alang1216 said:


> Sorry but that is so silly it doesn't merit a reply.



Were you once a starfish?

You really are quite insane.


----------



## task0778

alang1216 said:


> Was the killing of German and Japanese civilians as inconvenient human beings in WWII bombing campaigns a positive or negative thing.



German and Japanese civilians were not killed because they were inconvenient, that is bullshit.  They were killed as a means to end the war as soon as possible.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> I'm going to guess you'd say it was a negative thing -- at the same time as you support killing the unborn.


I don't think it was a good thing, I think it was a necessary thing.  Sometimes necessary decisions are very unpleasant.  Abortion is such an example.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> What, only you can do that?
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that since no pregnancy is unplanned, there is really never a reason for abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you once a starfish?
> 
> You really are quite insane.


I think logic and reading comprehension are not your strong points.  Feel to come back when they've improved.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> That's not upper class at all. That's purely middle class - the Bourgeoisie you are so desperately trying to eradicate. You Nazis are some stupid fucks.


Look it up. When your bills are less than $1000 a month and you’re making $100k thats upper class. I didn’t say rich. I’m not rich. But I am upper class.

If I had just one kid, I would no longer be. But I don’t. No more saving 30% of my pay. No more new f150 lease every 3 years. No more $2000 ebikes, $7000 quad or $25,000 pontoon.

I was talking to my neighbors. They all have mortgages. I’m like the only one who’s all paid off.

My point is you republicans can no longer fuck me like you hav3 when bush 1, bush 2 or trump were potus. Yes, even trump fucked me. How? He started a trade war with China. I did better under Obama.


----------



## sealybobo

alang1216 said:


> I don't think it was a good thing, I think it was a necessary thing.  Sometimes necessary decisions are very unpleasant.  Abortion is such an example.


I’m still waiting for us to get republicans to admit their pro life position is religious. This new Supreme Court decision is a religious one and that’s unconstitutional


----------



## alang1216

task0778 said:


> German and Japanese civilians were not killed because they were inconvenient, that is bullshit.  They were killed as a means to end the war as soon as possible.


How many German and Japanese babies were killed because they lived close to a military target?  Regardless, we agree that killing in certain cases is a justifiable action but those German and Japanese parents might not agree with you as to what killings are justified.


----------



## sealybobo

I


alang1216 said:


> How many German and Japanese babies were killed because they lived close to a military target?  Regardless, we agree that killing in certain cases is a justifiable action but those German and Japanese parents might not agree with you as to what killings are justified.


These same pro life republicans criticize Clinton for not taking out bin Ladin because there would have been too many civilian casualties.

And this was before 9-11.

Republicans care about the seed in my womb but not Afghanistan children? I find that strange. I wish they’d care less about my seed and more about children from Guatemala.

And if we don’t have room in America for dreamers why force 800,000 American women a year to give birth to dreamers?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> No, you feel you're morally superior to me -- despite insisting the killing of inconvenient human beings is a positive thing.



The ghouls aren't superior, they just profit from the industry of death.  Alan Guttmacher was Joseph Mengele level creature. He figured out how to make abortion profitable, how to bleed taxpayers the same way the ghouls bleed babies.

Ghouls are morally deficient, born without the biological impetus not to kill babies. Psychopaths.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Was the killing of German and Japanese civilians as inconvenient human beings in WWII bombing campaigns a positive or negative thing.



I don't know. I wasn't involved in those decisions, were you?

You ARE involved in the killing of the most defenseless members of society - which you enthusiastically promote - since you personally profit from their deaths.

No doubt you'd like to branch out into euthanizing the elderly. Maybe for a percent of their worldly goods?


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> Look it up. When your bills are less than $1000 a month and you’re making $100k thats upper class. I didn’t say rich. I’m not rich. But I am upper class.
> 
> If I had just one kid, I would no longer be. But I don’t. No more saving 30% of my pay. No more new f150 lease every 3 years. No more $2000 ebikes, $7000 quad or $25,000 pontoon.
> 
> I was talking to my neighbors. They all have mortgages. I’m like the only one who’s all paid off.
> 
> My point is you republicans can no longer fuck me like you hav3 when bush 1, bush 2 or trump were potus. Yes, even trump fucked me. How? He started a trade war with China. I did better under Obama.




China started a trade war with US decades ago. Trump just was teh first to even try to push back a little.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> I think logic and reading comprehension are not your strong points.  Feel to come back when they've improved.



Says the ghoul who thinks women carry a starfish...


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> I’m still waiting for us to get republicans to admit their pro life position is religious. This new Supreme Court decision is a religious one and that’s unconstitutional




Religious people are allowed to vote and their interests are to be represented in national law and policy.


Your desire to deny them that, is you being a want a be tyrant.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> How many German and Japanese babies were killed because they lived close to a military target?  Regardless, we agree that killing in certain cases is a justifiable action but those German and Japanese parents might not agree with you as to what killings are justified.



Will you equate Muslims using babies as human shields as well? Should an American soldier shoot and protect himself?



You're a buffoon attempting to use equivocation to support the fact that you prey on the most vulnerable members of society and kill them, for a profit.  You're not saving anyone, you're looking to make a buck.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> I don't think it was a good thing, I think it was a necessary thing.  Sometimes necessary decisions are very unpleasant.  Abortion is such an example.


The vast majority of abortions are for matters of convenience.  

Being irresponsible about sex is not an emergency.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I
> 
> These same pro life republicans criticize Clinton for not taking out bin Ladin because there would have been too many civilian casualties.



So, unborn babies are terrorists.

The shit you Nazis say.



sealybobo said:


> And this was before 9-11.
> 
> Republicans care about the seed in my womb but not Afghanistan children? I find that strange. I wish they’d care less about my seed and more about children from Guatemala.
> 
> And if we don’t have room in America for dreamers why force 800,000 American women a year to give birth to dreamers?



So, illegals good, but American babies must die to make room for them.

You fucking Nazis.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Correll said:


> Religious people are allowed to vote and their interests are to be represented in national law and policy.
> 
> 
> Your desire to deny them that, is you being a want a be tyrant.



I'm solidly agnostic and solidly anti-abortion.

The inability to reason among the left makes them desire this to be a religious issue, so that they can trot out their hating points From Planned Infanticide and The Adolf Hitler Institute.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> I don't know. I wasn't involved in those decisions, were you?


Cowardly cop-out from someone who adamantly wants to be involved in the decisions of others.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> The vast majority of abortions are for matters of convenience.
> 
> Being irresponsible about sex is not an emergency.



Wait, I thought AdolfH1216 said every abortion is to save the life of the mother, and that if even one abortion is missed, millions of women will die?

Nazi democrats mourn each and every live birth. Besides, Silly Bonobo says we have to kill American babies to make room for illegal aliens.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Will you equate Muslims using babies as human shields as well? Should an American soldier shoot and protect himself?


So killing babies can sometimes be justified?  I agree.  Though we might disagree on the circumstances of that justification, in principle we agree that the killing of babies is sometimes justifiable.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> The vast majority of abortions are for matters of convenience.
> 
> Being irresponsible about sex is not an emergency.


