What Does the Republican Party Stand For in 2023?

[leetp]

I don't have time to explain current events to you, but it's been well-documented that there was a plan to delay the proceedings as much as possible in an effort to send competing elector slates back to the state legislatures (the majority of which are controlled by Republicans) to determine which ones to accept. That would have set off an unprecedented constitutional crisis in an attempt to disregard the will of the voters.

Again, just because it didn't work doesn't mean it was any less of a threat.

Thanks for engaging me on this (seriously).

Let's pause on the notion of delaying the proceedings and sending the electors back to the states... Just what are the mechanics of that? The electors had been decided. How does one revoke and reappoint electors at this stage? Which electors were actually in jeopardy of being changed?

This line of reasoning, if nothing else, is interesting. I was quite fascinated by Jefferson's election and how the election was sent to the house, where it ended in multiple ties between Jefferson and Burr (future murderer) and we're one boat ultimately broke and Jefferson's favor. I haven't delved much into the electoral process beyond that, and we have obviously changed up our national elections quite a bit since then. I'll do some research on my own regarding the electors, when they formally cast their votes and how they can be induced to change their votes after they've been formally cast. I'll come back with what I find out.

 

[dpic73]

Just a couple of points while I have a couple min.

You continue to reference public sentiment about abortion and consider something opposed to that as “extreme.” Again, I’m siding with the public here politically, but I also understand a pro life stance if you believe in your heart that a child become a human life at conception. I saw my kids’ beating hearts at 8 weeks old. That was my child, a living human being. 8 weeks.

I’m not going to consider someone “extreme” for wanting to prevent the indiscriminate killing of that life. That’s a matter of perspective, not extremism.

On the violence, you replied to ANTIFA but not the 2020 riots. You said these people wouldn’t be coddled and defended by dem legislators. Umm, the sitting vice president literally raised bail money for rioters and looters and other criminals in 2020. These people were defended and their actions deflected by swathes of democrats. And this wasn’t some group of 50 dudes playing combat dress up and jerking each other off. This was hundreds of thousands of criminals causing BILLIONS of dollars of damage.

When have you seen “white nationalists” cause that kind of mayhem?

I’m not a fan of trump, what the MAGA movement has become or culture wars. It’s sullied the Republican party for sure. But to pretend that the crazy is wholly one-sided is just inaccurate.

Again, it's a false equivalency. She was not the sitting VP at the time and she was raising bail for protestors, not rioters. The organic uprising that followed was in response to police killings, not a political attempt to overthrow the will of the people. Just because you have one example of someone sympathizing with the protestors, who could be any political affiliation , doesn't make it the same.

Graham Twists Facts on Harris Support for Protesters - FactCheck.org

Sen. Lindsey Graham twisted the facts about then-Sen. Kamala Harris encouraging donations to pay bail for protesters to claim “she actually bailed out rioters," including one who "went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open."

www.factcheck.org

 

[clemsontiger02]

Let's pause on the notion of delaying the proceedings and sending the electors back to the states... Just what are the mechanics of that? The electors had been decided. How does one revoke and reappoint electors at this stage? Which electors were actually in jeopardy of being changed?

Here's the gist of the plan from the 12/6/20 Chesebro memo. Plenty more information out there if you want to educate yourself further. And I'll keep stressing it: just because the plan was rejected, and ultimately would not have succeeded, does not diminish or excuse the attempt.

"I’ve mulled over how January might play out, and it seems feasible that the Trump campaign can prevent Biden from amassing 270 electoral votes on January 6, and force the Members of Congress, the media, and the American people to focus on the substantive evidence of illegal election and counting activities in the six contested states,” Chesebro wrote.

He described three essential criteria: 1) Meetings of the pro-Trump elector slates on Dec. 14 in all six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (a seventh, New Mexico, would be added later); 2) The existence of pending litigation in those states that could conceivably reverse the outcome; 3) A declaration by Pence that only he could decide which electoral votes to count on Jan. 6, 2021, when he presided over the joint session of Congress to certify the election.

