The Supremes

[Poe It Up 126]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

 

2015 Poe It Up:  "Look, if you think a joke of a reality TV show host is going to win the Republican nomination, I just don't think it's very healthy."

2016 Poe It Up: "I mean, sure he won the nomination and presidency, but if you think McConnell, Graham, Cruz, and others aren't going to keep him in check, you're just being fanatical!  Trump will fall in line and isn't going to take over the whole party."

2020 Poe It Up: "Trump may be rough around the edges, but he'd never get away with extorting and leveraging foreign aid to Zelensky in exchange for election interference.  You're just overreacting!"

Also 2020 Poe it Up:  "If Trump loses a free and fair election, he'll accept defeat and there will be a peaceful transfer of power as there always is.  Nothing to be alarmed about, lefties!"

 

 

Not sure why, but I guess I just don't trust Republicans when they say, "Sure, some people in our party are nuts and are suggesting crazy shit, but cooler heads will always prevail."

 

I wasn’t all that shocked that Trump won to be honest, I mean, there were days I’d forget and then I’d chuckle when it hit me again. Still, I’m not that big of a prognostication guy. Just when the mood strikes. 
 

 

[Captainant 27,680]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

For the pro choice people on this thread, is there any point during pregnancy where you think the state has the right to prohibit abortions not otherwise necessary to save the mother from death or serious risk of injury or do you support no restrictions up until birth?

Basically what everyone else said: the 24wk cutoff as outlined in Casey seems like a reasonable compromise. It's enough time for them to know one way or another what their choice is going to be. 

The problem is, you and your country club buddies want to put women behind bars for daring to assert their bodily autonomy

[speed817 19,374]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your question seems to hint that you think there is an expectation among pro-choice people that any abortion up to full term is OK.  I doubt very many people feel that way.

For me, outside of overarching health issues for the mother, "viability" is the line in the sand, or roughly 24 weeks.  After that, barring medical concerns, I don't support abortion.

[TexEx15 17,543]

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/north-texas-teen-missing-dallas-mavs-game-oklahoma-city-sex-trafficking-sold-sex-advertised-family-says-many-people-couldve-stopped/287-1e1315f5-4e15-4fc0-a20c-4ee39d3a7071?fbclid=IwAR1TxduBAZsLUgOQNAKam0Wgqvw8kULPyXGqjHkpiIKgzD9jsM9JNpldFd4
 

This is fucking horrific. And just to be clear there are plenty of folks on here that believe this poor girl should have to carry a potential pregnancy as the result of this to full term. But it’s ok she can just put the baby up for adoption right…

[DigglerontheHoof 21,202]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your question seems to hint that you think there is an expectation among pro-choice people that any abortion up to full term is OK.  I doubt very many people feel that way.

For me, outside of overarching health issues for the mother, "viability" is the line in the sand, or roughly 24 weeks.  After that, barring medical concerns, I don't support abortion.

He's doing nothing more than trolling.  

[fattyflattie 4,639]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your question seems to hint that you think there is an expectation among pro-choice people that any abortion up to full term is OK.  I doubt very many people feel that way.

For me, outside of overarching health issues for the mother, "viability" is the line in the sand, or roughly 24 weeks.  After that, barring medical concerns, I don't support abortion.

That’s what we do now. The extremes speak for the rest.  Turnabout and all that. 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

41 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

For the pro choice people on this thread, is there any point during pregnancy where you think the state has the right to prohibit abortions not otherwise necessary to save the mother from death or serious risk of injury or do you support no restrictions up until birth?

How about at viability, where the line currently is drawn?

[Bama Chick 28,596]

[Brisketexan 105,154]

15 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/north-texas-teen-missing-dallas-mavs-game-oklahoma-city-sex-trafficking-sold-sex-advertised-family-says-many-people-couldve-stopped/287-1e1315f5-4e15-4fc0-a20c-4ee39d3a7071?fbclid=IwAR1TxduBAZsLUgOQNAKam0Wgqvw8kULPyXGqjHkpiIKgzD9jsM9JNpldFd4
 

This is fucking horrific. And just to be clear there are plenty of folks on here that believe this poor girl should have to carry a potential pregnancy as the result of this to full term. But it’s ok she can just put the baby up for adoption right…

On behalf of the GQP:

Answer 1): no way she could get pregnant, a woman's body has ways of shutting that whole thing down in cases of legitimate rape.

Asnwer 2): fake news, rape doesn't happen anymore, Gov. Abbott banned it.  And surely the Okie governor has done the same.

