Harris to end filibuster to support abortion

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That's not relevant to what you do or don't do. You're bad acting is bad. It's just bullshit.

"Baby killers!"

Riiight... baby killers. that's why you sit there and get fat and shout into the void, while people just kill babies all around you.

Sure.

103,234 post. How fat are you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

103,234 post. How fat are you?

Oh boy. Poor little guy wants some attention.

 

[Cellblock2429]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

/—-/ Mocking Commie Harris is a national past.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Oh look, another guy who can't pass 10th grade civics.

Your civics teacher should be fired.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Oh boy. Poor little guy wants some attention.

Shut it fatty.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It would seem democrats have a political strategy, whereas magaturds are content yelling at immigrants. I don't think it's a sound platform, but we shall see.

Yes. Democrats have been using RvW as a a political strategy to dupe the useful idiots for decades.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/—-/ Mocking Commie Harris is a national past.

And mocking the fat orange rapist is a global passttime.

Who can forget when the world's leaders all laughed at him?

 

[otto105]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

100% support.


Next

 

[M14 Shooter]

Feel free to quote McConnell on that. He is what he said

Re: Scalia/Garland:
"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," they conclude. "It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

Then and now: What McConnell, others said about Merrick Garland in 2016 vs. after Ginsburg's death

What Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham have said about Supreme Court vacancies since 2016.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Re: Scalia/Garland:
"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," they conclude. "It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."

Then and now: What McConnell, others said about Merrick Garland in 2016 vs. after Ginsburg's death

What Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham have said about Supreme Court vacancies since 2016.

www.usatoday.com

And of course that was all bullshit.

 

[Cellblock2429]

And mocking the fat orange rapist is a global passttime.

Who can forget when the world's leaders all laughed at him?

/—-/ They laughed at Trump because he always stopped to talk to the press. Something, those arrogant elites would never do.
When he told those clowns pay your NATO obligations or Putin will roll over you and the US won’t help. They stopped laughing real quick.
You moron.

 

[jc456]

And most candidates aren't running in an environment where a constitutionally protected right was just deleted for half the country.

Coincidence? No.

What half got hurt?

 

[jc456]

Oh look, another guy who can't pass 10th grade civics.

It wasn’t

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They laughed at Trump because he always stopped to talk to the press. Something, those arrogant elites would never do.

The world leaders? Oh, no, they laughed at the grandiose claims Trump made. That laughed at him, because he is not a person to be taken seriously.

His elite ability to ruin anything he touches, however, is taken seriously.

 

[BackAgain]

100% wrong, of course. A constituionally protected, unenumerated right is precisely what the SCOTUS says it is.

Sure pee wee. Sure.

And abortion up to 20 weeks was precisely that. For almost 50 years.

It’s a state issue now. And lots of states are approving the alleged “right” of a pregnant woman to destroy the life within her uterus.

There is no debate there.

Yes. There is. See above.

If this question were on a 10th grade civics quiz, you would fail the quiz.

Nah. Only if you were the alleged “educator” marking the exam.

 

[Invisibleflash]

This right here is why I cannot support Kamala Harris. She wants to end the filibuster so the democrats can pass abortion rights with 51 votes. It's only for abortion she says, but any idiot knows that once you abolish the filibuster for a specific reason it ends up being permanent for everything. And once that happens, there will be no more compromise or cooperation in the Senate and bipartisanship goes right down the drain.

Harris backs ditching filibuster to pass nationwide abortion protections, angering Manchin in the process

Vice President Kamala Harris declared Tuesday that she supported changing Senate filibuster rules to allow a simple majority vote to codify the nationwide right for women to obtain an abortion.

www.yahoo.com

The democrats came close to doing just that back in 2021 when they tried to abolish the filibuster but Manchin and Sinema wouldn't go along. One of these days, they're going to get it done and that's when we start down the road to a one-party rule gov't. If you think gridlock is bad, wait until you get one-party rule.

America is over. Seccession or lose all 50 states to the commies.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

It’s a state issue now. And lots of states are approving the alleged “right” of a pregnant woman to destroy the life within her uterus.

Do you think the blatant misogyny will win over women voters?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Which is obviously both not what I meant and utterly false.

Because we have indeed already passed abortion regulation via commerce clause, and yet the slippery slope fantasy you invented has not and is not happening.



Because you want peope to be able to ban it.

I know.

Please spare me the bad acting that you are saying it on any other principle. The con doesn't fool anyone, anymore.

Because we have indeed already passed abortion regulation via commerce clause,

sure, some of the regulation to abortion was passed through the commerce clause. What else could we pass, or change based on the regulation clause??

Because you want peope to be able to ban it.

No, if you look at my comments on the subject, you’d find that I have a very different opinion on it. While i personally don’t think abortion is right, I do recognize the need in certain situations, but at the end of the day, I really don’t care what a woman does with her body, however, we still have a cotus, and abortion is simply not a federal issue.

Also, as we have seen, it doesn’t appear Dobbs has slowed down abortion one bit, and many states are passing their own abortion laws, some are even trying to enshrine it in their constitutions, which is how it is supposed to work.

Let’s put it like this, would you rather have abortion laws set at the federal level, where one administration to the next could change those laws, make it legal or make it not legal, across the entire nation, or have state laws, where, in many states, the laws would never change, and the people had a direct influence in what their own state laws would say on the matter?

 

[BlindBoo]

Your cowardly refusal to admit your mistake is noted. Not unexpected, however.

Bahaha Thanks for another phony touchdown celebration.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you think the blatant misogyny will win over women voters?

It is clear that you remain far too stupid and ignorant and dishonest to discuss the topic, you asshole.

Nothing I posted there was even in the slightest bit misogynistic.

Damn, Fumblin’ Dickweed. You really are a colossal waste of protoplasm.