 

[nytigerfan]

Vile, appalling... Yes... a threat to our Republic... No.

I'll be happy to retract that statement if someone can lay out for me just how this would have led to an effective coup and Trump continuing to hold office. Otherwise, all you are doing is allowing your party to further exploit and manipulate you. The Dem party hired a marketing firm for goodness sakes in an attempt to continue to promote a specific narrative and capitalize on Jan 6. Who does that? (Hint: someone who doesn't have our country's best interest at heart)

Read Peter Navarro’s book. He was one of trumps top people. He proudly details the Green Bay Sweep, a plan by trump and his lackeys to overturn the results of the election.

See Mike Pence saying clearly that trump pressured him to reject the results at the certification.

https://www.axios.com/2023/08/06/pence-says-trumps-lawyers-asked-him-to-reject-votes-outright

 

[leetp]

Here's the gist of the plan from the 12/6/20 Chesebro memo. Plenty more information out there if you want to educate yourself further. And I'll keep stressing it: just because the plan was rejected, and ultimately would not have succeeded, does not diminish or excuse the attempt.

"I’ve mulled over how January might play out, and it seems feasible that the Trump campaign can prevent Biden from amassing 270 electoral votes on January 6, and force the Members of Congress, the media, and the American people to focus on the substantive evidence of illegal election and counting activities in the six contested states,” Chesebro wrote.

He described three essential criteria: 1) Meetings of the pro-Trump elector slates on Dec. 14 in all six states: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin (a seventh, New Mexico, would be added later); 2) The existence of pending litigation in those states that could conceivably reverse the outcome; 3) A declaration by Pence that only he could decide which electoral votes to count on Jan. 6, 2021, when he presided over the joint session of Congress to certify the election.

Base on my first quick read, while there was indeed a plan--deplorable in it's own right--it had no chance of succeeding... particularly after Dec 14 when the pro-Trump Wisconsin electors failed to push theirs votes early (not that they even really had a chance at making them hold). Once this key date passed, the "coup" didn't have a prayer. I still contend a sober analysis of the plan will conclude it never did. And in order for our Republic to have been "threaten" on Jan 6, as contended, the plan has to be able to work.

If a bad guy holds a toy gun to a person's head, the person's life is not imperialled by the bad guys actions even if the bad guys believe the gun is real. While the act certainly warrants a response commiserate to the bad guy's intentions, there threat to life was never actually there.

Similarly, there way no way the actions Jan 6 would have changed the outcome of the election and our republic was never actually threatened. Granted, I'll continue reading through the material you and @nytigerfan provided and will amend my statement accordingly.

 

[clemsontiger02]

The logic and reason that you are displaying right now in regards to this plan should have also been used by the people in power at the time. But they disregarded the illegality and impropriety and continued to push ahead with a long-shot plan that had little to no chance of succeeding.

Even after capitol building was cleared on 1/6 and congress prepared to continue counting the electoral votes, the conspirators kept trying to grasp at straws.

Rudy Giuliani texted lawmakers and pleaded, "We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they're reconvening at eight tonight but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow — ideally until the end of tomorrow." He asked a Senator to "object to every state and kind of spread this out a little bit like a filibuster".

John Eastman emailed Pence's staff and literally asked him to violate the Electoral Count Act. "I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here."

These are just hail mary attempts to delay, delay, delay. All in a last-ditch attempt to keep one person/administration in power. We have no idea what would have happened had Mike Pence gone along with the plan. But for the umpteenth time, whether or not it would have ultimately worked does not change, diminish, or excuse the actions taken.

 

[nytigerfan]

Base on my first quick read, while there was indeed a plan--deplorable in it's own right--it had no chance of succeeding... particularly after Dec 14 when the pro-Trump Wisconsin electors failed to push theirs votes early (not that they even really had a chance at making them hold). Once this key date passed, the "coup" didn't have a prayer. I still contend a sober analysis of the plan will conclude it never did. And in order for our Republic to have been "threaten" on Jan 6, as contended, the plan has to be able to work.