So some but not all abortions are justified?  Agreed and I think most people in this country would agree, though what constitutes 'convenience' may be open to interpretation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> Cowardly cop-out from someone who adamantly wants to be involved in the decisions of others.




The reaction of you Nazis when your hating points fail is hilarious.

You're reading the same flaccid shit from the Adolf Hitler Institute that you have for 60 years. It was logical fallacy then as it is now.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> So some but not all abortions are justified?  Agreed and I think most people in this country would agree, though what constitutes 'convenience' may be open to interpretation.


Very few people, I think, are going to oppose an abortion to save the life of the mother (which is a miniscule reason).

But to save the mother's desire to go clubbing?  

Not so much.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> So killing babies can sometimes be justified?  I agree.  Though we might disagree on the circumstances of that justification, in principle we agree that the killing of babies is sometimes justifiable.





Ah, without logical fallacy, you'd never even approach logic.

There is no equivalence, neither moral nor logical. You are painting a false Delima. In the case of the human shield, it is the one picking up the child  who is killing them, not the soldier.

Get new hate points


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Very few people, I think, are going to oppose an abortion to save the life of the mother (which is a miniscule reason).
> 
> But to save the mother's desire to go clubbing?
> 
> Not so much.


Agreed.  But the majority of Americans would not be as comfortable as you seem to be telling a mother she has to give birth to a baby she doesn't want.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ah, without logical fallacy, you'd never even approach logic.
> 
> There is no equivalence, neither moral nor logical. You are painting a false Delima. In the case of the human shield, it is the one picking up the child  who is killing them, not the soldier.
> 
> Get new hate points


So you're saying that the soldier that actually chooses to pull the trigger that kills a child is justified in his action even though a child loses their life?


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> So you're saying that the soldier that actually chooses to pull the trigger that kills a child is justified in his action even though a child loses their life?



So you're saying that the starfish women carry before birth are shooting at the little Mengeles and it's self-defense for them to kill the starfish?

Interesting that your mentors called their victims "rodents,"  but you ghouls have decided that human offspring are "starfish" to justify your slaughter of them.

Is that something from the Adolf Hitler Institute, oops I mean Alan Guttmacher Institute - meh, same difference...


----------



## Uncensored2008

The mother and father of Planned Parenthood...


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> China started a trade war with US decades ago. Trump just was teh first to even try to push back a little.


I know, but it fucked with my income. It fucked with business. I know I know, you want to take on China. But how aggressively? And did it work? Not really. plus, no excuses. You promised 3% growth. You didn’t say you’d start a trade war with China. Business might not have voted for you if you were honest.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> I know, but it fucked with my income. It fucked with business. I know I know, you want to take on China. But how aggressively? And did it work? Not really. plus, no excuses. You promised 3% growth. You didn’t say you’d start a trade war with China. Business might not have voted for you if you were honest.




I thought he was pretty  clear with his intentions with AMERICA FIRST, and bringing the jobs back. 

Did you really not get the gist of his position before voting?


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Agreed.  But the majority of Americans would not be as comfortable as you seem to be telling a mother she has to give birth to a baby she doesn't want.


And in your mind, killing the only completely innocent person involved is a righteous answer?

That's entirely screwed up.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> I thought he was pretty  clear with his intentions with AMERICA FIRST, and bringing the jobs back.
> 
> Did you really not get the gist of his position before voting?


And we told you starting a trade war with China would hurt us. And that his tax bill would cause debt and inflation.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> And we told you starting a trade war with China would hurt us. And that his tax bill would cause debt and inflation.




So to be clear, when you say, "and we told you", you are admitting that he was clear in his intent. 

So, your talk about him "not being honest" about that, that was just you being dishonest. (which moments ago, you were so bent out of shape about)



I mean, why? Being for Free Trade is a completely valid policy position. Why could you not have started with that?



Why do you NEED to not only disagree with a person, but have this NEED to paint anyone that disagrees with you, as a BAD PERSON with ILL INTENT?


----------



## Cellblock2429

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


/——-/ The 10th Amendment to the Constitution 
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> So to be clear, when you say, "and we told you", you are admitting that he was clear in his intent.
> 
> So, your talk about him "not being honest" about that, that was just you being dishonest. (which moments ago, you were so bent out of shape about)
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, why? Being for Free Trade is a completely valid policy position. Why could you not have started with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you NEED to not only disagree with a person, but have this NEED to paint anyone that disagrees with you, as a BAD PERSON with ILL INTENT?


I saw trumps true intentions even if you didn’t. Taking on China was for his ego. And he lost btw


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> I saw trumps true intentions even if you didn’t. Taking on China was for his ego. And he lost btw




I explicitly stated that I was aware of his intentions. 


You were the one that pretended to not be. And then you admitted that you were aware, because you were arguing against his policy back then. 


You are so fired up, that you are not making sense.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I saw trumps true intentions even if you didn’t. Taking on China was for his ego. And he lost btw



You mean Trump was supporting America while you sold your country out because China has slaves.

You fucking democrats can't let go of slave labor - ever.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> And in your mind, killing the only completely innocent person involved is a righteous answer?
> 
> That's entirely screwed up.


If I considered one or a couple of cells with some DNA to be a person I might agree with you.  In my view, human tissue is not the same as a person.  Or put another way, every person is made up of human tissue but not every human tissue is a person.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> If I considered one or a couple of cells with some DNA to be a person I might agree with you.  In my view, human tissue is not the same as a person.  Or put another way, every person is made up of human tissue but not every human tissue is a person.


Ah, there's our ignorant science denier! 

So do you plan to have Reich observers at every sex act between men and women to abort within 3 to five minutes? You know, when it is "one or several cells?"

You were conditioned to bleat "zygote" (though we showed earlier that you had no clue what it means.) To catch up lurkers - and because you're too stupid to learn, a "zygote" is the fertilized egg prior traveling down the fallopian tube to the uterus. The occurs in the first 5 days of pregnancy. Yes, it's only a zygote for 5 days. By the time the zygote implants in the uterus, it is several MILLION cells.









						Fetal development: What happens during the 1st trimester?
					

Fetal development begins before you even know you're pregnant. Here's what happens early on.




					www.mayoclinic.org
				




Of course, you think women carry a starfish, not a baby - so you're an anti-science moron.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You mean Trump was supporting America while you sold your country out because China has slaves.
> 
> You fucking democrats can't let go of slave labor - ever.


It's a global economy.  I don't expect someone like you to understand Goober.


----------



## alang1216

Uncensored2008 said:


> So do you plan to have Reich observers at every sex act between men and women to abort within 3 to five minutes? You know, when it is "one or several cells?"


You're confused, it is the anti-abortion states that are empowering vigilantes to sue doctors.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> It's a global economy.  I don't expect someone like you to understand Goober.


You're a traitor to your nation - we all understand that.


----------



## Uncensored2008

alang1216 said:


> You're confused, it is the anti-abortion states that are empowering vigilantes to sue doctors.



The only way you could abort a baby that is "one or a couple of cells" would be the have someone from the Reich in the room ready to go 5 minutes after sex.

You ghouls would do that. Ensure that no unauthorized live births occur.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're a traitor to your nation - we all understand that.


You guys don't seem to realize which of your party members are traitors, globalists, rinos or deep staters.  

