Only if we have to pay for your outstanding college loan that you don't seem to want to pay back............you know, pound of flesh?
Corps are already spying......it's called public search data and google sells it in giant end of day data dumps.
Roe V Wade is about to be overturned
- Thread starter firegiver
- Start date
Corps are already spying......it's called public search data and google sells it in giant end of day data dumps.
wait, what? The dems are the party of gay butt seks? Strange accusation when you have:
- Lady G notoriously letting male prostitutes drill him for kicks
- Madison Cawthorn's video of him nude in bed with his male cousin while thrusting his cock into his cousin's face.
His cousin. Damn yall are some sick fvcks.
Politicians as a whole seem to be pretty f'd up. Low morals, self-serving, dishonest, bought and paid for, big egos, etc. I've lost faith in the GOP as well.
It's why I want them to have as little to do with my life or my money as possible. Small, small government.
Yes but you have to opt in for corps to track you. Now, since no one has a right to privacy, these rules change.
Human solidarity is enough for me. The notion that we shouldn't harm others without cause needs no religious justification.
mmmm "human solidarity" and "the notion that we shouldnt harm others". I think history, regardless of which texts you have read, has shown that there is no such thing as intrinsic "solidarity" when it comes to "humans". Homo Sapiens have been murdering each other since the first tribes wandered out of Africa.
as far as "the notion that we shouldnt harm others", sure as heck sounds like "thy shall not kill", which is absolutely based in "Religion".
Religion ...wait ... I'll rephrase .... Faith has never been the problem when it comes to "solidarity" ... its always and will always be the human element.
To summarize .... we suck as a species
I honestly dont know who those people are. If it has something to do with gay seks (which is your new favorite thing to talk about), I would rather not google it.
They have been murdering each since the first tribes wandered out of Africa, and they have been helping each other since the first tribes wandered out of Africa.
Yep, I'm sure the ancient Israelites were the only people to have been told not to kill. No one else in all of human history had ever come to the same conclusion. Shame that didn't seem to apply to Amalekite children.
Funny how so many religions all seem to come to roughly the same conclusions about what's right and wrong. I wonder what the common denominator could possibly be.
Because you’re either lying or you only consume media from leftist outlets who don’t cover your party’s transgressions
Which is it?
Ok libs, you said it was harmless peaceful protesting. We knew stuff like this was just a matter of time away.
Interesting dynamic here. With the SCOTUS ruling pending, Congress has been called upon to codify Roe v. Wade. So what do the dems do?
Write more aggressive abortion legislation and fail to pass it.
Joe Manchin:
"Make no mistake, it is not Roe v. Wade codification," he said of the Women's Health Protection Act. "It is an expansion. It wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion, and with that, that's not where we are today. We should not be dividing this country further than we're already divided, and it's really the politics of Congress that's dividing the country."
Moderate Republicans are working on a bill that actually codifies Roe v. Wade:
But two Republican senators who support abortion rights, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, opposed the measure because of its breadth.
Instead, the pair have introduced their own, more tailored legislation that would enshrine into federal law protections established under Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Roe's central holding and said states cannot enact restrictions that impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion before fetal viability.
But Schumer has no interest in this - even though it's generally what the country wants:
Asked last week why he is not considering the GOP senators' proposal, Schumer told reporters Democrats "are not looking to compromise on something as vital as this."
Reminder:
Resident dems - why would Schumer not consider the Collins/Murkowski bill?
Write more aggressive abortion legislation and fail to pass it.
Joe Manchin:
"Make no mistake, it is not Roe v. Wade codification," he said of the Women's Health Protection Act. "It is an expansion. It wipes 500 state laws off the books, it expands abortion, and with that, that's not where we are today. We should not be dividing this country further than we're already divided, and it's really the politics of Congress that's dividing the country."
Moderate Republicans are working on a bill that actually codifies Roe v. Wade:
But two Republican senators who support abortion rights, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, opposed the measure because of its breadth.
Instead, the pair have introduced their own, more tailored legislation that would enshrine into federal law protections established under Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed Roe's central holding and said states cannot enact restrictions that impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion before fetal viability.