Answer 3): I read that she's actually a slut, and was sleeping around, so if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have spread her legs like a harlot.

Answer 4): if she really WAS trafficked, we need to investigate Hillary and Benghazi and Ping Pong Pizza.  THINK ABOUT IT, SHEEPLE!

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Schumer brought abortion bill that failed 49-51.  I don’t know what he was thinking.

 He could've called the Murkowski-Collins bill that actually codifies Roe and Casey rather than going way beyond those rulings, gotten bipartisan support, and had the "radical Republicans blocked our reasonable abortion access (with restrictions) bill" all the way through to November. Chuck Schumer refused to call a vote for it, saying "this isn't the time to compromise."

Now folks like Mark Kelly have to spend the next 6 months explaining to their purple-reddish state constituents why they were in favor of unfettered abortion up to the moment of birth.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[wildcat09 29,355]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

On behalf of the GQP:

Answer 1): no way she could get pregnant, a woman's body has ways of shutting that whole thing down in cases of legitimate rape. 

Asnwer 2): fake news, rape doesn't happen anymore, Gov. Abbott banned it.  And surely the Okie governor has done the same.

Answer 3): I read that she's actually a slut, and was sleeping around, so if she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have spread her legs like a harlot.

Answer 4): if she really WAS trafficked, we need to investigate Hillary and Benghazi and Ping Pong Pizza.  THINK ABOUT IT, SHEEPLE!

I'm assuming you're getting these quotes from the Republicans who aren't busy raping the 15 year old girl. 

[elfenix 34,304]

"way beyond"

all it did was get rid of the bullshit hurdles republicans force women to go through as part of their process of chipping away at roe and casey over the last 30 years.  that's not way beyond, it's restoring them to what they originally were before bad faith partisans decided that bullying vulnerable women was ok, thereby making a complete mockery of "undue burden."

Edited May 11, 2022 by elfenix

[workswithseed 2,112]

2 hours ago, speed817 said:

Which the phrase itself is an absolute. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

13 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"way beyond"

all it did was get rid of the bullshit hurdles republicans force women to go through as part of their process of chipping away at roe and casey over the last 30 years.  that's not way beyond, it's restoring them to what they originally were before bad faith partisans decided that bullying vulnerable women was ok, thereby making a complete mockery of "undue burden."

It would do a lot more than that.  It would vitiate all sorts of abortion regulations that federal courts have determined passed muster under Roe and Casey -- including parental notification and consent laws blessed by the SCOTUS. This was an unforced error. This this bill is not what Schumer said it is -- a codification of Roe and Casey. Instead it would be a federal expansion of abortion rights.

The GOP can and will say this bill allows on demand abortions up and until birth.  And that argument haves some merit when you consider how broadly courts interpret "health" and the statute's provision stating post-viability abortions are allowed “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

[elfenix 34,304]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It would vitiate all sorts of abortion regulations that federal courts have determined passed muster under Roe and Casey -- including parental notification and consent laws blessed by the SCOTUS.

no, i believe i mentioned bullshit hurdles and bad faith partisans deciding that bullying vulnerable women was ok. 

 

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And that argument haves some merit when you consider how broadly courts interpret "health" and the statute's provision stating post-viability abortions are allowed “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

clearly we need bill that says a g-man needs to be present in every ob/gyn's office.  just to make sure that a doctor isn't aborting a healthy fetus of a healthy pregnant woman in a healthy pregnancy.   just to keep republicans from creating a moral panic.  (spoiler: republicans would still create a moral panic.)

Edited May 11, 2022 by elfenix

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

no, i believe i mentioned bullshit hurdles and bad faith partisans deciding that bullying vulnerable women was ok. 

 

clearly we need bill that says a g-man needs to be present in every ob/gyn's office.  just to make sure that a doctor isn't aborting a healthy fetus of a healthy pregnant woman in a normal pregnancy. 

It goes well beyond Roe and Casey.  You may like that.  But you don't get to pretend it does not.  It was stupid political move.  The smart move would be to advance a bill that codified Roe and Casey.

Now the GOP gets to run ads that every democrat in Congress besides Cuellar and Manchin just voted for a bill that would preclude the parental notification and consent laws that 36 states have.  Those type of laws are largely very popular among voters.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

doble

Edited May 11, 2022 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,874]

meanwhile, in Spain

 

[TexEx15 17,543]

Watch out for the wine and cheese though. That cheddar is sharp!