If a bad guy holds a toy gun to a person's head, the person's life is not imperialled by the bad guys actions even if the bad guys believe the gun is real. While the act certainly warrants a response commiserate to the bad guy's intentions, there threat to life was never actually there.

Similarly, there way no way the actions Jan 6 would have changed the outcome of the election and our republic was never actually threatened. Granted, I'll continue reading through the material you and @nytigerfan provided and will amend my statement accordingly.

I decided one day I wanted to off my wife, so I came up with a plan to do so. I went down to the gas station, found a homeless guy, and offered him $20 to do it for me. He agreed, took the $20 and went to the liquor store, got drunk, passed out and forgot all about what I had asked him to do.

Have I committed a crime?

 

[leetp]

I decided one day I wanted to off my wife, so I came up with a plan to do so. I went down to the gas station, found a homeless guy, and offered him $20 to do it for me. He agreed, took the $20 and went to the liquor store, got drunk, passed out and forgot all about what I had asked him to do.

Have I committed a crime?

For sure...you go to prison just the same. And your plan may indeed have worked (pending some more info about your hypothetical), which makes in unlike my analogy.

 

[leetp]

The logic and reason that you are displaying right now in regards to this plan should have also been used by the people in power at the time. But they disregarded the illegality and impropriety and continued to push ahead with a long-shot plan that had little to no chance of succeeding.

Even after capitol building was cleared on 1/6 and congress prepared to continue counting the electoral votes, the conspirators kept trying to grasp at straws.

Rudy Giuliani texted lawmakers and pleaded, "We need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you. And I know they're reconvening at eight tonight but the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow — ideally until the end of tomorrow." He asked a Senator to "object to every state and kind of spread this out a little bit like a filibuster".

John Eastman emailed Pence's staff and literally asked him to violate the Electoral Count Act. "I implore you to consider one more relatively minor violation [of the ECA] and adjourn for 10 days to allow the legislatures to finish their investigations, as well as to allow a full forensic audit of the massive amount of illegal activity that has occurred here."

These are just hail mary attempts to delay, delay, delay. All in a last-ditch attempt to keep one person/administration in power. We have no idea what would have happened had Mike Pence gone along with the plan. But for the umpteenth time, whether or not it would have ultimately worked does not change, diminish, or excuse the actions taken.

Look I get it. It's disgusting. Let the hammer of justice fall upon them accordingly. Still, it was a desperate ploy that never would have worked...and as such, you cannot say our Republic was ever truly threatened.

 

[nytigerfan]

For sure...you go to prison just the same. And your plan may indeed have worked (pending some more info about your hypothetical), which makes in unlike my analogy.

No. My plan was a terrible one, doomed to failure. But I still committed a crime.

 

[dbjork6317]

Good post. 1/6 had been made into far more than what it was. Didn’t a similar number of people (maybe more?) attempt to secede from the country when they created CHAZ in Seattle a few years ago? Of course that hard left concept quickly died when it devolved into chaos and people well, died. It’s easy to find pockets of lunacy. 1/6 was a very public display of that and one that has been amplified far beyond its gravity.

This is some gold level mental gymnastics. For someone who claims to be reasonable and pretends to disdain the Trump side of the party so much, you sure don’t seem to mind too much that his supporters literally tried to overthrow the government.

This is why people like Trump can come to power. The so called “reasonable” republicans will turn a blind eye to the most egregious actions of the far right because, you know, their taxes might go up 4%.

 

[scotchtiger]

Again, it's a false equivalency. She was not the sitting VP at the time and she was raising bail for protestors, not rioters. The organic uprising that followed was in response to police killings, not a political attempt to overthrow the will of the people. Just because you have one example of someone sympathizing with the protestors, who could be any political affiliation , doesn't make it the same.

Graham Twists Facts on Harris Support for Protesters - FactCheck.org

Sen. Lindsey Graham twisted the facts about then-Sen. Kamala Harris encouraging donations to pay bail for protesters to claim “she actually bailed out rioters," including one who "went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open."

www.factcheck.org

She was a senator at the time and is now the VP. And she raised money for criminals. And swathes of democrats defended these people. You aren't generally sent to prison for peacefully protesting. You are sent to prison for committing a crime - violence, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, whatever. If you are sent to prison for a crime that you committed, you are a criminal.