There is no loyalty to you, ya broke ass worker bee.  That's what I'm starting to realize.  You think we're going to stop making stuff in 3rd world countries and bring those jobs back home and pay you Americans a handsome wage?  HA!!!

Talk to your bosses.  They're the ones sending jobs overseas.  You've been defending them all these years.  No, in fact you still defend them.  The minute we try to tell them they can't do something, you'll call us socialists.  Well here we had Trump meddling in industry.  Yea yea, I know you hired him because you believed he was good at that sort of stuff, but he's not.  He wasn't.  He only fucked things up.

And you aren't judging him objectively.  It'd be like me defending Biden on this inflation we're seeing.  But then again, Trump's tax breaks played a role too right?  And his trade war in 2019 slowed the economy down.  Did he campaign saying that would happen or did he say he'd have 3, 4 even 6 percent growth?  Yea, I thought so.

Anyone who has a 401K is probably a traitor to America.

And the rich don't give a fuck about you dummy.  The GOP represent the rich.  The rich invest GLOBALLY.

What ever happened to when you defended the rich?  You said they were the job creators, shouldn't pay taxes and they should be running our government.  Suddenly you don't trust capitalists? But you trust Republicans POLITICIANS?  That's odd of you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You guys don't seem to realize which of your party members are traitors, globalists, rinos or deep staters.



We do. Liz, Mitch, Willard.

We also realize ALL fascist democrats are traitors in bed with Russia, Iran and China.



sealybobo said:


> There is no loyalty to you, ya broke ass worker bee.  That's what I'm starting to realize.  You think we're going to stop making stuff in 3rd world countries and bring those jobs back home and pay you Americans a handsome wage?  HA!!!
> 
> Talk to your bosses.  They're the ones sending jobs overseas.  You've been defending them all these years.  No, in fact you still defend them.  The minute we try to tell them they can't do something, you'll call us socialists.  Well here we had Trump meddling in industry.  Yea yea, I know you hired him because you believed he was good at that sort of stuff, but he's not.  He wasn't.  He only fucked things up.
> 
> And you aren't judging him objectively.  It'd be like me defending Biden on this inflation we're seeing.  But then again, Trump's tax breaks played a role too right?  And his trade war in 2019 slowed the economy down.  Did he campaign saying that would happen or did he say he'd have 3, 4 even 6 percent growth?  Yea, I thought so.
> 
> Anyone who has a 401K is probably a traitor to America.
> 
> And the rich don't give a fuck about you dummy.  The GOP represent the rich.  The rich invest GLOBALLY.
> 
> What ever happened to when you defended the rich?  You said they were the job creators, shouldn't pay taxes and they should be running our government.  Suddenly you don't trust capitalists? But you trust Republicans POLITICIANS?  That's odd of you.



You are loyal to Communist China, not America.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> If I considered one or a couple of cells with some DNA to be a person I might agree with you.  In my view, human tissue is not the same as a person.  Or put another way, every person is made up of human tissue but not every human tissue is a person.


If that makes you feel better about killing inconvenient human beings.

People use all kinds of retarded horseshit to justify killing.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> If that makes you feel better about killing inconvenient human beings.
> 
> People use all kinds of retarded horseshit to justify killing.



In all fairness, adolfh1216 has his portfolio to think about.


----------



## daveman

Uncensored2008 said:


> In all fairness, adolfh1216 has his portfolio to think about.


Somebody else paid an arm and a leg -- and a liver and a brain -- for it!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daveman said:


> Somebody else paid an arm and a leg -- and a liver and a brain -- for it!



Yeah, but he got a PREMIUM for the liver..


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> We do. Liz, Mitch, Willard.
> 
> We also realize ALL fascist democrats are traitors in bed with Russia, Iran and China.
> 
> 
> 
> You are loyal to Communist China, not America.


We just gave Ukraine long range weapons that have gps. They can kill Russians and accurate within 20 feet now. Russia isn’t happy. Neither is tucker Carlson. Lol


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> We just gave Ukraine long range weapons that have gps. They can kill Russians and accurate within 20 feet now. Russia isn’t happy. Neither is tucker Carlson. Lol



We SOLD them Javelin systems AFTER Europe already had. Quid Pro is a follower, not a leader.

That damned Trump had DESTROYED the economies of the dear friends and close allies of the democrats: China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. Bought and Paid For Biden moved swiftly for his clients, destroying domestic energy production so Vlad and the boys would have cash again.

Hey, Joe and his buddy Vlad started this invasion of Ukraine in 2014, then Trump fucked it all up - but Joe stays bought and made sure Vlad could continue what they started.

Every single time Putin invaded Ukraine - Joe Biden was in the White House.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> We SOLD them Javelin systems AFTER Europe already had. Quid Pro is a follower, not a leader.
> 
> That damned Trump had DESTROYED the economies of the dear friends and close allies of the democrats: China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. Bought and Paid For Biden moved swiftly for his clients, destroying domestic energy production so Vlad and the boys would have cash again.
> 
> Hey, Joe and his buddy Vlad started this invasion of Ukraine in 2014, then Trump fucked it all up - but Joe stays bought and made sure Vlad could continue what they started.
> 
> Every single time Putin invaded Ukraine - Joe Biden was in the White House.


What a conspiracy theorist you are.  

Ukraine had old shitty russian ones that didn't have GPS.  NOW, with BIDEN's help, they will be able to pinpoint their targets within 20 feet.  Doesn't sound like Biden is Putin's pal to me.  

I didn't know Trump destroyed the economies of China.  

A recent study on U.S.-China trade concludes that Trump’s trade policies cost the U.S. economy nearly a quarter million jobs.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> So to be clear, when you say, "and we told you", you are admitting that he was clear in his intent.
> 
> So, your talk about him "not being honest" about that, that was just you being dishonest. (which moments ago, you were so bent out of shape about)
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, why? Being for Free Trade is a completely valid policy position. Why could you not have started with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you NEED to not only disagree with a person, but have this NEED to paint anyone that disagrees with you, as a BAD PERSON with ILL INTENT?



Did you know A recent study on U.S.-China trade concludes that Trump’s trade policies cost the U.S. economy nearly a quarter million jobs?


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> So to be clear, when you say, "and we told you", you are admitting that he was clear in his intent.
> 
> So, your talk about him "not being honest" about that, that was just you being dishonest. (which moments ago, you were so bent out of shape about)
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, why? Being for Free Trade is a completely valid policy position. Why could you not have started with that?
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you NEED to not only disagree with a person, but have this NEED to paint anyone that disagrees with you, as a BAD PERSON with ILL INTENT?



“a gradual scaling back of tariffs” could help stop the bleeding, while also arguing that a failure to do so would lead to even greater job losses and more sluggish growth.

But while I have long argued that Trump’s approach to trade harmed the U.S. economy more than it helped, this is mainly because these trade policies were based on obsolete ideas about how trade works and because they ignored the fundamental sources of the U.S. trade imbalances. 









						How Trump’s Tariffs Really Affected the U.S. Job Market
					






					carnegieendowment.org
				





Clearly, the Trump administration’s trade policies were not successful. American deficits with China and the rest of the world were higher than they had been in over a decade. 

U.S. trade deficits were much higher during Trump’s presidency than they had been under former president Barack Obama.