[Brisketexan 105,154]

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

meanwhile, in Spain

 

In a counter to this, Texas and its fellow red states are scrambling to write legislation to require a monthly 3 days of menstrual pain, which women deserve per the Curse of Eve.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

In a counter to this, Texas and its fellow red states are scrambling to write legislation to require a monthly 3 days of menstrual pain, which women deserve per the Curse of Eve.

I am certain all your fear mongering will come true.

[Brisketexan 105,154]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am certain all your fear mongering will come true.

Naaah.  Just half of it.  But don't listen to me.  Listen to the officials of your own party, who have stated numerous ambitious and giddy plans for shitbaggery after Dodds comes out.  They tell us exactly what they want to do. We should believe them.

[Captainant 27,680]

44 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Now the GOP gets to run ads that every democrat in Congress besides Cuellar and Manchin just voted for a bill that would preclude the parental notification and consent laws that 36 states have.  Those type of laws are largely very popular among voters.

Oh fuck off sack with your abuser rhetoric. "Oh sorry you didn't take the hollow compromise that codifies my limitations for you, now I guess we HAVE to take away all your rights because I'm left with no choice!"

Know what other laws were very popular with voters in that area? Jim crow laws, segregation, fugitive slave act. But we all know you'd like those to come back too. Hell, the republicans are working on an abortion-focused fugitive slave act right now. It's literally what SB8 is.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh fuck off sack with your abuser rhetoric. "Oh sorry you didn't take the hollow compromise that codifies my limitations for you, now I guess we HAVE to take away all your rights because I'm left with no choice!"

Know what other laws were very popular with voters in that area? Jim crow laws, segregation, fugitive slave act. But we all know you'd like those to come back too. Hell, the republicans are working on an abortion-focused fugitive slave act right now. It's literally what SB8 is.

I am saying it was strategically stupid.  GOP of all stripes can happily explain why they voted against the bill.  Dems in red or purple states/districts have a target on their backs for voting for this.  It was dumb politically.

A smart move would have been introducing a bill that guaranteed the right to first trimester abortions.  Then you put a target on GOP in blue or purpleish states or districts who vote against it.

Note, doing the latter does not preclude you from later swinging for the fences with this bill, which basically federalizes abortion and overturns all state regulations.

[Horndog 2,228]

43 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

meanwhile, in Spain

 

 

 

[Captainant 27,680]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

A smart move would have been introducing a bill that guaranteed the right to first trimester abortions.  Then you put a target on GOP in blue or purpleish states or districts who vote against it.

Yes, because the obstructionist GQP would totally tolerate not one but TWO abortion bills passing. Fuck outta here. We're going to get one bite at that apple for a couple of decades for actually passing legislation.

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Note, doing the latter does not preclude you from later swinging for the fences with this bill, which basically federalizes abortion and overturns all state regulations.

Again, anyone who lives in this country in 2022 should be able to understand why hoping for incremental progress is a fool's errand. Our rights to privacy and women's rights to autonomy over their own bodies (without asking for a man's permission as you'd prefer) are being taken away rapidly in huge chunks by gerrymandered legislatures and fedsoc-stuffed courts with seats stolen from Obama's term. 

If you're losing in the 4th quarter in the cotton bowl during the RRR, running a fucking bubble screen to get a few shitty yards ain't gonna win you the game. You gotta fucking go for the whole enchilada.

Fuck outta here with your greg davis mindset. You want the whole country to look like Texas football has for the last decade?

[DDD Dad 14,339]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am saying it was strategically stupid.  GOP of all stripes can happily explain why they voted against the bill.  Dems in red or purple states/districts have a target on their backs for voting for this.  It was dumb politically.

A smart move would have been introducing a bill that guaranteed the right to first trimester abortions.  Then you put a target on GOP in blue or purpleish states or districts who vote against it.

Note, doing the latter does not preclude you from later swinging for the fences with this bill, which basically federalizes abortion and overturns all state regulations.

They happily would have voted against a bill limited simply guaranteeing the right to first trimester abortions.

You're not arguing in good faith here, and you know it.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

Why do people keep engaging with trolls? Stop it. Put them on ignore. 

[WBT 20,607]

He's saying that no bill had a chance to pass but that the bill actually brought to the vote does not give the democrats the maximum campaign advantage.  I certainly agree with the first part and tend to agree with the second.

[Captainant 27,680]

10 minutes ago, WBT said:

He's saying that no bill had a chance to pass but that the bill actually brought to the vote does not give the democrats the maximum campaign advantage.  I certainly agree with the first part and tend to agree with the second.