And lol "any political affiliation."

What's the damage total from white nationalists? I remember that time King Street was locked down due to white nationalist violence. Oh wait, that was BLM and other left-wing nutjobs.

 

[scotchtiger]

This is some gold level mental gymnastics. For someone who claims to be reasonable and pretends to disdain the Trump side of the party so much, you sure don’t seem to mind too much that his supporters literally tried to overthrow the government.

This is why people like Trump can come to power. The so called “reasonable” republicans will turn a blind eye to the most egregious actions of the far right because, you know, their taxes might go up 4%.

Of course I mind. It's why I won't vote for him again. Just because I don't think our democracy was as close to the brink as you doesn't mean I approve of the actions.

 

[WapPride]

Pretty sad story about post-Roe in the deep south

 

[nytigerfan]

Pretty sad story about post-Roe in the deep south

View embedded media

In before @Willence replies to tell you that this girl's story doesn't matter because these cases are rare.

 

[Willence]

In before @Willence replies to tell you that this girl's story doesn't matter because these cases are rare.

Yeah, you got me. If she wanted an abortion after the rape she should be able to get one. I am against abortion in almost all cases. However, in that case, if that's what someone wants, so be it.

Not going to read the article but the idea that a clinic being 9 hours away is somehow going to a impact a life altering decision is a big load of shit. She could have found a way to get there and do what she wanted to do if that were the case. She could also give the baby up for adoption. It isn't like she has no options. If you're willing to kill a baby then what's the harm in giving it up for adoption?

One helpful hint would be maybe next time you should ask me my opinion before you decide what it is on something. Of course I know you don't miss many opportunities to demonstrate your bigoted assumptions and staggering ignorance on almost everything.

 

[WapPride]

Yeah, you got me. If she wanted an abortion after the rape she should be able to get one. I am against abortion in almost all cases. However, in that case, if that's what someone wants, so be it.

Not going to read the article but the idea that a clinic being 9 hours away is somehow going to a impact a life altering decision is a big load of shit. She could have found a way to get there and do what she wanted to do if that were the case. She could also give the baby up for adoption. It isn't like she has no options. If you're willing to kill a baby then what's the harm in giving it up for adoption?

One helpful hint would be maybe next time you should ask me my opinion before you decide what it is on something. Of course I know you don't miss many opportunities to demonstrate your bigoted assumptions and staggering ignorance on almost everything.

If you read the article this all gets addressed.

edit: A girl that young giving birth can also cause all kinds of damage to her reproductive organs per my BIL OBGYN, so adoption isn't always a great avenue when dealing with cases in children.

 

[dpic73]

She was a senator at the time and is now the VP. And she raised money for criminals. And swathes of democrats defended these people. You aren't generally sent to prison for peacefully protesting. You are sent to prison for committing a crime - violence, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, whatever. If you are sent to prison for a crime that you committed, you are a criminal.

And lol "any political affiliation."

What's the damage total from white nationalists? I remember that time King Street was locked down due to white nationalist violence. Oh wait, that was BLM and other left-wing nutjobs.

Let me know when Biden or Harris hold a rally with the Chaz hippies, BLM and Antifa singing the national anthem. Let me know when you hear any Dems screaming about their sentences.

Until then, it's still a false equivalency.

PS - not everyone that cares about blacks being murdered is a Democrat

 

[TigerGrowls]

Challenging the election results was Constitutional and legal. The entire J6 false flag was successful in stopping that challenge from occurring. The establishment is still running that false flag to this day to achieve their goals and keep Trump from returning. Trump won. The election was stolen by the establishment meaning dems and repubs.

 

[nytigerfan]

Yeah, you got me. If she wanted an abortion after the rape she should be able to get one. I am against abortion in almost all cases. However, in that case, if that's what someone wants, so be it.