_Scaling back tariffs would likely benefit the US economy and create jobs. Even a moderate rollback in tariffs could increase economic growth and stimulate employment growth. Under our trade war de-escalation scenario, where both governments gradually scale back average tariff rates to around 12% (compared with around 19% now), the US economy produces an additional $160 billion in real GDP over the next five years and employs an additional 145,000 people by 2025. US household income would be $460 higher per household as result of increased employment and incomes as well as lower prices.

Escalating trade tensions and significant decoupling with China would hurt the US economy further and reduce employment. Our trade war escalation and decoupling scenario sees the US economy produce $1.6 trillion less in real GDP terms over the next five years and results in 732,000 fewer jobs in 2022 and 320,000 fewer jobs in 2025. In addition to a significant near-term shock to economic output, long-term effects would permanently lower GDP, reflecting lower economic productivity. By the end of 2025, US households will have lost an estimated $6,400 in real income._


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> What a conspiracy theorist you are.
> 
> Ukraine had old shitty russian ones that didn't have GPS.  NOW, with BIDEN's help, they will be able to pinpoint their targets within 20 feet.  Doesn't sound like Biden is Putin's pal to me.



What a moronic hack you are.









						France to Boost Arms Supplies to Ukraine: FM
					

France's new foreign minister Catherine Colonna said Paris is ready to boost military aid to Ukraine to help it counter Russia's invasion.




					www.thedefensepost.com
				






sealybobo said:


> I didn't know Trump destroyed the economies of China.



You're not capable of knowledge.









						Trump's trade war is hurting China but it's not solving America's biggest problems, former ambassador says
					

The president has said that a deal to end his long-running trade war with Beijing is close at hand, but has Trump succeeded in his goal of bringing China to heel?




					www.newsweek.com
				






sealybobo said:


> A recent study on U.S.-China trade concludes that Trump’s trade policies cost the U.S. economy nearly a quarter million jobs.



And cost China 10 times as many.

It's amusing how you Nazis pretend to oppose slavery, but come unglued at the idea that Apple would lose their slaves in China.

I understand, democrats fought to preserve slavery in America too. You just love enslaving others.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> What a moronic hack you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France to Boost Arms Supplies to Ukraine: FM
> 
> 
> France's new foreign minister Catherine Colonna said Paris is ready to boost military aid to Ukraine to help it counter Russia's invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedefensepost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not capable of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's trade war is hurting China but it's not solving America's biggest problems, former ambassador says
> 
> 
> The president has said that a deal to end his long-running trade war with Beijing is close at hand, but has Trump succeeded in his goal of bringing China to heel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And cost China 10 times as many.
> 
> It's amusing how you Nazis pretend to oppose slavery, but come unglued at the idea that Apple would lose their slaves in China.
> 
> I understand, democrats fought to preserve slavery in America too. You just love enslaving others.


You would lose your shit if you had to pay for a computer an American made.

You can buy an Apple Mac Pro made in the USA refurbished $7300.

Idiot.  Some things should be made in China, like shoes.

Bring back vaccinates.  Even if they cost more, we need those made here at home.  Baby formula too.  

By the way, thank you Biden  The U.S. still leads in semiconductor research, and *new U.S.-based fabrication facilities are in the works*


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You would lose your shit if you had to pay for a computer an American made.
> 
> You can buy an Apple Mac Pro made in the USA refurbished $7300.
> 
> Idiot.  Some things should be made in China, like shoes.
> 
> Bring back vaccinates.  Even if they cost more, we need those made here at home.  Baby formula too.
> 
> By the way, thank you Biden  The U.S. still leads in semiconductor research, and *new U.S.-based fabrication facilities are in the works*



As always, you have utterly no clue what you're babbling about and just try to bullshit your way through.

Virtually ALL chips are DEVELOPED in the USA. The REASON they aren't made here is the EPA.

Chips use a process called NPN that involves chemicals, and the Clinton administration betrayed the nation on behalf of China to outlaw those Chemicals, forcing fabrication of chips offshore.

However, more and more the fabrication is moving away from China and into places like Vietnam, Singapore, Cambodia, even Samoa.

As the only America made sneaker brand, New Balance is the largest brand in America





__





						MADE in USA Collection - New Balance
					

Shop the largest collection of New Balance footwear, apparel and accessories at the official New Balance online store. Free shipping on orders over $50.




					www.newbalance.com
				




Biden is a fucking idiot who doesn't know which ear to put his socks on.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> “a gradual scaling back of tariffs” could help stop the bleeding, while also arguing that a failure to do so would lead to even greater job losses and more sluggish growth.
> 
> But while I have long argued that Trump’s approach to trade harmed the U.S. economy more than it helped, this is mainly because these trade policies were based on obsolete ideas about how trade works and because they ignored the fundamental sources of the U.S. trade imbalances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Trump’s Tariffs Really Affected the U.S. Job Market
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> carnegieendowment.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, the Trump administration’s trade policies were not successful. American deficits with China and the rest of the world were higher than they had been in over a decade.
> 
> U.S. trade deficits were much higher during Trump’s presidency than they had been under former president Barack Obama.
> 
> _Scaling back tariffs would likely benefit the US economy and create jobs. Even a moderate rollback in tariffs could increase economic growth and stimulate employment growth. Under our trade war de-escalation scenario, where both governments gradually scale back average tariff rates to around 12% (compared with around 19% now), the US economy produces an additional $160 billion in real GDP over the next five years and employs an additional 145,000 people by 2025. US household income would be $460 higher per household as result of increased employment and incomes as well as lower prices.
> 
> Escalating trade tensions and significant decoupling with China would hurt the US economy further and reduce employment. Our trade war escalation and decoupling scenario sees the US economy produce $1.6 trillion less in real GDP terms over the next five years and results in 732,000 fewer jobs in 2022 and 320,000 fewer jobs in 2025. In addition to a significant near-term shock to economic output, long-term effects would permanently lower GDP, reflecting lower economic productivity. By the end of 2025, US households will have lost an estimated $6,400 in real income._




Yeah, the economists that argue that lower tariffs will lead to more jobs, are the same ones that said that Free Trade would lead to more jobs back in the 70s and 80s.

That policy has failed to deliver the results it promised.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Correll said:


> Yeah, the economists that argue that lower tariffs will lead to more jobs, are the same ones that said that Free Trade would lead to more jobs back in the 70s and 80s.
> 
> That policy has failed to deliver the results it promised.



Free trade can only exist if tariffs balance predatory actions by bad actors.

This is what Trump understood. China is cheating and destroying the American ability to manufacture even basic goods. Remember we had to beg Bidens' owner for masks, since we had zero ability to manufacture all of things we invented.

Clinton sold us out on semi-conductors, and Bush didn't do much better - essentially ending the American manufacturing sector. Trump is the ONLY president to support American workers since Reagan.


----------



## Correll

Uncensored2008 said:


> Free trade can only exist if tariffs balance predatory actions by bad actors.
> 
> This is what Trump understood. China is cheating and destroying the American ability to manufacture even basic goods. Remember we had to beg Bidens' owner for masks, since we had zero ability to manufacture all of things we invented.
> 
> Clinton sold us out on semi-conductors, and Bush didn't do much better - essentially ending the American manufacturing sector. Trump is the ONLY president to support American workers since Reagan.




