Kammie Wants Amnesty for All Illegals She Let In

[BTR1701]

The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.

That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.

https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh

Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

[Amy98]

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

WOW! People should really do something about this.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.

But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line. (Hey, I
left your verbiage intact. Bet you wouldn't've...)

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.

When did you she "literally" do this, liar?

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."


https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens.

What should happen to people that are granted political asylum, they
talk to you and are so disgusted they would want to leave the country?
Excellent plan!!

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that
have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a
permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.
How is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

Yeah, CNN pulling that nonsense out of its ass based on nothing but a desire
to run cover for Democrats is exactly that.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that
have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a
permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.
How is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most
recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration?
Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

Yeah, CNN pulling that nonsense out of its ass based on nothing but a desire
to run cover for Democrats is exactly that.

"Nonsense"? In the brief CNN quote above? Please be specific...

They admit she has expressed support for leveling-up illegals to citizens,
then they pretend that because she hasn't specifically said all the new
illegals she's let in since she's been in office are included in her plan,
that means they aren't or that she exempts them from her insta-citizen
proposal.

Like your subject-line, the ad in question says that she focused on a
particular set of 'illegals' related to her tenure ...Which Is *False*.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that
have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a
permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.
How is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

Yeah, CNN pulling that nonsense out of its ass based on nothing but a desire
to run cover for Democrats is exactly that.

"Nonsense"? In the brief CNN quote above? Please be specific...

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that
have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a
permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.
How is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration?
Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

Yeah, CNN pulling that nonsense out of its ass based on nothing but a desire
to run cover for Democrats is exactly that.

"Nonsense"? In the brief CNN quote above? Please be specific...

They admit she has expressed support for leveling-up illegals to citizens,
then they pretend that because she hasn't specifically said all the new
illegals she's let in since she's been in office are included in her plan,
that means they aren't or that she exempts them from her insta-citizen
proposal.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's
efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented and
we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most recent
ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their administration? Just
because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens. They
just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the illegals
that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

[super70s]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to
grant legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border
during her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a
pathway to citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented
people, she has never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Don't the networks have some kind of policy about blatant lying in
political ads before they consent to air them? I'm sure it's only going
to get worse as Trump becomes more desperate.

[BTR1701]

Post by super70s

Post by BTR1701
She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How
is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to
grant legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border
during her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a
pathway to citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented
people, she has never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigrati
on/index.html

Don't the networks have some kind of policy about blatant lying in
political ads before they consent to air them? I'm sure it's only going
to get worse as Trump becomes more desperate.

I don't know what you two chuckleheads are going on about. The original
reference was to a New York Post article reporting on Kammie's own
words, not some political ad from the Trump campaign.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by super70s

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How
is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to
grant legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border
during her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a
pathway to citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented
people, she has never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigrati
on/index.html

Don't the networks have some kind of policy about blatant lying in
political ads before they consent to air them? I'm sure it's only going
to get worse as Trump becomes more desperate.

I don't know what you two chuckleheads are going on about. The original
reference was to a New York Post article reporting on Kammie's own
words, not some political ad from the Trump campaign.

And you're too stupid to know the NY Post is the Fox News of newspapers?
Of course you are.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

  Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

  I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to
keep from
  having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to
Trump's
  efforts.
  But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
  terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte.  I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How is
that "constructing headlines"?

   "The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Wait, are you saying Oath Keeper Twat was 'literally' being a shithead?

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have
flooded in since Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to
do it as soon as possible, while continuing to allow in tens of
millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America
into a permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune
to Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty.
How is that "constructing headlines"?

"The ad’s claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the undocumented
and we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15 million most
recent ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their
administration? Just because CNN says so?

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting
democracy" is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have
flooded in since Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and
to do it as soon as possible, while continuing to allow in tens of
millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as
happened in California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into
a permanent one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep
from having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune
to Trump's efforts.
But nice dodge of the topic of the thread. Almost Effa-worthy in your
terpsichorean efforts to avoid the subject.