So you're saying we shouldn't try to actually win games, and just focus on recruiting? That's certainly been working out GREAT for us so far.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,103]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

meanwhile, in Spain

 

I have always tended to work from home on the first or second day of my cycle becuase my tolerance for bull shit is pretty fucking low on those days.  This isn't a bad idea.  Maybe I should move to Spain.  

[DDD Dad 14,339]

14 minutes ago, WBT said:

He's saying that no bill had a chance to pass but that the bill actually brought to the vote does not give the democrats the maximum campaign advantage.  I certainly agree with the first part and tend to agree with the second.

51-49 doesn't sound to me like no chance to pass with removal of the filibuster.  

[WBT 20,607]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

51-49 doesn't sound to me like no chance to pass with removal of the filibuster.  

That's the no chance part

[DDD Dad 14,339]

6 minutes ago, WBT said:

That's the no chance part

There's no way they get to 61 regardless of what they put in the bill.  This is a stupid argument.  The Republican senators wouldn't face any blowback regardless of what would be put in a bill.  Or haven't you been paying attention for the last 5 years or so?

[Covri 6,249]

27 minutes ago, WBT said:

He's saying that no bill had a chance to pass but that the bill actually brought to the vote does not give the democrats the maximum campaign advantage.  I certainly agree with the first part and tend to agree with the second.

Republicans would have lied and misled their base to the extreme regardless of what bill was put to vote. Nothing they do is grounded in facts.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

36 minutes ago, WBT said:

He's saying that no bill had a chance to pass but that the bill actually brought to the vote does not give the democrats the maximum campaign advantage.  I certainly agree with the first part and tend to agree with the second.

I am glad one of you guys possess basic reading comprehension.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[DDD Dad 14,339]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am glad one of you guys possess basic reading comprehension.

Possesses.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Neither were going to ever pass.  And I never suggested either would.  One bill's vote could be used against Democrats.  And one could be used against the GOP.  Chuck Schumer chose the former.

[DDD Dad 14,339]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Neither were going to ever pass.  And I never suggested either would.  One bill's vote could be used against Democrats.  And one could be used against the GOP.  Chuck Schumer chose the former.

We will have to agree to disagree whether and to what extent one could have been used against the GOP.  I don't think it would have made any difference, based on past experience.  And you don't either.  But keep on fucking that chicken.

[Covri 6,249]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Neither were going to ever pass.  And I never suggested either would.  One bill's vote could be used against Democrats.  And one could be used against the GOP.  Chuck Schumer chose the former.

The people that vote for the GOP have proved for over 6 years now they don’t actually care about facts or reason. Who cares what bill was presented? They’ll just hammer “dems want to kill babies” like always and the rubes will fall in line. 
 

You talking political strategy is rich, maybe instead of coming on here and pointing at what you think are Dem messaging failures, how about you set your friends and family straight on what’s actually happening?

[Anastasis 23,475]

Exchange is a perfect example of why our politics on the topic are so fucked up. 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Exchange is a perfect example of why our politics on the topic are so fucked up. 

 

[workswithseed 2,112]

3 minutes ago, Covri said:

The people that vote for the GOP have proved for over 6 years now they don’t actually care about facts or reason. Who cares what bill was presented? They’ll just hammer “dems want to kill babies” like always and the rubes will fall in line. 
 

You talking political strategy is rich, maybe instead of coming on here and pointing at what you think are Dem messaging failures, how about you set your friends and family straight on what’s actually happening?

Haha, and theo-fascist is changing hearts and minds. 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Haha, and theo-fascist is changing hearts and minds. 

Shh.  Grownups are talking.

[mchookem 16,336]

me, basically all week

 

[workswithseed 2,112]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Shh.  Grownups are talking.

You could've fooled me. Maybe you should stop shitting on this thread and use the toilet like a grownup you apparently say you are.

[Bojack 2,081]

Has the Democratic Party turned the corner finally?  Seems like the most Democrat thing to do would have been to write the bill with every compromise imaginable to get a few Republicans to maybe, almost vote for it only to have it go down 49-51.  Then the Republicans would call the Dems a bunch of baby killers that had no respect for decorum or compromise.    

[Captainant 27,680]

27 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Exchange is a perfect example of why our politics on the topic are so fucked up. 

Republicans: women are chattel that have no bodily autonomy unless their husbands or rapists say they can

Everyone else: that's fucked up and barbaric

Republicans: mUh CiViLiTy