There are a lot of problems with Free Trade, as it was implemented over the last 50 years. 

The short answer is, it didn't work. Time to shit can it, and play by the rules everyone else is playing by, ie Economic Nationalism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Correll said:


> There are a lot of problems with Free Trade, as it was implemented over the last 50 years.
> 
> The short answer is, it didn't work. Time to shit can it, and play by the rules everyone else is playing by, ie Economic Nationalism.



What was implemented wasn't free trade. Japan blocking American rice for instance means we don't have free trade. China blocks or heavily tariffs massive numbers of goods, including automobiles. There is nothing even remotely "free" about trade with China.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> As always, you have utterly no clue what you're babbling about and just try to bullshit your way through.
> 
> Virtually ALL chips are DEVELOPED in the USA. The REASON they aren't made here is the EPA.
> 
> Chips use a process called NPN that involves chemicals, and the Clinton administration betrayed the nation on behalf of China to outlaw those Chemicals, forcing fabrication of chips offshore.
> 
> However, more and more the fabrication is moving away from China and into places like Vietnam, Singapore, Cambodia, even Samoa.
> 
> As the only America made sneaker brand, New Balance is the largest brand in America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MADE in USA Collection - New Balance
> 
> 
> Shop the largest collection of New Balance footwear, apparel and accessories at the official New Balance online store. Free shipping on orders over $50.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newbalance.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biden is a fucking idiot who doesn't know which ear to put his socks on.


He didn't betray the nation stupid.  If it's a bad chemical, bravo President Clinton for getting those idiots to make it in China.

We should have a stock pile or something so we don't run out the next time Trump creates a global pandemic by telling people to not wear masks and come to his rallies.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> Yeah, the economists that argue that lower tariffs will lead to more jobs, are the same ones that said that Free Trade would lead to more jobs back in the 70s and 80s.
> 
> That policy has failed to deliver the results it promised.


Not true.  Yes, the USA lost a lot of good paying blue collar jobs.  But Corporations wanted that.  And your side defended it.  Too late to bring them back.  And are you going to bring them back paying what they paid when they left?  Nope.  So leave those shitty blue collar jobs in China.

It's a fact Trump's trade war with China was a failure, cost us jobs and growth.  It's why he only had 2.3% growth in 2019.  No other reason.  He just passed a huge tax break the year before.  It was supposed to give us 4, 5 maybe even 6% growth remember?  FAILURE.

And remember you guys said Obama's economy was fake because the Feds kept interest so low?  They didn't raise interest rates on Trump.  So his great success was fake too right?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> He didn't betray the nation stupid.  If it's a bad chemical, bravo President Clinton for getting those idiots to make it in China.
> 
> We should have a stock pile or something so we don't run out the next time Trump creates a global pandemic by telling people to not wear masks and come to his rallies.



He betrayed America to push Semiconductor manufacturing to China, which was bribing him. And now China clones the most sophisticated designs of Intel and Nvidia.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> What was implemented wasn't free trade. Japan blocking American rice for instance means we don't have free trade. China blocks or heavily tariffs massive numbers of goods, including automobiles. There is nothing even remotely "free" about trade with China.


You idiot!  Every country EXCEPT the USA protected their vital industries when they started trading with other countries.  Why was the USA the only one to NOT protect our manufacturing industry?  Our most important industry?  Because they were heavily unionized.  The corporations didn't like paying employees that well.  Remember in the 2000's you cheered as those high paying union jobs went overseas?  I do.


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> He betrayed America to push Semiconductor manufacturing to China, which was bribing him. And now China clones the most sophisticated designs of Intel and Nvidia.


You idiots loved it in the 2000's as jobs were fleeing the country for China and Mexico.  You loved the cheap goods.  You loved Walmart.  Where did you think Walmart was getting all their shit from?

So now you hate Walmart?


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> Not true.  Yes, the USA lost a lot of good paying blue collar jobs.



Thank you for admitting that. 



sealybobo said:


> But Corporations wanted that.



I don't think that they did. I think that they adjusted to it, and now are comfortable with working with or in the new environment. But The plan was that those jobs were always supposed to come back.



sealybobo said:


> And your side defended it.



Correct. The Free Trade Ideology, believes(ed) that short term job losses would lead to higher productivity and competitiveness. 

And were happy to go on the record making such claims and arguments. 




sealybobo said:


> Too late to bring them back.



Err, why? 




sealybobo said:


> And are you going to bring them back paying what they paid when they left?  Nope.  So leave those shitty blue collar jobs in China.
> 
> ......



I'm certainly up for that. Sounds good to me. I support policy that would lead to it. Why don't you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> You idiot!  Every country EXCEPT the USA protected their vital industries when they started trading with other countries.  Why was the USA the only one to NOT protect our manufacturing industry?  Our most important industry?  Because they were heavily unionized.  The corporations didn't like paying employees that well.  Remember in the 2000's you cheered as those high paying union jobs went overseas?  I do.



Yet you throw a tantrum because Trump moved to protect our vital interests...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yet you throw a tantrum because Trump moved to protect our vital interests...


He's an idiot who didn't know what he was doing.  And no that wasn't a good thing.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> He's an idiot who didn't know what he was doing.  And no that wasn't a good thing.




What did you think of Gephardt?


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> What did you think of Gephardt?


Back when he served?  I don't remember him actually.  

Since his retirement from politics, Gephardt has become a significant lobbyist.

He also consults for DLA Piper, FTI Consulting and Goldman Sachs[4] and is a member of the ReFormers Caucus of Issue One.

What's Issue One?

*Issue One* is an American nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that seeks to reduce the role of money in politics.[4][5] It aims to increase public awareness of what it views as problems within the present campaign finance system, and to reduce the influence of money in politics through enactment of campaign finance reform.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> If that makes you feel better about killing inconvenient human beings.
> 
> People use all kinds of retarded horseshit to justify killing.


I don't know anyone who believes that killings are NEVER justified.  I don't recall if you are one those or one who refuses to take a stand either way.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> Back when he served?  I don't remember him actually.
> 
> ....




Really?  I remember when he ran for the dem presidential nomination. He was running on a Pro-American Trade and pro-union position that sounded like if he got the dem nomination, that it would have been tempting to me. 


Cause it sounds to me like you WANT the end result of good Union manufacturing jobs, but you are so bitter that you don't  want them, if it comes from a Republican Policy(s).


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> Really?  I remember when he ran for the dem presidential nomination. He was running on a Pro-American Trade and pro-union position that sounded like if he got the dem nomination, that it would have been tempting to me.
> 
> 
> Cause it sounds to me like you WANT the end result of good Union manufacturing jobs, but you are so bitter that you don't  want them, if it comes from a Republican Policy(s).


I'll admit if he did something good.  Intentions are not enough.

*Donald Trump:* In manufacturing, "I brought back 700,000 jobs. (Obama and Biden) brought back nothing."

*PolitiFact’s ruling:* False


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> I'll admit if he did something good.  Intentions are not enough.
> 
> *Donald Trump:* In manufacturing, "I brought back 700,000 jobs. (Obama and Biden) brought back nothing."
> 
> *PolitiFact’s ruling:* False




Except you seem to be attacking him for even trying, or the very idea of it. 