No dodge, you just haven't understood the riposte. I simply decided to
try my hand at "constructing" headlines like the Subject-line.

She literally announced her support for giving the illegals amnesty. How
is that "constructing headlines"?

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

I've been reliably informed that there's a pretty foolproof way to keep from
having a baby if one does not want to. Something completely immune to Trump's
efforts.

You've found a foolproof method to not get fucked by rape or incest?
You're too fucking stupid for words. Grow a brain and a pair of balls
if you want to discuss the topic properly you fucking moron.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

[BTR1701]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

Which both Kammie and the moderators lied about. There are indeed
jurisdictions in America where a baby that survives an abortion can be allowed
to die without doctors and/or mother facing a murder charge.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

Which both Kammie and the moderators lied about. There are indeed
jurisdictions in America where a baby that survives an abortion can be allowed
to die without doctors and/or mother facing a murder charge.

You're the one lying. Letting it die and killing it are too different
things. We all know what Trump said. You're either stupid or lying,
probably both.

[suzeeq]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

[trotsky]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

It sounds like "Horny Goat" was one of those abnormal babies allowed to
go to term.

[moviePig]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

[BTR1701]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.

We just want common sense abortion control:

--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation

--placement on a national abortion registry

--must be 21 years old to have an abortion

--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period

--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited

--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one


It's just common sense, after all...

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.
--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation
--placement on a national abortion registry
--must be 21 years old to have an abortion
--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period
--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited
--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one
It's just common sense, after all...

Take an aspirin, Thomas Paine.

A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.
--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation
--placement on a national abortion registry
--must be 21 years old to have an abortion
--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period
--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited
--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one
It's just common sense, after all...

Take an aspirin, Thomas Paine.
A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

LOL! You can say that with a straight face? Even as California taxpayers
are not only forced to pay for Californians' abortions but those of
women from every other state as well. Gavin not only pays for the
procedure but transportation and lodging while they're here. And he uses
money he's forced out of my pocket to do it.

Affect no other citizen, my ass.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.
--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation
--placement on a national abortion registry
--must be 21 years old to have an abortion
--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period
--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited
--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one
It's just common sense, after all...

Take an aspirin, Thomas Paine.
A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

LOL! You can say that with a straight face? Even as California taxpayers
are not only forced to pay for Californians' abortions but those of
women from every other state as well. Gavin not only pays for the
procedure but transportation and lodging while they're here. And he uses
money he's forced out of my pocket to do it.
Affect no other citizen, my ass.

So, you claim the right to outlaw abortions you don't want to pay for?

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.
--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation
--placement on a national abortion registry
--must be 21 years old to have an abortion
--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period
--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited
--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one
It's just common sense, after all...

Take an aspirin, Thomas Paine.
A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

LOL! You can say that with a straight face? Even as California taxpayers
are not only forced to pay for Californians' abortions but those of
women from every other state as well. Gavin not only pays for the
procedure but transportation and lodging while they're here. And he uses
money he's forced out of my pocket to do it.
Affect no other citizen, my ass.

So, you claim the right to outlaw abortions you don't want to pay for?

No, I'm claiming your assertion that women having abortions affect no one
but them is nonsense.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.
--mandatory background checks, complete with mental health evaluation
--placement on a national abortion registry
--must be 21 years old to have an abortion
--a $200 tax and a three month waiting period
--all abortions after the first trimester deemed "assault abortions" and
prohibited
--each woman (or they/them) limited to just one abortion because no one needs
more then one
It's just common sense, after all...

Take an aspirin, Thomas Paine.
A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

LOL! You can say that with a straight face? Even as California taxpayers
are not only forced to pay for Californians' abortions but those of
women from every other state as well. Gavin not only pays for the
procedure but transportation and lodging while they're here. And he uses
money he's forced out of my pocket to do it.
Affect no other citizen, my ass.

So, you claim the right to outlaw abortions you don't want to pay for?