But Schumer has no interest in this - even though it's generally what the country wants:
Asked last week why he is not considering the GOP senators' proposal, Schumer told reporters Democrats "are not looking to compromise on something as vital as this."
Reminder:
- Most Americans want Roe v. Wade to stand
- Most Americans want some restriction on abortion
- Public support for voluntary abortion falls quickly after 15 weeks
- The vast majority of Americans oppose late term abortion - far more than support Roe
Resident dems - why would Schumer not consider the Collins/Murkowski bill?
This is an inconvenient truth they do not want to talk about. Let them live in ignorance. Iwould absolutely love to try an experiment where all dems and pubs lived separately for ten years and see how it turned out. Dems would quickly run out of other peoples $$$ and change their tune wen they had to pay for their ideas. See SanFran right now.
If it is not specifically defined in the constitution or amendments, it is not a constitutional right. However, that is COMLETLY different than meaning it is banned by the constitution.
Please tell me you are not suggesting you think interracial marriage may be banned if Roe is overturned.?
I do not know that specific case. What I do know is that discrimination based on race is forbidden by the 14 amendment, so if you think there is any possibility interracial marriage could be banned you simply do not understand the constitution, scotus, or pretty much anything about the legal system.
To add to that, even if there were not an amendment (indirectly) protecting interracial marriage, the fact that you think any state would pass a law banning it today means you have zero grip on reality and need to seek professional psychological help yesterday.
One more Edit: if it were necessary, a specific amendment to protect interracial marriage would probably be the most one sided vote in the history of the country.
Last edited:
The 14th amendment mentions nothing about interracial marriages. That is not specifically delineated in the words as written. Maybe you actually think Alabama and Mississippi wouldn’t pass laws like that. I think they would. I don’t think it’d take long either.
Can we bet on that? $5K says no state passes a ban on interracial marriage into law.
Not a Dem, but Schumer is negotiating. Congress negotiations happen behind the scenes and in the public sphere. That comment is negotiation 101 using the media. General public gets in a tizzy over the back and forth in the media.
Schumer knows that, too. Negotiations are underway.
One of the main issues at hand is the Hyde Amendment. Dem bill overturns the Hyde Amendment, which eliminates federal funding sources for abortions. Collins/Murkowski bill maintains the Hyde Amendment. Dems wanted to narrow or eliminate the Hyde Amendment.
Both bills strengthen the law beyond the existing standing for Roe.
For example, the Collins/Murkowski legislation says a state cannot impose such an undue burden on a woman to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability but that it could restrict a woman’s ability to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy post-viability unless the pregnancy would affect the mother’s health. The legislation would allow states to enact regulations to ensure a woman seeking an abortion’s health and safety.
Here is the provision in the bill that generate frustration from the far right. The bill would remove protections for healthcare providers who oppose performing the procedure on moral or religious grounds. In addition, the current draft of the bill would be exempt from a defense raised under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, a law that created legal safeguards for religious people and entities with respect to federal rules.
I, personally, need to read more into the RFRA implications before commenting.
Separately, Republicans in DC are watching the polling on overturning Roe. There is a strong interest in not generating a record mid-term turnout for Dems over this issue, which is why the Republican interest in a bill that cuts off the forthcoming SCOTUS ruling. Most Rs in Congress never expected Roe to get overturned. For them, its been the golden goose for fundraising, which is why Rs have been litmus testing other issues in case Roe gets overturned.
Last edited:
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
California is looking at a $60B budget surplus this year. I bet all those republicans in the south are licking their chops to get some of handouts from that money.
Look, welfare boy, I would love to try that experiment also. I don't think it would go the way you think it would go.
Does any of this matter? The repubs would never let any abortion law that expands or allows abortions pass. The King of the republican party, Trump, would not allow it or else he would lose support of his base.
It is all pointless, so I don't fault Schumer for not entertaining this farce of a "republican abortion bill".
Because Schumer is such a voice of reason. He should spend a bit of time on those Alaska leases.
You might be able to get 10 republicans if it keeps abortion off the ballot in November. But the barbaric full term abortions that the left wants obviously would be off the table.