Not going to read the article but the idea that a clinic being 9 hours away is somehow going to a impact a life altering decision is a big load of shit. She could have found a way to get there and do what she wanted to do if that were the case. She could also give the baby up for adoption. It isn't like she has no options. If you're willing to kill a baby then what's the harm in giving it up for adoption?

One helpful hint would be maybe next time you should ask me my opinion before you decide what it is on something. Of course I know you don't miss many opportunities to demonstrate your bigoted assumptions and staggering ignorance on almost everything.

I am not going to go back and look through all of your asinine posts (I feel like reading them makes me dumber), but I am 99.9% sure you have stated before that pregnancy as a result of rape is so rare that it should not be part of the discussion.

 

[Willence]

am not going to go back and look through all of your asinine posts (I feel like reading them makes me dumber), but I am 99.9% sure you have stated before that pregnancy as a result of rape is so rare that it should not be part of the discussion.

Well you're wrong. I have stated that once a person understands it's a human life the circumstances don't matter as much. BUT, that's a bridge too far for almost everyone so I would never seek to stop someone from doing what they want to do in that situation after they've been through something no one should ever have to endure. That would be especially true for a rising 7th grader.

Also, what I said is that let's make a deal that we're not going to do abortions in all other cases and then we can talk about that. The problem is people like you use those circumstances to try and justify the whole thing when murder is never justifiable. If you don't want to read through my history, don't put words in my mouth. I'm a lot of things, dumb is not one of them. But in your world of infantile reasoning, I suppose disagreement is substituted with thinking the other person is dumb. Going back to when I was 5, I think that's how it was for me too. Hopefully you'll grow up at some point.

If you read the article this all gets addressed.

edit: A girl that young giving birth can also cause all kinds of damage to her reproductive organs per my BIL OBGYN, so adoption isn't always a great avenue when dealing with cases in children.

I agree. So shame on people like you for not helping her and leaving her to use later as an example for pro-abortion propaganda.

 

[WapPride]

Well you're wrong. I have stated that once a person understands it's a human life the circumstances don't matter as much. BUT, that's a bridge too far for almost everyone so I would never seek to stop someone from doing what they want to do in that situation after they've been through something no one should ever have to endure. That would be especially true for a rising 7th grader.

Also, what I said is that let's make a deal that we're not going to do abortions in all other cases and then we can talk about that. The problem is people like you use those circumstances to try and justify the whole thing when murder is never justifiable. If you don't want to read through my history, don't put words in my mouth. I'm a lot of things, dumb is not one of them. But in your world of infantile reasoning, I suppose disagreement is substituted with thinking the other person is dumb. Going back to when I was 5, I think that's how it was for me too. Hopefully you'll grow up at some point.



I agree. So shame on people like you for not helping her and leaving her to use later as an example for pro-abortion propaganda.

? I suppose it's easier to hide under the guise of being "Pro-Life" because of "Christian Morals" while simultaneously supporting the death penalty, installing buoys with razors on them at the Rio Grande, and supporting policies that indirectly punish children born to the poorest in our society by cutting their school lunch assistance programs and other welfare programs.

Then again, maybe being "pro life" only applies to those who are unborn, and after that it's all fair game.

 

[Willence]

? I suppose it's easier to hide under the guise of being "Pro-Life" because of "Christian Morals" while simultaneously supporting the death penalty, installing buoys with razors on them at the Rio Grande, and supporting policies that indirectly punish children born to the poorest in our society by cutting their school lunch assistance programs and other welfare programs.

Then again, maybe being "pro life" only applies to those who are unborn, and after that it's all fair game.

Once again you assume something that is not the case. I do not support the death penalty. I never have. That being said, there is a strong biblical argument for the acceptance of the death penalty because it results from the deeds of people and their transgressions against humanity. That all lies within the purview of that which is Caesars. I just happen to feel that life is essential in all cases.