No, I'm claiming your assertion that women having abortions affect no one
but them is nonsense.

That's a shame, a cost-complaint (new to me) might've made some sense.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
A woman's reproductive choices affect no other citizen of the Republic.

LOL! You can say that with a straight face? Even as California taxpayers
are not only forced to pay for Californians' abortions but those of
women from every other state as well. Gavin not only pays for the
procedure but transportation and lodging while they're here. And he uses
money he's forced out of my pocket to do it.
Affect no other citizen, my ass.

"A woman's reproductive choices" affects other citizens of the
Republic all the time - my parents were living in Berkeley, CA up
until the 7th month of the pregnancy that became me.

They were 4 months out of college when I was born and they decided
that Mom would return to her home town of Vancouver, BC primarily due
to the cost of having a child in Canada vs the US. She returned to
Berkeley with me (and her mother to share the driving) when I was two
months old.

They did this strictly for financial reasons (Dad was working while
going to grad school so dollars were super tight) but there are of
course other reasons people enter or exit California during pregnancy.

Now in my case it was leaving California rather than coming TO
California but of course peoples' reproductive choices affect state
policy. Obviously one child doesn''t hugely affect state totals much
but...

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.

What the fuck do you think overturning Roe v Wade means you dumb fuck?
They already came on the abortions.

[BTR1701]

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.

What the fuck do you think overturning Roe v Wade means you dumb fuck?

Whoosh! That neanderthal-like pre-frontal cortex got you again, didn't it,
Hutt?

Post by trotsky
They already came on the abortions.

I don't even want to know which one of your weird sexual perversion you're
describing here. <shudder>

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.

What the fuck do you think overturning Roe v Wade means you dumb fuck?

Whoosh! That neanderthal-like pre-frontal cortex got you again, didn't it,
Hutt?

Prove it asshole.

Post by BTR1701

Post by trotsky
They already came on the abortions.

I don't even want to know which one of your weird sexual perversion you're
describing here. <shudder>

It just sounds like something Republicans would do. Agree or disagree?

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by trotsky

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

No woman should have to negotiate such particulars. They're nobody's
concern but hers, and government intrusion is morally criminal.

Calm down, lefties. No one is coming for your abortions.

What the fuck do you think overturning Roe v Wade means you dumb fuck?

Whoosh! That neanderthal-like pre-frontal cortex got you again, didn't it,
Hutt?

Intellectual bankruptcy, as expected. How many IQ points did you lose
whilst joining up with the white supremacists?

[BTR1701]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”

Reality:


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
trying to imagine the scenario. Pregnant woman at her psychiatrist:
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!

Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.

Is such a scenario possible?

[shawn]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:34:34 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!
Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.
Is such a scenario possible?

Doesn't seem like it as at that point the baby is coming and it seems
like killing a viable baby would be classified as murder. No doctor
that hopes to keep their license and stay out of jail would conduct
such an abortion.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: "nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!"
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!
Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.
Is such a scenario possible?

Doesn't seem like it as at that point the baby is coming and it seems
like killing a viable baby would be classified as murder. No doctor
that hopes to keep their license and stay out of jail would conduct
such an abortion.

Please don't mix up terms. In the hypothetical, it's still a foetus
being aborted, not a baby born alive being murdered. Viability is not a
consideration, just the mother's mental health.

The objection is to abortion as a medical treatment for a woman due to
her mental health and no other reason very late in the pregnancy.

I'm question whether there would be a doctor who would refer the
pregnant woman for an abortion in that very scenario.

Not discussing the surgical procedure itself.

[shawn]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 22:30:20 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: "nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!"
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!
Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.
Is such a scenario possible?

Doesn't seem like it as at that point the baby is coming and it seems
like killing a viable baby would be classified as murder. No doctor
that hopes to keep their license and stay out of jail would conduct
such an abortion.

Please don't mix up terms. In the hypothetical, it's still a foetus
being aborted, not a baby born alive being murdered. Viability is not a
consideration, just the mother's mental health.
The objection is to abortion as a medical treatment for a woman due to
her mental health and no other reason very late in the pregnancy.
I'm question whether there would be a doctor who would refer the
pregnant woman for an abortion in that very scenario.
Not discussing the surgical procedure itself.

The simple answer to your original question is yes. With enough money
you can get a doctor to do anything. I don't believe a respectable
doctor would agree to an abortion of an otherwise healthy foetus at
that point. Though I still stand by my use of the term baby because at
that point the baby is ready to be delivered and is viable outside of
the mother.

[suzeeq]

Post by shawn
On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:34:34 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!
Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.
Is such a scenario possible?

Doesn't seem like it as at that point the baby is coming and it seems
like killing a viable baby would be classified as murder. No doctor
that hopes to keep their license and stay out of jail would conduct
such an abortion.

I just noticed I made a typo up there. I meant to say 24 weeks, not 34.

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2024 18:17:48 -0400, shawn

Post by shawn

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

C'mon. Clearly she didn't anticipate said hypothetical scenario. I'm
Doctor, I don't believe I'm a fit mother. Oh! My water just broke!
Psychiatrist Ok. I'll certify you for an abortion.
Is such a scenario possible?

Doesn't seem like it as at that point the baby is coming and it seems
like killing a viable baby would be classified as murder. No doctor
that hopes to keep their license and stay out of jail would conduct
such an abortion.

Not necessarily - our second daughter was born after a 34 hour labor
and in her case the waters broke long before the blessed moment.

The doctor immediately put on a 'baby monitor' and said that other
than the water everything was completely normal and that he had no
intention of intervening unless / until our daughter was in any kind
of distress. Then found a cot and had a nap for several hours after
giving orders that he be awoken immediately if needed.

When she finally came she came within seconds.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

*I* support it. Until a child is delivered and thereby attains
citizenship, I support whatever a mentally competent mother chooses
...and find any governmental intrusion therein outrageous.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by moviePig
*I* support it. Until a child is delivered and thereby attains
citizenship, I support whatever a mentally competent mother chooses
...and find any governmental intrusion therein outrageous.

With all due respect, birth is when the child emerges from the womb,
not when the Doctor says 'congratulations Mrs/Mr/Miss ___ you have a
___" Nor is it when the cord is cut following birth.

And yes I am speaking from "been there done that" experience.

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
*I* support it. Until a child is delivered and thereby attains
citizenship, I support whatever a mentally competent mother chooses
...and find any governmental intrusion therein outrageous.

With all due respect, birth is when the child emerges from the womb,
not when the Doctor says 'congratulations Mrs/Mr/Miss ___ you have a
___" Nor is it when the cord is cut following birth.
And yes I am speaking from "been there done that" experience.

I don't see a disagreement.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

DEMOCRATS and MEDIA FACT CHECKERS: “nO oNe SuPpOrTs AbOrTiOn iN tHe 9tH
mOnTh!!”
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1521363584600608768/pu/vid/1280x592/W67T2_tq0GKh2rk6.mp4?tag=12

Why are you having so much trouble fucking all the way off?

[BTR1701]

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1833935553718616065/vid/avc1/720x1280/huo3rorHq0S176KH.mp4?tag=14

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by suzeeq

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

That doesn't happen. Or the child is so damaged, that they die within a
few hours. About 85% of abor2ions are done in the first 12 weeks of
pregnancy. Those done after 34 weeks are where the fetus has
abnormalities that would kill the child or mother if the pregnancy was
allowed to go to term.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1833935553718616065/vid/avc1/720x1280/huo3rorHq0S176KH.mp4?tag=14

https://tinyurl.com/mur7nf9z

[moviePig]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

After he bragged about throwing women's personal decisions into the
parochial piranha pool of state governments, I stopped listening. (And
I guarantee you *his* every "major concern" is solely about *him*.)

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

After he bragged about throwing women's personal decisions into the
parochial piranha pool of state governments, I stopped listening.