That's not reasonable and conflicts with a lot of what you say.


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> I don't know anyone who believes that killings are NEVER justified.  I don't recall if you are one those or one who refuses to take a stand either way.


Hint:  Killing a human being so you can keep having casual, unprotected sex with strangers you meet in clubs is NOT justified.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> He's an idiot who didn't know what he was doing.  And no that wasn't a good thing.



It's only a good thing when other countries protect themselves. If America is protected, you melt down.

We get it, you hate America.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> I'll admit if he did something good.  Intentions are not enough.
> 
> *Donald Trump:* In manufacturing, "I brought back 700,000 jobs. (Obama and Biden) brought back nothing."
> 
> *PolitiFact’s ruling:* False



Poitifraud?

When have they ever told the truth about anything?


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> Hint:  Killing a human being so you can keep having casual, unprotected sex with strangers you meet in clubs is NOT justified.


OK, a reasonable opinion.  What about if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk?


----------



## flan327

daveman said:


> No, you feel you're morally superior to me -- despite insisting the killing of inconvenient human beings is a positive thing.


How many times have you been PREGNANT?


----------



## flan327

Uncensored2008 said:


> Poitifraud?
> 
> When have they ever told the truth about anything?


So you trust BreitFART?


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> OK, a reasonable opinion.  What about if the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk?


We've discussed that.  I'd be okay with that.

But I've also known two families who were advised to abort because they were told the mothers' life was endangered by the pregnancy.  Both refused.

Both gave birth to healthy babies, and the mothers had no ill effects.


----------



## daveman

flan327 said:


> How many times have you been PREGNANT?


Can you ever not screech like a baboon?


----------



## Uncensored2008

flan327 said:


> So you trust BreitFART?



I said nothing about the free press, but yes - I trust Breitbart.

I mean, they've never lied to me. Politifraud lies nearly every time.

Now you're a Nazi - so you want to be lied to. as long as the lies validate what the Reich says.  Politifraud lies for your Reich, so you want to listen.

Heil Soros.


----------



## alang1216

daveman said:


> We've discussed that.  I'd be okay with that.


Sorry, ADD.



daveman said:


> But I've also known two families who were advised to abort because they were told the mothers' life was endangered by the pregnancy.  Both refused.
> 
> Both gave birth to healthy babies, and the mothers had no ill effects.


I'm happy that is the case but it doesn't change the fact they chose to take that risk.  The operative word being they chose, as in the decision was left up to them.  

I guess we both agree that sometimes ending a pregnancy is justified.  I doubt we'll ever agree when those times are.


----------



## flan327

daveman said:


> We've discussed that.  I'd be okay with that.
> 
> But I've also known two families who were advised to abort because they were told the mothers' life was endangered by the pregnancy.  Both refused.
> 
> Both gave birth to healthy babies, and the mothers had no ill effects.


Two out of how many hundreds?


----------



## flan327

Uncensored2008 said:


> I said nothing about the free press, but yes - I trust Breitbart.
> 
> I mean, they've never lied to me. Politifraud lies nearly every time.
> 
> Now you're a Nazi - so you want to be lied to. as long as the lies validate what the Reich says.  Politifraud lies for your Reich, so you want to listen.
> 
> Heil Soros.


Post reported


----------



## daveman

alang1216 said:


> Sorry, ADD.
> 
> 
> I'm happy that is the case but it doesn't change the fact they chose to take that risk.  The operative word being they chose, as in the decision was left up to them.
> 
> I guess we both agree that sometimes ending a pregnancy is justified.  I doubt we'll ever agree when those times are.


I guarantee we won't.


----------



## daveman

flan327 said:


> Two out of how many hundreds?


How many hundreds of pregnant people I've known?

I haven't.  

I was speaking of people I've known.  I don't know everybody.

Clear now?


----------



## Uncensored2008

flan327 said:


> Post reported



Awww, poor little Nazi has a sadz...


----------



## Chuz Life

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't disagree with that.  My question is what would stop the GOP from making it illegal for any kind of abortions.  Point being that this argument it would be left up to the states could be temporary.  It may very well lead to a total outlaw of abortions.


That is exactly why I have a problem with Alito's (leaked draft) reasoning. He could have addressed the issue of "personhood" as Justice Potter Stewart almost did in Roe.
He COULD have sent a clear message that (per fetal homicide laws) and for other reasons based in biology, a child in the womb is a human being and if it is recognized as a person (murder victim) in one legal setting, they must also be recognized as persons in all other legal settings.

But, so far, he has not done so.
As a result, it will be kicked back to the States and eventually, yet another case will make it's way back to the SCOTUS for them to try again.
Until, one day (maybe) they will finally deal with the child's personhood and 14th Amendment rights that have (to date) been systematically denied.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Chuz Life said:


> That is exactly why I have a problem with Alito's (leaked draft) reasoning. He could have addressed the issue of "personhood" as Justice Potter Stewart almost did in Roe.
> He COULD have sent a clear message that (per fetal homicide laws) and for other reasons based in biology, a child in the womb is a human being and if it is recognized as a person (murder victim) in one legal setting, they must also be recognized as persons in all other legal settings.
> 
> But, so far, he has not done so.
> As a result, it will be kicked back to the States and eventually, yet another case will make it's way back to the SCOTUS for them to try again.
> Until, one day (maybe) they will finally deal with the child's personhood and 14th Amendment rights that have (to date) been systematically denied.



But you are treading in muddy waters.  A US Supreme Court judge cannot rule when a person is an actual human being because that's a matter of opinion and not fact.  It's been the age old argument for decades.  All the SC is there to rule on is if Wade is protected by the US Constitution which it clearly is not.  Abortion is never mentioned in the document.  But once it has no constitutional protections, to me it would seem that a right leaning Congress and White House could indeed make abortion murder across the entire land.  States rights would no longer apply since it's not constitutionally protected.  I think McConnell is absolutely correct.


----------



## Chuz Life

Ray From Cleveland said:


> But you are treading in muddy waters.  A US Supreme Court judge cannot rule when a person is an actual human being because that's a matter of opinion and not fact.  It's been the age old argument for decades.


That is incorrect.

We do in fact have laws (Fetal Homicide laws) that legally define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings" and by making it a crime of "murder" to kill one in a criminal act, they also establish "personhood" for "children in the womb."
The SCOTUS only needs to based their decision to overturn Roe on that legal precedent and make the case that it is UN-Constitutional to recognize and define "children in the womb" as Persons in one legal setting and DENY they are persons in another legal setting.


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> Only if you agree that this fetus is a child


Ward and her husband had health insurance through her employer in Texas.

*Approximate medical debt:* $80,000
*Medical issue:* childbirth

Ward is a nurse practitioner who works at a neonatal intensive care unit in Chicago. Her husband, Marcus Ward, runs a small nonprofit.

But when the couple's boys, Milo and Theo, were born 10 weeks prematurely, their lives were upended financially.

Having insurance is often not enough to protect patients when they have a major medical event. Most Americans who have medical debt had coverage.

Even with health insurance, childbirth can be very expensive. One in eight Americans who have health care debt say it was at least partially caused by pregnancy and childbirth.