For clarity, here are the states/districts that permit late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds: Alaska, Colorado, DC, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont. Its a mix of Red, Blue and Purple states.
For example, Vermont has a R governor and D statehouse. Alaska is strongly R. New Hampshire is a moderate R state. Colorado is the classic Purple state. DC is a D district. Oregon and New Mexico are typically D states.
Hard to find specifics beyond those 2012 numbers, which clearly show dems represent the majority of welfare recipients.
Here's a 2018 income spread. Dems have 2X the population making less than $25K per year, which probably correlates pretty well to government handouts.
Do you really think that's not the case? The party of entitlements is obviously going to have more people on the government dole.
As a resident of a red state that has a high welfare population, I can tell you that the poorest counties are the ones that vote dem. The corridor of shame (along I95, named for poor education and poverty) routinely represent the majority of blue counties in this state.
I own some lower income housing, including some section 8 and others that receive housing assistance. Based on basic voting statistics, I'm going to assume our tenant mix leans hard left too.
I believe you have to extrapolate to determine the political party. No recent studies.
Welfare Statistics by Race for 2021 (Urban Institute)
43% of the people who receive welfare = White.
24% = Hispanics
23% = Black
8% = Asians and Native Americans
No surprise welfare metrics are generally aligned with population of states, poverty statistics, access to healthcare, etc.
Generally states with higher numbers of folks on Welfare are, no surprise, populous states (California, NY, Illinois) and negative revenue states (i.e. receive more federal assistance that federal revenue generated): Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maine, etc.
Complete random facts from Urban Institute
Welfare statistics show that 47% of Medicaid recipients in the US who are older than 18 work in the agricultural industry. Only 14% of the recipients are employed in the manufacturing industry.
Roughly 20% of the US population is part of the Medicaid program that either covers medical care entirely or helps people get it at a lower cost.
Hard to find specifics beyond those 2012 numbers, which clearly show dems represent the majority of welfare recipients.
Here's a 2018 income spread. Dems have 2X the population making less than $25K per year, which probably correlates pretty well to government handouts.
Do you really think that's not the case? The party of entitlements is obviously going to have more people on the government dole.
As a resident of a red state that has a high welfare population, I can tell you that the poorest counties are the ones that vote dem. The corridor of shame (along I95, named for poor education and poverty) routinely represent the majority of blue counties in this state.
I own some lower income housing, including some section 8 and others that receive housing assistance. Based on basic voting statistics, I'm going to assume our tenant mix leans hard left too.
I am not denying that more dems probably receive welfare than republicans, that is probably true. But, I don't think the gap is as large as you think. Hell, all we hear from white MAGA republicans is how they have been left behind and that is why Trump is their savior. I am willing to bet the gap has gotten smaller since 2012.
Plus, there is more than just welfare. When you talk about "entitlements" you have to look at medicaid, medicare, coal miner bailouts, farmer bailouts, Stimulus checks, etc.
Yea, many kinds. Everyone gets SS and Medicare, so that's moot (although we should raise eligibility age). I'm mainly talking about food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid and TANF for able-bodied and able-minded people. Happy to take care of the kids, handicapped, etc.
And you are correct that Trump recruited more bitter, less affluent people to the party. That was/is a key demo for dems. "Tax the rich!!!!!!" But I'm guessing the demo that made their way over skews much more middle class and less government dependent.
I am guessing that "tax the rich" will still be more effective than the republicans' new battle cry: "tax the poor!"
But like I said in another thread...
Banning contraceptives.
Banning abortions.
Cancelling social programs like food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid and TANF.
That is a recipe for success in the welfare states. I can't imagine what those law enforcement budgets are going to look like.
Maybe is @CUT93 gets his wish and the republicans secede, then I won't end up paying for all of that shit like I do today.
As mentioned above, you need to seek mental health counseling immediately. You have either completely lost touch with reality or are one of the biggest racists on earth and you are letting that view blind you to the world we currently live in. Either way, I am truly sorry for you. No joke.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Florida State defensive depth chart projection: Post-spring portal window
- Latest: OrangeBandit