 

[DW4_2016]

Once again you assume something that is not the case. I do not support the death penalty. I never have. That being said, there is a strong biblical argument for the acceptance of the death penalty because it results from the deeds of people and their transgressions against humanity. That all lies within the purview of that which is Caesars. I just happen to feel that life is essential in all cases.

i don't support that, i just vote for guys who support it. big difference iyam. only one of those things actually matters to anyone else. you feeling superior has a grand total value of 0.00 for the rest of the world. but at least you felt better about not supporting the death penalty while voting for guys who do?

 

[Willence]

i don't support that, i just vote for guys who support it. big difference iyam. only one of those things actually matters to anyone else. you feeling superior has a grand total value of 0.00 for the rest of the world. but at least you felt better about not supporting the death penalty while voting for guys who do?

So instead I should vote for people in favor of murdering unborn babies? Really? As for abortion, we have failed to make the argument so far. And in that case, passing laws to stop it will fail. First, we must demonstrate why the cause of life is so important. I don't feel superior to other humans. That's what you tend to do. I simply argue for what I believe. In this case, I fight against murdering babies. That you view that as a choice a woman should make is not surprising. It is a very inhumane viewpoint. Perhaps that's why you feel that way.

 

[DW4_2016]

So instead I should vote for people in favor of murdering unborn babies? Really? As for abortion, we have failed to make the argument so far. And in that case, passing laws to stop it will fail. First, we must demonstrate why the cause of life is so important. I don't feel superior to other humans. That's what you tend to do. I simply argue for what I believe. In this case, I fight against murdering babies. That you view that as a choice a woman should make is not surprising. It is a very inhumane viewpoint. Perhaps that's why you feel that way.

that you view that as a choice you deserve to make is not surprising. And to think of yourself as not projecting as superior to other humans. Hilarious. After all, you're only controlling someone else's decisions about what they do with their own body. I mean, why risk the life of the mother and see her suffer and die when we don't have to? Because Willence said so. Dont worry, he's not feeling superior to you in making the decision about how your life should go or possibly end. And we all know if Willence feels good about himself that means we wont have to deal with the real shit that happens in life. You're more than happy to risk the mother, but not the fetus? Why?

there aren't only two candidates, FYI.

 

[Willence]

that you view that as a choice you deserve to make is not surprising. And to think of yourself as not projecting as superior to other humans. Hilarious. After all, you're only controlling someone else's decisions about what they do with their own body. I mean, why risk the life of the mother and see her suffer and die when we don't have to? Because Willence said so. Dont worry, he's not feeling superior to you in making the decision about how your life should go or possibly end. And we all know if Willence feels good about himself that means we wont have to deal with the real shit that happens in life. You're more than happy to risk the mother, but not the fetus? Why?

there aren't only two candidates, FYI.

This is what's so frustrating about this. You're throwing out the standard BS to try and make it sound like I favor things I do not. It's a clear sign you've lost your argument when you have to make stuff up rather than focus on what is actually stated.

So let's go line by line and then we'll see if you start to get this:

that you view that as a choice you deserve to make is not surprising. And to think of yourself as not projecting as superior to other humans.

I am not saying I deserve anything and certainly not a choice. I am saying that as long as there have been people it's been understood that murdering other people is wrong. An unborn child is a baby which means it is another human life. Almost everyone agrees we don't commit murder.

After all, you're only controlling someone else's decisions about what they do with their own body. I mean, why risk the life of the mother and see her suffer and die when we don't have to? Because Willence said so. Dont worry, he's not feeling superior to you in making the decision about how your life should go or possibly end.

Please point out to me when I said this...ever. I have NEVER been against protecting the life of the mother. I would never seek to outlaw or stop protecting the life of the mother provided that's what it really is. There are a lot who would seek to loosely define what protecting the mother means. Again, you know you have a really bad argument so the answer is to create a fake one to distract from reality. Sorry, not happening here.

Also, when there is a baby growing inside a woman, it's two bodies in one. It's no longer just her body. And I have no issue with a woman making a decision not to get pregnant. Babies come from a defined process and there are ample protections available these days. We all have access to them very readily and with great ease.

Lastly, for all my life, it's been either a Dem or a Republican winning the presidency. I'd be happy to support a viable third party candidate. Maybe you missed the thread when I openly stated I'd vote for Joe Manchin (a democrat) over either of the two projected candidates next time around. The GOP is worthless and run by a lot of bad people who care about power over what's best for our nation. The Dems are far worse. That's not a great choice at all.

 

[leetp]

No. My plan was a terrible one, doomed to failure. But I still committed a crime.

We are not in disagreement in either case. The argument this weather or not our Republic was ever in perial, not whether a crime was committed.

 

[DW4_2016]

This is what's so frustrating about this. You're throwing out the standard BS to try and make it sound like I favor things I do not. It's a clear sign you've lost your argument when you have to make stuff up rather than focus on what is actually stated.

So let's go line by line and then we'll see if you start to get this:



I am not saying I deserve anything and certainly not a choice. I am saying that as long as there have been people it's been understood that murdering other people is wrong. An unborn child is a baby which means it is another human life. Almost everyone agrees we don't commit murder.



Please point out to me when I said this...ever. I have NEVER been against protecting the life of the mother. I would never seek to outlaw or stop protecting the life of the mother provided that's what it really is. There are a lot who would seek to loosely define what protecting the mother means. Again, you know you have a really bad argument so the answer is to create a fake one to distract from reality. Sorry, not happening here.

Also, when there is a baby growing inside a woman, it's two bodies in one. It's no longer just her body. And I have no issue with a woman making a decision not to get pregnant. Babies come from a defined process and there are ample protections available these days. We all have access to them very readily and with great ease.

Lastly, for all my life, it's been either a Dem or a Republican winning the presidency. I'd be happy to support a viable third party candidate. Maybe you missed the thread when I openly stated I'd vote for Joe Manchin (a democrat) over either of the two projected candidates next time around. The GOP is worthless and run by a lot of bad people who care about power over what's best for our nation. The Dems are far worse. That's not a great choice at all.

i see you failed to understand even the most basic concept of my post and i must say i'm shocked. serious question, how long can you pretend to support something and then vote the other way on that issue? you are voting for the 'idgaf about the mother' guys and then you keep pretending you care about the mother.

 

[WapPride]

Once again you assume something that is not the case. I do not support the death penalty. I never have. That being said, there is a strong biblical argument for the acceptance of the death penalty because it results from the deeds of people and their transgressions against humanity. That all lies within the purview of that which is Caesars. I just happen to feel that life is essential in all cases.

I don't recall saying you believed those things.

There's reference in the OLD testament for the death penalty, however, it was my understanding that the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore. Or at least, people can pick and choose which parts of the old testament are worth following; see: eating shellfish, beating your spouse, and wearing different fabrics simultaneously.

 

[leetp]

i see you failed to understand even the most basic concept of my post and i must say i'm shocked. serious question, how long can you pretend to support something and then vote the other way on that issue? you are voting for the 'idgaf about the mother' guys and then you keep pretending you care about the mother.

You guys have a pretty healthy little spat going on, and I'd really like to leave you two to it .... But I can't help but be struck by the notion that there's a precious little baby that's going to have a chance at life despite this disgusting tragedy. Instead, some focus on the supposed tragedy that the little girl was not able to kill this baby in time. What a macabre debate.

 

[leetp]

Once again you assume something that is not the case. I do not support the death penalty. I never have. That being said, there is a strong biblical argument for the acceptance of the death penalty because it results from the deeds of people and their transgressions against humanity. That all lies within the purview of that which is Caesars. I just happen to feel that life is essential in all cases.

Hard to say it better. I don't support the death penalty either....at least not government-sanctioned death penalty. But I do wish the girl had a vengful Earthly father that would avenge her stolen innocence. If I were a member of his jury, I'd never convicted him. If evil can't be made to fear the Godly father, then by God you'll fear the earthly farther.

Ironic, however, that the only person we are talking about murdering is the baby.