Ward and her husband are also among tens of millions of Americans who end up with medical debt because their health plan didn't pay for something they believed would be covered. Such insurance issues are the most common form of billing problem cited by Americans with debt.


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> That is incorrect.
> 
> We do in fact have laws (Fetal Homicide laws) that legally define and recognize "children in the womb" as "human beings" and by making it a crime of "murder" to kill one in a criminal act, they also establish "personhood" for "children in the womb."
> The SCOTUS only needs to based their decision to overturn Roe on that legal precedent and make the case that it is UN-Constitutional to recognize and define "children in the womb" as Persons in one legal setting and DENY they are persons in another legal setting.


Pro lifers have been planning this for years.  Cases brought, made and won years ago all to lead up to this moment.


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> Pro lifers have been planning this for years.  Cases brought, made and won years ago all to lead up to this moment.


Those laws were passed well before Trump was ever elected and before Trump appointed/nominated his first judge. Those laws were opposed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU. All of whom had an interest in "proving" to the courts that an abortion does not kill a child. That "fetal Homicide" laws can not make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" because it's not a CHILD, etc.

And they lost.

Do you know why they lost?

It wasn't a right wing conspiracy.

It's because the biological facts prove against their denials. no matter how passionately those denials are felt.


----------



## flan327

daveman said:


> How many hundreds of pregnant people I've known?
> 
> I haven't.
> 
> I was speaking of people I've known.  I don't know everybody.
> 
> Clear now?


No


----------



## Chuz Life

skews13 said:


> So a womans rights depends on her address?


So a child's personhood and basic human rights depends on THEIR address?


----------



## daveman

flan327 said:


> No


I really can't explain it any simpler.


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> Those laws were passed well before Trump was ever elected and before Trump appointed/nominated his first judge. Those laws were opposed by Planned Parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU. All of whom had an interest in "proving" to the courts that an abortion does not kill a child. That "fetal Homicide" laws can not make it a crime of "murder" to kill a "child in the womb" because it's not a CHILD, etc.
> 
> And they lost.
> 
> Do you know why they lost?
> 
> It wasn't a right wing conspiracy.
> 
> It's because the biological facts prove against their denials. no matter how passionately those denials are felt.


Yea because some shady Heritage Foundation judge legislated from the bench.  Yes, you guys spent YEARS setting this up.  Decades.


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> Yea because some shady Heritage Foundation judge legislated from the bench.  Yes, you guys spent YEARS setting this up.  Decades.


All you need to do is "prove the negative."

I can give you quite a bit of evidence that shows a child's life begins at and by conception. 

You simply have to prove against that evidence with something more than diversions, obstructions and denials.


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> All you need to do is "prove the negative."
> 
> I can give you quite a bit of evidence that shows a child's life begins at and by conception.
> 
> You simply have to prove against that evidence with something more than diversions, obstructions and denials.


Of course it does but life isn't that precious.  If it is to you, have the baby.  Stay out of my body.  Women are going to get abortions even if you make them illegal.  You want to put them in jail for murder?  You're fucking weird.  Is this a religious belief?  Keep your religion to yourselves.  I'm an atheist who wants to abort.

Be honest.  You don't give a FUCK about the seed in my liberal womb.  Don't even pretend.


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> Of course it does but life isn't that precious.  If it is to you, have the baby.  Stay out of my body.  Women are going to get abortions even if you make them illegal.  You want to put them in jail for murder?  You're fucking weird.  Is this a religious belief?  Keep your religion to yourselves.  I'm an atheist who wants to abort.
> 
> Be honest.  You don't give a FUCK about the seed in my liberal womb.  Don't even pretend.



This is me being honest. 

"My views and what I give a FUCK about doesn't have a fucking thing to do with YOU or any other woman or the "seeds" that they carry."

"Life is NOT sacred to me."

Why don't you for fucking once ask someone what their fucking views are instead of trying to TELL them what their views are? 

Then, try actually taking their answers into some level of fucking consideration?


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> This is me being honest.
> 
> "My views and what I give a FUCK about doesn't have a fucking thing to do with YOU or any other woman or the "seeds" that they carry."
> 
> "Life is NOT sacred to me."
> 
> Why don't you for fucking once ask someone what their fucking views are instead of trying to TELL them what their views are?
> 
> Then, try actually taking their answers into some level of fucking consideration?


All you had to do was hit the agree button.  Or give me a thumbs up if you agree.


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> This is me being honest.
> 
> "My views and what I give a FUCK about doesn't have a fucking thing to do with YOU or any other woman or the "seeds" that they carry."
> 
> "Life is NOT sacred to me."
> 
> Why don't you for fucking once ask someone what their fucking views are instead of trying to TELL them what their views are?
> 
> Then, try actually taking their answers into some level of fucking consideration?



Well if that's how you feel all this 

"I can give you quite a bit of evidence that shows a child's life begins at and by conception." 

is irrelevant right?  Then why are you arguing for the pro lifers if you don't give a fuck and you understand life is not that sacred to us? 

Sounds like you should be arguing with your fellow Republicans and let them know you agree with us on this one.


----------



## sealybobo

Chuz Life said:


> This is me being honest.
> 
> "My views and what I give a FUCK about doesn't have a fucking thing to do with YOU or any other woman or the "seeds" that they carry."
> 
> "Life is NOT sacred to me."
> 
> Why don't you for fucking once ask someone what their fucking views are instead of trying to TELL them what their views are?
> 
> Then, try actually taking their answers into some level of fucking consideration?







Thanks for being honest


----------



## Chuz Life

sealybobo said:


> All you had to do was hit the agree button.  Or give me a thumbs up if you agree.


You accused me of coming from a religious perspective and I don't give a flying fuck about religious arguments in an abortion debate. 

So go fuck yourself.

I am fucking done responding to personal attacks and mischaracterizations.


----------



## Leweman

Yeah.  Really.


----------



## sealybobo

Leweman said:


> Yeah.  Really.


I give up. Lol. Looks like abortions at home will be how it gets done in the future


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> Yes, if the court strikes down Rowe, you will still be able to get an abortion in the US.  And do to the court's reasoning, states rights, congress in the future would not be able to create a law to make abortion illegal nationally.
> 
> There are 26 states that will almost surely ban abortions and several more will enact new abortion laws.  Almost all of these states will allow abortions in the case where the mother's life would be in danger, or pregnancy due to rape or incest.  Some of these 26 states will also allow abortions in the first 15 weeks and most of the rest will restrict abortion to the first 6 weeks.  A couple of states will make no exceptions at least as the law stands now.
> 
> If you're not able to qualify in these states you will have to travel.  However that may not be that bad because 17 of these 26 states border states where abortion will be available on demand.  In most of these states and at a the national level, organizations are working to ease the travel problem.
> 
> Although the number of abortions will go down if Rowe is struct down, I expect the number is going to be a lot less that pro-lifers expect.


Don't be so sure

“It’s never been about state’s rights,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on abortion law. “The movement, from its inception, was about fetal personhood, which means that the movement thinks that all abortions are human rights violations.”

In March, Missouri state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) introduced the first bill in the country making it illegal for state residents to leave to get an abortion or for anyone to help them. “If you believe as I do that every person deserves dignity and respect and protection whether they’re born or unborn, then of course you want to protect your citizens, no matter where they are,” Coleman told Politico in March.

