@kmax87 saidIF the majority opinion is eventually agreed to by the majority of the SCOTUS, it's binding law (well until they feel like overruling it).
Just a question, for a friend, how often does a majority opinion become Law? And a supplementary question, we have 5 months till November. Will the base be just as riled as they are now and will that translate into greater Democrat control of Congress?
I think a full throated overruling of Roe will make it tough sledding for Republican candidates in swing States and Congressional districts.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidBut then lost the Senate and even more seats in the House.
Obama then bounced back and won re-election.
You see why this is a weak point? Yet you're still going to insist on using it?
Calling me "stupid" isn't going to work with anyone but others on this board who voiced a preference for candidates who called for Roe's overruling like you did.
I don't know what you're referring to. If I ever voiced support for an anti-abortionist, then I clearly didn't know this was case.
But "stupid" is the only word to describe someone who continues using a worthless talking point even after his ignorance was made known to him. You're pulling a Metal Brain here.
@vivify saidOdd you responded to all my posts except one that you feign total ignorance of. I'll repeat it for your convenience:
But then lost the Senate and even more seats in the House.
You see why this is a weak point? Yet you're still going to insist on using it?
Calling me "stupid" isn't going to work with anyone but others on this board who voiced a preference for candidates who called for Roe's overruling like you did.
I don't know what you're referring to. If I ever voiced ...[text shortened]... ss talking point even after his ignorance was made known to him. You're pulling a Metal Brain here.
Is someone who said in June 2016 "I would've voted for Ron Paul over Obama, and I'd pick Kasich over Hillary." really in a position to make this argument? https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/the-trump-phenomenon.169014/page-3
Kasich's anti-abortion record: https://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/john-kasich-abortion-2016-campaign-218846
Ron Paul on abortion: ". I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters."
https://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
1 edit
@vivify saidWhy Trumpism continually losing elections is a "worthless talking point" in a discussion of its supposed political strength is something you're going to have to explain rather than merely trying to insult your way to acceptance of such a ludicrous argument that it is totally irrelevant because the polls now say that Republicans MIGHT win this fall and Trump MIGHT win in 2024.
But then lost the Senate and even more seats in the House.
You see why this is a weak point? Yet you're still going to insist on using it?
Calling me "stupid" isn't going to work with anyone but others on this board who voiced a preference for candidates who called for Roe's overruling like you did.
I don't know what you're referring to. If I ever voiced ...[text shortened]... ss talking point even after his ignorance was made known to him. You're pulling a Metal Brain here.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidRon Paul was a libertarian, someone who by definition was against government intrusion in the personal lives of people, including abortion.
Odd you responded to all my posts except one that you feign total ignorance of. I'll repeat it for your convenience:
Is someone who said in June 2016 "I would've voted for Ron Paul over Obama, and I'd pick Kasich over Hillary." really in a position to make this argument? https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/the-trump-phenomenon.169014/page-3
Kasich's anti-aborti ...[text shortened]... ion on demand as well as in all trimesters."
https://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Ron Paul never made it past the Primaries, so that's something I never learned about him.
Kasich, at the beginning, seemed like a "moderate" conservative. He turned out later to be just like all the rest.
Whatever. I also said I wasn't going to vote in the 2016 election and that there was no way in hell I'd vote for Hillary. Clearly, that wasn't the case. My voting record to this very day has never been for a conservative.
Your scavenging for posts made when I was angry about Hilary winning the primary was cute. But when when it came time to actually vote, I sucked it up and did my part to prevent Roe V. Wade from being overturned...you didn't.
@vivify saidToo bad you are soooooooooooooooo ignorant about people who you profess a political preference for. Ron Paul's view on abortion weren't exactly news in June 2016 when you made that post nor was Kasich's record as Governor.
Ron Paul was a libertarian, someone who by definition was against government intrusion in the personal lives of people, including abortion.
Ron Paul never made it past the Primaries, so that's something I never learned about him.
Kasich, at the beginning, seemed like a "moderate" conservative. He turned out later to be just like all the rest.
Whatever. I also said ...[text shortened]... ally vote, I sucked it up and did my part to prevent Roe V. Wade from being overturned...you didn't.
I've already patiently explained to you why voting for a neocon, in bed with bankers, corrupt piece of crap like HRC would have made zero difference in the eventual make up of the SCOTUS. Instead, her defeat was a godsend in saving the nation from right wing complete control of all branches of government for years.
So stop blaming progressives who actually support real change rather than the yo-yoing of Big Money Party A for Big Money Party B in alternative years. If the Democratic Party is going to be the party of HRC, Joe Manchin and the like it doesn't deserve our vote.
3 edits
@no1marauder saidWhat do you mean "continually losing"? Trump lost *one* election. He now leads in polls to win the next one; and that's a significant fact since Trump has never lead in polls against against a Democratic rival, yet he does now; more proof against your claim that Trumpism is "thumped".
Why Trumpism continually losing elections is a "worthless talking point" in a discussion of its supposed political strength is something you're going to have to explain rather than merely trying to insult your way to acceptance of such a ludicrous argument that it is totally irrelevant because the polls now say that Republicans MIGHT win this fall and Trump MIGHT win in 2024.
Obama had had worse midterms than Trump even though he was more popular; Clinton also suffered historic midterm losses despite landslide victories; so continually using midterm results an indication of a president's popularity is worthless, especially if you're using the House, which is rarely won by a president's party.
How many more times will you need this explained? I've noticed over many discussions with you that once your pride is involved, you conceding a point is nigh impossible. Your ego is the only possible explanation for continuing to insist on using bringing up House election results over and over even after it's been made clear to you that's idiotic.
You're also pretending this predicted Republican victory has nothing to do with Trump, who is the life and soul of the Republican party; a fact obvious to literally everyone else in this forum, country and earth. Your pride does nothing but make you look dumb.
@vivify saidIt's hardly "idiotic" to point out that your political steamroller has badly lost the last two national elections.
What do you mean "continually losing"? Trump lost *one* election. He now leads in polls to win the next one; and that's a significant fact since Trump has never lead in polls against against a Democratic rival, yet he does now; more proof against your claim that Trumpism is "thumped".
Obama had had worse midterms than Trump even though he was more popular; Clinton also ...[text shortened]... nging up House election results over and over even after it's been made clear to you that's idiotic.
That's actual votes - not polls 6 months or 2 1/2 years before elections.
Your attempt to personalize this off-topic discussion is contemptible.
Anyway, I have no desire to waste further time with your Trump obsession, "hold yer breath until you turn blue" style of "debate" or in responding to your personal attacks. None of it is actually relevant to the topic of the thread anyway.
So have you last word which I'm sure will be the same word over and over and over and over ............................................................... as it has been for pages now.
EDIT: One last point: Trump remains underwater with a majority having an unfavorable view of him. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html
So any polling advantage to Republicans is hardly because of Trump; in fact, a reasonable interpretation is that it is spite of him or, more likely, dissatisfaction with Biden and the Democrats.
My nephew is in Trade School. He borrowed his tuition. This tuition is not included in Biden's payment-of-tuition plan. How in the world do you fellers figure all this out so that it is faaaaaaaiir to everyone.
And what is everyone's stance on the high school grad who will borrow his tuition after this present program pays of the tuition loans of today's college graduates? This issue is never discussed on the Forum.
Y'all rave on about Trump in every thread, so I felt like it was OK to bring this issue up in this thread.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidNearly all presidents have done worse during midterms but it's only significant for Trump. This is your debating in a nutshell.
It's hardly "idiotic" to point out that your political steamroller has badly lost the last two national elections.
That's actual votes - not polls 6 months or 2 1/2 years before elections.
Your attempt to personalize this off-topic discussion is contemptible.
