Massive Debate Backlash for ABC and Kamala

[rightwinger]

Keeping a pig as a pet is a pretty big deal in the south west. They're actually more intelligent than dogs. Maybe that's why pork prices have gone up almost 45% in 60 days.

You watch too much Green Acres

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's a FACT.

It's a fact at least according to former governor Northram.

 

[Rawley]

All he said was it's an issue for the States, which it is. The feds have zero authority on abortion.

.

I wouldn't go that far. The holding was that abortion is not a constitutional right. Lots of things are not constitutional rights, but Congress can pass laws about them

 

[rightwinger]

Kamala bald face lied again and again and again about what Trump said, has done, proposed, etc. as well as about her own positions on things and the moderators knew it. But they were in bed with her from the beginning and that quickly became glaringly apparent to ANYBODY who is capable of intellectual honesty.

Kamala took some Trump comments out of context

Trump just outright lied

What Trump said that was not challenged

Democrats were behind his shooting
Harris is a Marxist

 

[rightwinger]

That's all he needed. And there was more detail than your lie indicated.

.

Do you guys have any idea how many Vice Presidents have gone on to run for President?
Dozens

They may keep some of the old agenda and add their own plans

Do you know how stupid it sounds to say a Vice President is not allowed to change things?

 

[OKTexas]

I wouldn't go that far. The holding was that abortion is not a constitutional right. Lots of things are not constitutional rights, but Congress can pass laws about them

Congress has no more constitutional authority to create a right out of thin air than SCOTUS had. Is that really that hard a concept that you can't understand it.

.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

It's a fact at least according to former governor Northram.

And Obama

 

[OKTexas]

Do you guys have any idea how many Vice Presidents have gone on to run for President?
Dozens

They may keep some of the old agenda and add their own plans

Do you know how stupid it sounds to say a Vice President is not allowed to change things?

Like Bernie said, she's running away from her previous positions to try to get votes, not because those positions have changed.. In other words, he said she's lying her ass off to get votes, he called it being pragmatic. The bitch is a fraud, trying to sell lies.

.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You are and I did.

.

It isn't massive?

 

[Foxfyre]

Kamala took some Trump comments out of context

Trump just outright lied

What Trump said that was not challenged

Democrats were behind his shooting
Harris is a Marxist

What he said word for word within the context of a whole concept of personal attacks on him: "I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things they say about me." So in stating it the way you did, you are lying.

He did say Harris (and her father) is a Marxist. So do I. So do everybody who understand the neoMarxism that is doing its damndest to take control of this country. That wasn't a lie either. It was a heartfelt and realistic personal opinion.

Deliberately taking things out of context to make it look like a person said something he never said or intended within context is a deliberate lie and Kamala did that numerous times during that debate.

The moderators interjected themselves to accuse Trump of lying five times by some counts, six times by others. They corrected Kamala zero times even though they knew what she was saying was a bald faced lie.

 

[rightwinger]

What he said word for word within the context of a whole concept of personal attacks on him: "I probably took a bullet to the head because of the things they say about me." So in stating it the way you did, you are lying.

There is no information supporting that claim

Trump was shot at because he was a celebrity
Biden was also a potential target

 

[rightwinger]

He did say Harris (and her father) is a Marxist. So do I. So do everybody who understand the neoMarxism that is doing its damndest to take control of this country.

Then that shows that both you and Trump are stupid when it comes to what a Marxist is

Trump making an unsubstantiated claim like that is beneath someone running for President

 

[Foxfyre]

Then that shows that both you and Trump are stupid when it comes to what a Marxist is

I teach it as history. Your credentials?

Show me one economic concept Kamala has come up with that is not grounded in Marxism other than the ideas she stole from Trump and were not brought up in the debate other than by him.

Kamala Harris' Father Was a 'Marxist Economist'?

"His research focused on economic inequality," one person claimed.

www.snopes.com

 

[Crepitus]

So you watched a 16 minute video in less than a minute. Damn son, you're good. ROFLMFAO

.

Looked at both the poster and the source and decided it was bullshit based on the history of each.

Doesn't take long.

 

[OKTexas]

Looked at both the poster and the source and decided it was bullshit based on the history of each.

Doesn't take long.

Thanks, you just admitted you make decisions with zero knowledge of the content. You're the second commie to admit that, and both of you commented less than two minutes of the 16 minute video being posted, good job commie. Your willful ignorance is on full display. LMAO

.

 

[konradv]

This isn't quite working out the way they hoped

#MAGALIES

 

[Rawley]

Congress has no more constitutional authority to create a right out of thin air than SCOTUS had.

Really? Your right to drill in Anwar. Right to charter schools. Right to have your daughter play on a sports team without boys. Right to a tax cut. ....

Is that really that hard a concept that you can't understand it.

In case you missed it, we're on the same side.

 

[OKTexas]

Really? Your right to drill in Anwar. Right to charter schools. Right to have your daughter play on a sports team without boys. Right to a tax cut. ....

In case you missed it, we're on the same side.

Yeah, really.

At least read the decision: From page 85 of the PDF.

Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges. As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history. See supra, at 8–39.It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.”
<<snip>>

That respect for a legislature’s judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 365–368 (2001) (“treatment of the disabled”); Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 728 (“assisted suicide”); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 32–35, 55 (1973) (“financing public education”).A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993). It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Also if you're familiar with the language of the Constitution, State "legislatures" are never used synonymously with "congress".

.

 

[Independent thinker]

This isn't quite working out the way they hoped

Yes it is and right wing commentators aren't going to change that. They're only talking to the people who already agree with them. There is no massive debate backlash. That is only in your head.

 

[Rawley]

Yeah, really.

At least read the decision: From page 85 of the PDF.

Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges. As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history. See supra, at 8–39.It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.”
<<snip>>

That respect for a legislature’s judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. See, e.g., Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 365–368 (2001) (“treatment of the disabled”); Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 728 (“assisted suicide”); San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 32–35, 55 (1973) (“financing public education”).A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993). It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Also if you're familiar with the language of the Constitution, State "legislatures" are never used synonymously with "congress".

.

That is the argument. This is the holding:

"We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled"

Nothing in the opinion says that Congress cannot regulate abortions.