The <clap> Constitution <clap> does <clap> not <clap> give <clap> the <clap>
federal <clap> government <clap> the <clap> power <clap> to <clap> regulate
<clap> abortion.

It doesn't even give the federal government jurisdiction over health care in
general.

So per the 10th Amendment, those powers belong to the state and local
governments.

The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or a
guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

After he bragged about throwing women's personal decisions into the
parochial piranha pool of state governments, I stopped listening.

The <clap> Constitution <clap> does <clap> not <clap> give <clap> the <clap>
federal <clap> government <clap> the <clap> power <clap> to <clap> regulate
<clap> abortion.
It doesn't even give the federal government jurisdiction over health care in
general.

Medicare is a tax. Obamacare is a tax. Wallah. The national government
now has jurisdiction over domestic policy despite federalism.

Post by BTR1701
So per the 10th Amendment, those powers belong to the state and local
governments.

There is a liberty clause in the 14th Amendment.

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law

It doesn't say

except fat middle-aged men, sitting in judgment upon the bench
or assembled in state legislatures, imposing phony morality from
on high, falsely claiming to be exercising religion on behalf of
women, shall control all sexual aspects of women

All state constitutions have a liberty clause, yet liberty doesn't mean
liberty.

A woman whose pregnancy has gone badly wrong who is then denied
appropriate medical care in state law has been deprived of her liberty,
and possibly her life, without due process of law.

I love that "person" in the 14th Amendment didn't mean "person" --
including women -- and that women didn't have a universal right to vote
under the 15th Amendment, making the 19th Amendment necessary. Federal
judges as late as Scalia were still saying that. It took a textualist
like Gorsuch to say "sex" means "sex" in Bostock (2020), interpretting Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or a
guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution

God forbid state legislatures and Congress could restrain themselves
from denying and disparaging liberty, an enumerated right retained by
the people per the 9th Amendment, when writing legislation. No, we
wouldn't want America to be a free society.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

After he bragged about throwing women's personal decisions into the
parochial piranha pool of state governments, I stopped listening.

The <clap> Constitution <clap> does <clap> not <clap> give <clap> the <clap>
federal <clap> government <clap> the <clap> power <clap> to <clap> regulate
<clap> abortion.
It doesn't even give the federal government jurisdiction over health care in
general.
So per the 10th Amendment, those powers belong to the state and local
governments.
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or a
guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution

How are you this confused about the significance of the Supreme Court?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

So Roe v Wade was contrary to the Constitution? Uh don't think so...

[BTR1701]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

So Roe v Wade was contrary to the Constitution? Uh don't think so...

Yes, it was contrary to the Constitution. The Court literally had to
make it up.

It really is an exercise of simple logic:

Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of the federal government. Which
logically means anything not on the list isn't a power of the federal
government.

But the Founders didn't want to rely solely on logic, knowing how that
could be abused, so they specifically included the 10th Amendment in the
Bill of Rights to expressly hammer the point home: Article I, Section 8
lists the powers of the federal government. If it's not on that list,
then that power belongs to the state and local governments, not the
federal government.

Now apply the law to the facts:

Is regulating abortion (or health care in general) a power granted to
the federal government under Article I, Section 8?

No, it is not.

Therefore, per Amendment X, it's a power that belongs to the state and
local governments.

The Court in Roe, recognizing that the Constitution is utterly silent on
the matter of abortion yet wanting desperately to pretend it isn't,
basically said that if you take the Constitution as a whole, it casts a
penumbra (shadow) of freedom and that somewhere in that murky shadow is
a guaranteed right to an abortion.

It was an absolutely ridiculous decision from a legal standpoint. Even
my pro-choice law professors in law school admitted that, although they
were happy with the result, it was legal garbage. It deserved to be
overturned and replaced with something that actually comports with
legitimate judicial reasoning.

As I said, if the country is as overwhelmingly pro-choice as the
Democrats claim it is, then it shouldn't be difficult to amend the
Constitution accordingly and give the federal government the power that
it currently lacks.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

So Roe v Wade was contrary to the Constitution? Uh don't think so...