Anyway, I have no desire to waste further time with your Trump obsession, "hold yer breath until you tur ...[text shortened]... rpretation is that it is spite of him or, more likely, dissatisfaction with Biden and the Democrats.
I wonder how many people you convinced not to vote for Hillary, either on forums, Facebook, etc., who agreed with you and spread the word.
The fact is that liberals like you failed to close the gap in a historically tight race by either not voting or voting third party. Roe v. Wade being overturned is the result of your self-righteousness. That, and the myriad of other ways inactions like yours helped Trump burn this country; from families Trump helped destroy with ICE to...you know, I don't even have to name it. You know.
So fuk your feelings. Generations of women will be affected, and their resulting children, because liberals like you thought tooting their own horn was more important than stopping one of the biggest and most obvious threats to this America's future this nation's ever had.
1 edit
Sorry, but if progressives had gotten their way last year A) Roe would have been codified into Federal law; and B) There would have been 2-5 more SCOTUS judges of the "liberal" bent who would certainly have upheld Roe.
These reforms were blocked by conservative Democrats like Manchin, not by those who support real reform. So people who liked Ron Paul and John Kasich can keep trying to blame the left for the demise of Roe if they want but that is their little fantasy world and nothing else.
EDIT: Some legislative history you probably missed while frothing at the mouth against progressives:
"The Women's Health Protection Act passed the House by a vote of 218-211, with every Democrat except Henry Cuellar of Texas voting in favor and Republicans unanimously voting against it.
It has 48 co-sponsors in the Senate, facing opposition from Democrats Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, both of whom describe themselves as pro-life. Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska say they favor abortion rights but do not support the Women's Health Protection Act.
Senate Republicans have also led a filibuster of the bill. It was blocked from being debated in February on a vote of 46-48, with six senators missing the vote."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-are-pushing-codify-roe-leaked-opinion-dont-votes-rcna27082
1 edit
@vivify saidYou keep stupidly arguing that Trump losing in the midterms was not a big deal but that IF the Republicans win in this year's midterms (something that hasn't happened yet) it will "prove" the overwhelming appeal of Trumpism!
Nearly all presidents have done worse during midterms but it's only significant for Trump. This is your debating in a nutshell.
I wonder how many people you convinced not to vote for Hillary, either on forums, Facebook, etc., who agreed with you and spread the word.
The fact is that liberals like you failed to close the gap in a historically tight race by either not v ...[text shortened]... topping one of the biggest and most obvious threats to this America's future this nation's ever had.
Are you so much of a child that you don't see how internally inconsistent that argument is?
Change that D to a F.
@vivify saidI wagered on the 2012 and 2020 with other posters on this Forum with the proceeds going to the charity of the winner's (me) choice.
What do you mean "continually losing"? Trump lost *one* election. He now leads in polls to win the next one; and that's a significant fact since Trump has never lead in polls against against a Democratic rival, yet he does now; more proof against your claim that Trumpism is "thumped".
Obama had had worse midterms than Trump even though he was more popular; Clinton also ...[text shortened]... lly everyone else in this forum, country and earth. Your pride does nothing but make you look dumb.
Since you seem to be soooooooooooooo certain that Trump is an unstoppable juggernaut, I'll bet you $50 that he does not win the 2024 US Presidential election.
Put your money where your big mouth is.
@no1marauder saidTo be fair, you should offer him odds. Trump against the field is not a fair bet.
I wagered on the 2012 and 2020 with other posters on this Forum with the proceeds going to the charity of the winner's (me) choice.
Since you seem to be soooooooooooooo certain that Trump is an unstoppable juggernaut, I'll bet you $50 that he does not win the 2024 US Presidential election.
Put your money where your big mouth is.
On Predictit, Trump winning the 2024 election is trading at 30 cents, which I think is too high. But for a fair bet, he should get at least 2:1 odds.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/7456/Who-will-win-the-2024-US-presidential-election