hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is any democrat safe in 2022? Outside of Manhattan and San Francisco I mean. When will people learn anyway? My entire life democrats in power has led to a complete ****show. Clinton being the exception through some of his time... with a GOP controlled congress mind you.

---

A lot of democrats are safe in 2022 because of gerry mandering of congressional districts from both parties in the last few years.

---

If one party undoes another party's districts, is that considered Gerry mandering?

---

two wrongs don't make a right. And it's the number one reason why we are where we are with Congress and we get nutcases like AOC, Omar, Bush, Presley, Tlaib, Bowman, Greene, Gaetz, Gosar, Cawthorn, etc.

---

LOL... you named some very interesting individuals....

Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

that's not the point and you know it BBW. You are not responding to the point I'm trying to convey but rather just changing the subject because you don't care about why the quality of congressional candidates continues to deteriorate from both parties. You only care about owning the libs rather than congress doing their job and producing quality legislation.

But to answer your question, if you are elected to do a job and you choose instead to focus on self promotion of your name to fill your coffers over representing the interests of your district then I consider all of them anti American.

---

NO..it absolutely is the point. You once again try and make a point by associating the Anti-American left with a few extreme right congressmen from the GOP. Once you are called out for your shortcomings you deflect and refuse to answer the question.

Typical.

---

I did answer your question

---

LOL...NO you didn't.

Quote:

---

"Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from."

---

Once again when you are put on the spot you fail miserably.

---

Ok

AOC - D - Anti-American
Omar - D - Anti-American
Bush - D - Don't know
Presley - D - Don't know
Tlaib - D - Anti-American
Bowman - D - Don't know
Greene - R - Pro-American
Gaetz -R - Pro-American
Gosar - R - Pro-American
Cawthorn - R - TBD

I answered it! Yay

---

So did I...

---

Actually....lets go a little bit further on this if you both don't mind. Hokie and Cary - You've both put up your notes above....why?

Lets take Gaetz for instance. Hokie - What makes you think that he is anti-american and why do you think he is pro-american Cary?

---

if you think grifting your base for campaign money is your job as an elected official then you are anti-American. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric. Too many look at the rhetoric and think that's just good enough.

---

That's actually a really fair point.

Aside from grifting to his base, which is what all politicians do, how do you feel about the bills that he has sponsored in regards to doing his duty as a congressman?

---

there's nothing in his record aside from one bill that he has brought forth that would actually benefit his district. Everything else is just for show

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is any democrat safe in 2022? Outside of Manhattan and San Francisco I mean. When will people learn anyway? My entire life democrats in power has led to a complete ****show. Clinton being the exception through some of his time... with a GOP controlled congress mind you.

---

A lot of democrats are safe in 2022 because of gerry mandering of congressional districts from both parties in the last few years.

---

If one party undoes another party's districts, is that considered Gerry mandering?

---

two wrongs don't make a right. And it's the number one reason why we are where we are with Congress and we get nutcases like AOC, Omar, Bush, Presley, Tlaib, Bowman, Greene, Gaetz, Gosar, Cawthorn, etc.

---

LOL... you named some very interesting individuals....

Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

that's not the point and you know it BBW. You are not responding to the point I'm trying to convey but rather just changing the subject because you don't care about why the quality of congressional candidates continues to deteriorate from both parties. You only care about owning the libs rather than congress doing their job and producing quality legislation.

But to answer your question, if you are elected to do a job and you choose instead to focus on self promotion of your name to fill your coffers over representing the interests of your district then I consider all of them anti American.

---

NO..it absolutely is the point. You once again try and make a point by associating the Anti-American left with a few extreme right congressmen from the GOP. Once you are called out for your shortcomings you deflect and refuse to answer the question.

Typical.

---

I did answer your question

---

LOL...NO you didn't.

Quote:

---

"Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from."

---

Once again when you are put on the spot you fail miserably.

---

Ok

AOC - D - Anti-American
Omar - D - Anti-American
Bush - D - Don't know
Presley - D - Don't know
Tlaib - D - Anti-American
Bowman - D - Don't know
Greene - R - Pro-American
Gaetz -R - Pro-American
Gosar - R - Pro-American
Cawthorn - R - TBD

I answered it! Yay

---

So did I...

---

Actually....lets go a little bit further on this if you both don't mind. Hokie and Cary - You've both put up your notes above....why?

Lets take Gaetz for instance. Hokie - What makes you think that he is anti-american and why do you think he is pro-american Cary?

---

if you think grifting your base for campaign money is your job as an elected official then you are anti-American. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric. Too many look at the rhetoric and think that's just good enough.

---

That's actually a really fair point.

Aside from grifting to his base, which is what all politicians do, how do you feel about the bills that he has sponsored in regards to doing his duty as a congressman?

---

there's nothing in his record aside from one bill that he has brought forth that would actually benefit his district. Everything else is just for show

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is any democrat safe in 2022? Outside of Manhattan and San Francisco I mean. When will people learn anyway? My entire life democrats in power has led to a complete ****show. Clinton being the exception through some of his time... with a GOP controlled congress mind you.

---

A lot of democrats are safe in 2022 because of gerry mandering of congressional districts from both parties in the last few years.

---

If one party undoes another party's districts, is that considered Gerry mandering?

---

two wrongs don't make a right. And it's the number one reason why we are where we are with Congress and we get nutcases like AOC, Omar, Bush, Presley, Tlaib, Bowman, Greene, Gaetz, Gosar, Cawthorn, etc.

---

LOL... you named some very interesting individuals....

Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

that's not the point and you know it BBW. You are not responding to the point I'm trying to convey but rather just changing the subject because you don't care about why the quality of congressional candidates continues to deteriorate from both parties. You only care about owning the libs rather than congress doing their job and producing quality legislation.

But to answer your question, if you are elected to do a job and you choose instead to focus on self promotion of your name to fill your coffers over representing the interests of your district then I consider all of them anti American.

---

NO..it absolutely is the point. You once again try and make a point by associating the Anti-American left with a few extreme right congressmen from the GOP. Once you are called out for your shortcomings you deflect and refuse to answer the question.

Typical.

---

I did answer your question

---

LOL...NO you didn't.

Quote:

---

"Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from."

---

Once again when you are put on the spot you fail miserably.

---

Ok

AOC - D - Anti-American
Omar - D - Anti-American
Bush - D - Don't know
Presley - D - Don't know
Tlaib - D - Anti-American
Bowman - D - Don't know
Greene - R - Pro-American
Gaetz -R - