27 Jun 22
@Mott-The-Hoople
We all know exactly what this is about. This is only the opening round with the agenda to end abortion for ANY reason, along with privacy rights, gay rights, same sex marriage, and no doubt there will be a push to make fetus's have person rights so they can be used as a weapon by the religious right to force women to have babies they don't want and maybe can't even care for because of their life situation, none of that matters to the zombies, rape, incest, no matter, the fetus is worth a thousand times more than ANY woman to the religious right and nothing will change that except dems coming out in many millions to stop this rise of religion controlling people's lives.
27 Jun 22
@mott-the-hoople saidTrafalgar and Rasmussen polls LMAO.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/the-democrats-lies-on-abortion-since-scotus-overruling-of-roe-v-wade/
Both are Republican hack firms which invariably come up with results favorable to that parties positions and candidates. One uses outmoded methods relying on land lines and the other has a secret formula supposedly accounting for "shy" right wing voters (shyness hardly seems a trait of right wingers).
Moreover, one can be a Catholic, adhere to Church teachings yet still prefer that those teachings not be enforced on others by use of the State's penal laws. The RCC hasn't supported a theocratic form of government for a long time.
There's the incoherent reasoning the Court used and there's it agenda. No one should take seriously the claims of future restraint the majority made given the radicalism of the interpretative method they used i.e. that the limits of our rights were decided by 19th Century State legislatures.
27 Jun 22
@sonhouse saidyou are lying
@Mott-The-Hoople
We all know exactly what this is about. This is only the opening round with the agenda to end abortion for ANY reason, along with privacy rights, gay rights, same sex marriage, and no doubt there will be a push to make fetus's have person rights so they can be used as a weapon by the religious right to force women to have babies they don't want and maybe ca ...[text shortened]... at except dems coming out in many millions to stop this rise of religion controlling people's lives.
27 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidyou cant rebut the article, all you can do is try to devalue the polls? how cute.
Trafalgar and Rasmussen polls LMAO.
Both are Republican hack firms which invariably come up with results favorable to that parties positions and candidates. One uses outmoded methods relying on land lines and the other has a secret formula supposedly accounting for "shy" right wing voters (shyness hardly seems a trait of right wingers).
Moreover, one can be a Cathol ...[text shortened]... ethod they used i.e. that the limits of our rights were decided by 19th Century State legislatures.
27 Jun 22
@mott-the-hoople saidPart of the article was based on those two firms polls; did you even read the article or just like the headline?
you cant rebut the article, all you can do is try to devalue the polls? how cute.
The polls quoted in the article are far out of step from other polls done by more reliable pollsters.
@mott-the-hoople saidDemocrats aren't the ones lying, Spanky.
https://nypost.com/2022/06/26/the-democrats-lies-on-abortion-since-scotus-overruling-of-roe-v-wade/
https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/26/roe-v-wade-conservative-justice-perjury/
29 Jun 22
@suzianne saidYes, they are.
Democrats aren't the ones lying, Spanky.
https://news.northeastern.edu/2022/06/26/roe-v-wade-conservative-justice-perjury/
https://rumble.com/v1a9ip5-obama-and-biden-lied-about-codifying-roe-v-wade.html
Do you know why the corporate news media stays silent about this?
Because people would blame the right people and it would diminish partisan bias.
They want you to be mad at the other party. Divide and conquer.
29 Jun 22
@Mott-The-Hoople
Kiss my ass you POS traitor
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html
29 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidYou are saying Rasmussen is not credible? Surely you do not mean that. I think they were #1 in accuracy in 2016
Trafalgar and Rasmussen polls LMAO.
Both are Republican hack firms which invariably come up with results favorable to that parties positions and candidates. One uses outmoded methods relying on land lines and the other has a secret formula supposedly accounting for "shy" right wing voters (shyness hardly seems a trait of right wingers).
Moreover, one can be a Cathol ...[text shortened]... ethod they used i.e. that the limits of our rights were decided by 19th Century State legislatures.
So, here is a lib who wants to use only pollsters who are agreeable to his point of view. AND< I think I saw a while back that this lib, because SCOTUS did not make a ruling favorable to his sensitivities, wants to put more judges on the court.
Would I lie?
29 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidIn 2020, they said the Presidential election was tied though Biden won by 7 million votes or 4.5%.
You are saying Rasmussen is not credible? Surely you do not mean that. I think they were #1 in accuracy in 2016
So, here is a lib who wants to use only pollsters who are agreeable to his point of view. AND< I think I saw a while back that this lib, because SCOTUS did not make a ruling favorable to his sensitivities, wants to put more judges on the court.
Would I lie?
In 2018, they said Republicans would win the midterms by 1 percentage point. They lost by 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#:~:text=After%20the%202010%20midterm%20elections,points%20according%20to%20Silver's%20model.
Any time you look at aggregate of polls (except sometimes right near elections when Rassmussen tends to suddenly "herd"😉, this pollster's results are far more favorable to right wing candidates and causes than more reputable pollsters.
They're junk and should be disregarded.
Yes, I think there should be more justices on the court. The ones there are doing a crappy job protecting our rights.
29 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidlist one right they havent protected…but we know you cant dont we?
In 2020, they said the Presidential election was tied though Biden won by 7 million votes or 4.5%.
In 2018, they said Republicans would win the midterms by 1 percentage point. They lost by 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#:~:text=After%20the%202010%20midterm%20elections,points%20according%20to%20Silver's%20model.
Any time you look at aggregate of p ...[text shortened]... e should be more justices on the court. The ones there are doing a crappy job protecting our rights.
29 Jun 22
@mott-the-hoople saidThe right to bodily autonomy.
list one right they havent protected…but we know you cant dont we?
29 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saiddirect me to that one, I cant find it
The right to bodily autonomy.
but, does that apply to certain people only? those outside the womb only?
29 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidDo you not think their ruling was proper, given that they consider constitutional matters, and the constitution does not mention abortion? Do you enjoy being a confused tight ass...The Contrarian of all time.? The ruling was carefully decided. Period. Yes,I’m sure that if they had listened to you, they would have made an exception for Marauder. I am AMAZED that anyone thinks that more judges would affect decisions made based on law, and facts presented to them. Unless, of course, you think that they should rule based upon poster-carrying ragers in the street who are not schooled in the law. Frankly, I would think 7 judges would be aplenty!
In 2020, they said the Presidential election was tied though Biden won by 7 million votes or 4.5%.
In 2018, they said Republicans would win the midterms by 1 percentage point. They lost by 9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports#:~:text=After%20the%202010%20midterm%20elections,points%20according%20to%20Silver's%20model.
Any time you look at aggregate of p ...[text shortened]... e should be more justices on the court. The ones there are doing a crappy job protecting our rights.
I do wonder the definitive reason why it “happens” that the 3 lib judges did not agree with the opinions of the others. Weren’t they all looking at the same set of circumstances?. Curious indeed. I guess those 3 had some alterior motives, creating a premise that was not there.
As to Rasmussen, you imply that they should not make mistakes now and then? Have you ever thought that a favored (by 14 points!) football team would win, but, they lost? You will take any unreliable stance that you can dream up. And can you top my analogy?.
Admit that Rasmussen is fine. You fellers get so angry.