“If a state declares that a fetus is a living person, it follows, legally, that a person having an out-of-state abortion harmed a person conceived in-state,” they write. “Charges could be brought against the person obtaining the abortion, the person or persons performing the abortion or anyone who aided and abetted it.”










						The Coming Post-Roe Court Fights Might Threaten The Right To Travel
					

Abortion opponents will try to restrict travel as state border crossing becomes necessary to obtain a legal abortion.




					www.huffpost.com
				




You guys don't realize we're playing checkers and Republicans are playing chess.  3 moves ahead of us.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo

Flopper said:


> Yes, if the court strikes down Rowe, you will still be able to get an abortion in the US.  And do to the court's reasoning, states rights, congress in the future would not be able to create a law to make abortion illegal nationally.
> 
> There are 26 states that will almost surely ban abortions and several more will enact new abortion laws.  Almost all of these states will allow abortions in the case where the mother's life would be in danger, or pregnancy due to rape or incest.  Some of these 26 states will also allow abortions in the first 15 weeks and most of the rest will restrict abortion to the first 6 weeks.  A couple of states will make no exceptions at least as the law stands now.
> 
> If you're not able to qualify in these states you will have to travel.  However that may not be that bad because 17 of these 26 states border states where abortion will be available on demand.  In most of these states and at a the national level, organizations are working to ease the travel problem.
> 
> Although the number of abortions will go down if Rowe is struct down, I expect the number is going to be a lot less that pro-lifers expect.



Look what happened in RED Kansas last night.  Republicans are lying if they say they aren't worried about the upcoming elections in November.  When very red Kansas votes to keep abortion safe and legal, imagine women in the swing states.


----------



## Rigby5

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right. What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way? So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?



You have this backwards.
The Constitution clear states in the 9th and 10th amendments, that anything not specifically delegated to the federal government, is by default under state or local jurisdiction.

And by the way, only people have rights.
States have delegated authority or jurisdiction, not rights.

{...
Ninth Amendment​Main article: Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution


> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[95]


The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an explicit and exhaustive list of individual rights. It was rarely mentioned in Supreme Court decisions before the second half of the 20th century, when it was cited by several of the justices in _Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965). The Court in that case voided a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives as an infringement of the right of marital privacy.[118] This right was, in turn, the foundation upon which the Supreme Court built decisions in several landmark cases, including, _Roe v. Wade_ (1973), which overturned a Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion, and _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_ (1992), which invalidated a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion.

Tenth Amendment​Main article: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[95]


The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principles of separation of powers and federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government nor explicitly forbidden to the states.[119]


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Uncensored2008 said:


> For the same reason that even a leftist super-majority under Obama never passed a law federalizing abortion,


Obama never had a super majority in the Senate.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Look what happened in RED Kansas last night.


Ths exercise of the democratic process brought to you by the USSC in _Dobbs_


sealybobo said:


> Republicans are lying if they say they aren't worried about the upcoming elections in November


Do tell.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> Ths exercise of the democratic process brought to you by the USSC in _Dobbs_
> 
> Do tell.


I'm just saying a lot of women are going to vote Democratic because of abortion.

And truth be told.  Republicans won't fix inflation.  The feds are already on that.  So if we kept Democrats in power, the economy would keep adding jobs, inflation would get fixed over time no matter what and we won't elect a bunch of election deniers who defend a guy who'd steal an election.

Did the Nazi's run again after WW2?  It's like the Nazi's were defeated in 2020 but they are running again.  I think Hitler went to jail for a little bit too after he started a riot.  Beer Hall Putch.  Much like the riot Republicans started in 2000.  Brooks Brother Riots.  Roger Stone was involved.  Fast forward 20 years, Roger Stone was involved in trying once again to steal our democracy.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> I'm just saying a lot of women are going to vote Democratic because of abortion.


Tell us:  how do Republicans feel about their chances in the 2022 election, and what does abortion have to do with that feeling?


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> Tell us:  how do Republicans feel about their chances in the 2022 election, and what does abortion have to do with that feeling?


Republicans can't feel good about their chances.  No question abortion will be a key issue.  And after the next two years of bad behavior, Republicans will lose the House and/or Senate in 2024 or 2026 for sure.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Republicans can't feel good about their chances.


Do they feel better about their chances than the Democrats?


----------



## Batcat

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So something crossed my mind today:  Let's assume the leak is genuine and next month Roe vs Wade is gone.  Now (as everybody says) abortion will be left up to the states.  Liberal states of course will keep abortion, conservative states make it illegal, and swing states may have abortion up to X amount of weeks.  Fine.
> 
> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now?  Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions?   And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?
> 
> I can't see the court ruling that abortion be exclusively a states right.  What part of the Constitution would allow them to rule that way?  So the question is, could this decision actually lead to outlawing abortions on a national level?


If the Feds make abortion illegal everywhere there will be abortion sanctuary states.


----------



## task0778

Ray From Cleveland said:


> My question is what happens if the country swings hard right on the federal level as in what is being setup now? Could our federal legislatures make it illegal for the entire country to have any kind of abortions? And if so, would the GOP risk losing leadership for decades down the road?



First of all, I didn't go through all 24 pages of posts to make sure I'm not contradicting myself, but in any case we still have a democratic president who absolutely will veto any legislation that makes all abortions illegal.  And while the GOP may take the House and the Senate today, they are very unlikely to do so with enough votes to overturn a presidential veto.  And in fact I don't think they will have enough votes to pass such legislation in the Senate anyway;  they would have to have 60 votes, and I seriously doubt they could get all of their own senators to vote for that, let alone any democrats.  IOW, it ain't happening for at least 2 more years.

Now - it could be that the GOP will take back the White House with a repub prez in 2024, or at some later time.  But even so, it's hard to see them getting 60 votes to pass that legislation, cuz they ain't going to get any democrats to vote for that.  I'm just not seeing it, such legislation would be political suicide or close to it for a lot of repubs even though the Evangelical Right really want it.  So, it may technically be possible, but IMHO highly unlikely.  Would the GOP do it anyway?  Somebody will introduce a bill to do that, but I doubt it'll go anywhere.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> Do they feel better about their chances than the Democrats?


I'm hearing Democrats did pretty good last night.  I told you abortion was your downfall.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> I'm hearing Democrats did pretty good last night.  I told you abortion was your downfall.


I say we need more abortions,, no need to let the useless eaters make more useless eaters,,


----------



## sealybobo

progressive hunter said:


> I say we need more abortions,, no need to let the useless eaters make more useless eaters,,


I think most normal Republicans would agree with you and I on that.  But your party caters to the religious right now.


----------



## progressive hunter

sealybobo said:


> I think most normal Republicans would agree with you and I on that.  But your party caters to the religious right now.


I didnt know there was an anarchist party,,,

who gives a fuck what the religious right wants,, they want to help the poor and let them procreate and cause more problems,, the useless poor  need to be taken out of society before they drag the rest of us down with more useless eaters,,

 its time to talk about forced abortions and child limits on the poor and prison for those that refuse to work,,,
enough of this play nice bullshit,,,


----------