Yes, it was contrary to the Constitution. The Court literally had to
make it up.
Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of the federal government. Which
logically means anything not on the list isn't a power of the federal
government.
But the Founders didn't want to rely solely on logic, knowing how that
could be abused, so they specifically included the 10th Amendment in the
Bill of Rights to expressly hammer the point home: Article I, Section 8
lists the powers of the federal government. If it's not on that list,
then that power belongs to the state and local governments, not the
federal government.
Is regulating abortion (or health care in general) a power granted to
the federal government under Article I, Section 8?
No, it is not.
Therefore, per Amendment X, it's a power that belongs to the state and
local governments.
The Court in Roe, recognizing that the Constitution is utterly silent on
the matter of abortion yet wanting desperately to pretend it isn't,
basically said that if you take the Constitution as a whole, it casts a
penumbra (shadow) of freedom and that somewhere in that murky shadow is
a guaranteed right to an abortion.
It was an absolutely ridiculous decision from a legal standpoint. Even
my pro-choice law professors in law school admitted that, although they
were happy with the result, it was legal garbage. It deserved to be
overturned and replaced with something that actually comports with
legitimate judicial reasoning.
As I said, if the country is as overwhelmingly pro-choice as the
Democrats claim it is, then it shouldn't be difficult to amend the
Constitution accordingly and give the federal government the power that
it currently lacks.

Here, the Constitution lets a relatively small minority smugly withhold
the personal rights of a healthy majority. The founders would founder...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

So Roe v Wade was contrary to the Constitution? Uh don't think so...

Yes, it was contrary to the Constitution. The Court literally had to
make it up.
Article I, Section 8 lists the powers of the federal government. Which
logically means anything not on the list isn't a power of the federal
government.
But the Founders didn't want to rely solely on logic, knowing how that
could be abused, so they specifically included the 10th Amendment in the
Bill of Rights to expressly hammer the point home: Article I, Section 8
lists the powers of the federal government. If it's not on that list,
then that power belongs to the state and local governments, not the
federal government.
Is regulating abortion (or health care in general) a power granted to
the federal government under Article I, Section 8?
No, it is not.
Therefore, per Amendment X, it's a power that belongs to the state and
local governments.
The Court in Roe, recognizing that the Constitution is utterly silent on
the matter of abortion yet wanting desperately to pretend it isn't,
basically said that if you take the Constitution as a whole, it casts a
penumbra (shadow) of freedom and that somewhere in that murky shadow is
a guaranteed right to an abortion.
It was an absolutely ridiculous decision from a legal standpoint. Even
my pro-choice law professors in law school admitted that, although they
were happy with the result, it was legal garbage. It deserved to be
overturned and replaced with something that actually comports with
legitimate judicial reasoning.
As I said, if the country is as overwhelmingly pro-choice as the
Democrats claim it is, then it shouldn't be difficult to amend the
Constitution accordingly and give the federal government the power that
it currently lacks.

Then what rights do the 9th Amendment and the liberty clause of the 14th
Amendment protect?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
As I said, if the country is as overwhelmingly pro-choice as the
Democrats claim it is, then it shouldn't be difficult to amend the
Constitution accordingly and give the federal government the power that
it currently lacks.

With all due respect the whole point of a constitution is to NOT be
swayed with the electoral swings through the years. In other words,
even if there's an overwhelming majority right now, there may not be
10-20 years from now.

About the only exception to the above I can think of is/was
emancipation. Once you grant emancipation you can't undo it nor should
un-emancipation have been entertained for a moment.

It's definitely a bigger deal than prohibition. (Which I think is the
only amendment repealed outright)

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

So Roe v Wade was contrary to the Constitution? Uh don't think so...

Yes, it was contrary to the Constitution. The Court literally had to
make it up.

That's why the Constitution specifies the Supreme Court as the third
branch of our govt. For the trillionth time there's no fucking way
you're a lawyer. Answer the question you fucking fag: did you flunk out
of law school and/or fail the bar exam?