 

[dbjork6317]

She was a senator at the time and is now the VP. And she raised money for criminals. And swathes of democrats defended these people. You aren't generally sent to prison for peacefully protesting. You are sent to prison for committing a crime - violence, destruction of property, disorderly conduct, whatever. If you are sent to prison for a crime that you committed, you are a criminal.

And lol "any political affiliation."

What's the damage total from white nationalists? I remember that time King Street was locked down due to white nationalist violence. Oh wait, that was BLM and other left-wing nutjobs.

ITT: Man who claims to not be an extreme right winger defends white nationalists.

 

[DW4_2016]

You guys have a pretty healthy little spat going on, and I'd really like to leave you two to it .... But I can't help but be struck by the notion that there's a precious little baby that's going to have a chance at life despite this disgusting tragedy. Instead, some focus on the supposed tragedy that the little girl was not able to kill this baby in time. What a macabre debate.

In time to save the mothers life? That’s the point. Nobody wants to kill a fetus. That’s never a desirable outcome. I guess I lean towards not having the autonomy over my own body at least to the point I don’t have to die due to complications related to pregnancy. I’ll never have to make that choice, but I wouldn’t want lawmakers in there to give me their opinion if I did.

 

[leetp]

In time to save the mothers life? That’s the point. Nobody wants to kill a fetus. That’s never a desirable outcome. I guess I lean towards not having the autonomy over my own body at least to the point I don’t have to die due to complications related to pregnancy. I’ll never have to make that choice, but I wouldn’t want lawmakers in there to give me their opinion if I did.

I can respect that position...but I really don't know where the notion of "in time to save a mother's life" comes from. I don't think you need a law on the books to say abortions can be formed to save a mother's life. It's a false dichotomy that we've been trapped into. If a mother's life is imperiled by the pregnancy, the doctor should absolutely have the ability to terminate the pregnancy. And you don't need an abortion clinic to do that. Any obstetrician can do that.

 

[DW4_2016]

I can respect that position...but I really don't know where the notion of "in time to save a mother's life" comes from. I don't think you need a law on the books to say abortions can be formed to save a mother's life. It's a false dichotomy that we've been trapped into. If a mother's life is imperiled by the pregnancy, the doctor should absolutely have the ability to terminate the pregnancy. And you don't need an abortion clinic to do that. Any obstetrician can do that.

They’re capable of preforming the procedure, no doubt. You’re aware that in some places in the US the healthcare provider can go to jail for that. Imagine that decision as a healthcare provider. Do I actually do no harm or do I look out for myself knowing there are tip lines the public can call to have me locked up.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Some combination of tax cuts for the wealthy, cutting “red tape,” i.e. letting corporations do as they please, and downplaying insurrection

 

[Willence]

I can respect that position...but I really don't know where the notion of "in time to save a mother's life" comes from. I don't think you need a law on the books to say abortions can be formed to save a mother's life. It's a false dichotomy that we've been trapped into. If a mother's life is imperiled by the pregnancy, the doctor should absolutely have the ability to terminate the pregnancy. And you don't need an abortion clinic to do that. Any obstetrician can do that.

Well said. Strawman arguments seem to be the order of the day. I'm sure there are some people who believe in no abortion even in that case but they are very, very few. I'm not aware of a single platform position that states as much. One need only consider that Illinois just got the smackdown put on them in court for trying to outlaw Crisis Pregnancy Centers for the sole reason that they are a threat to the abortion industry. It's just crazy that a place like that could be outlawed. The left's addiction to abortion is pretty hard to understand.

 

[scotchtiger]

ITT: Man who claims to not be an extreme right winger defends white nationalists.

You do this a lot - make up bullshit that I didn't say. I didn't defend white nationalists. They're total pieces of shit. But the magnitude of their impact on the country has been greatly over-exaggerated by the left.

 

[okclem]

You do this a lot - make up bullshit that I didn't say. I didn't defend white nationalists. They're total pieces of shit. But the magnitude of their impact on the country has been greatly over-exaggerated by the left.

No it hasn't. A 2nd Trump Presidency would mean a nazi authoritarian dictatorship.