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by moviePig
Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will
Trump Wants to be President, Against *Your* Will (...and Tried)

I just finished watching the entire debate and he didn't support that
at all. He >DID< say he had major concerns about late term abortions
particularly super-late abortions where the supposedly aborted child
was born alive.

After he bragged about throwing women's personal decisions into the
parochial piranha pool of state governments, I stopped listening.

The <clap> Constitution <clap> does <clap> not <clap> give <clap> the
<clap> federal <clap> government <clap> the <clap> power <clap> to
<clap> regulate <clap> abortion.

It doesn't even give the federal government jurisdiction over health
care in general.

So per the 10th Amendment, those powers belong to the state and local
governments.

The only proper and legal way to make abortion either a federal issue or
a guaranteed constitutional right is to amend the Constitution.

[Ubiquitous]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

There's a sure-fire way not to have a baby if you don't want to...

It's a well-known principle that if you keep the flint in one
drawer and the steel in the other, you'll never strike much of a
fire.
-- Mrs. Paroo, The Music Man

[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]

--
Let's go Brandon!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy"
is to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as
possible, while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent
one-party state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as
mentioned the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Trump Wants Wants Women to Have Babies Against Their Will

There's a sure-fire way not to have a baby if you don't want to...

It's a well-known principle that if you keep the flint in one
drawer and the steel in the other, you'll never strike much of a
fire.
-- Mrs. Paroo, The Music Man

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701
The publicly-stated goal by the leaders of the party "protecting democracy" is
to legalize the ~15 million illegal migrants that have flooded in since
Grandpa Badfinger erased our Southern border and to do it as soon as possible,
while continuing to allow in tens of millions more.
That would immediately make all swing states deep blue, just as happened in
California after the 1986 amnesty, turning America into a permanent one-party
state.
https://ibb.co/t3Pbrhh
Remember when they told you that you were racist if you so much as mentioned
the Replacement Theory? Still buying that garbage?

Are you having problems with this because of all the dogs being eaten?
And speaking of stupid motherfucking shit, when is your august personage
going to comment on this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-kill-border-bill-sign-trumps-strength-mcconnells-waning-in-rcna137477

Republicans kill border bill in a sign of Trump's strength and
McConnell's waning influence
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell encouraged GOP senators to pass
an immigration and Ukraine aid deal. Just four of them supported it. In
the end, even he voted no.


That's a royally fucked up political party, I'll tell you what. And
you've got a good schtick yourself by totally ignoring every time you
look like a stupid motherfucking hypocrite. Kudos!

[BTR1701]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

"The ad's claims are false. Harris has not made any promise to grant
legal status to all of the migrants who have crossed the border during
her vice presidency. Though she has expressed support for a pathway to
citizenship for some unspecified group of undocumented people, she has
never said that recent migrants should be included."
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/31/politics/fact-check-trump-ad-harris-immigration/index.html

Ridiculous. She said she supports making citizens of the
undocumented and we're supposed to believe that somehow excludes the 15
million most recent ones that she and Dementia Joe have let in during their
administration? Just because CNN says so?

What she says seems often far removed from what you *say* she says.

Even CNN admits she has endorsed the idea of making illegals citizens.
They just somehow come to the conclusion that she doesn't include all the
illegals that have poured in since she took office in her endorsement.

(That's what I call "constructing headlines".)

Yeah, CNN pulling that nonsense out of its ass based on nothing but a
desire
to run cover for Democrats is exactly that.

"Nonsense"? In the brief CNN quote above? Please be specific...

They admit she has expressed support for leveling-up illegals to citizens,
then they pretend that because she hasn't specifically said all the new
illegals she's let in since she's been in office are included in her plan,
that means they aren't or that she exempts them from her insta-citizen
proposal.

Like your subject-line, the ad in question says that she focused on a
particular set of 'illegals' related to her tenure ...Which Is *False*.

I don't know what ad you're talking about. I started this thread referencing
an article from the New York Post describing her own words, not an ad.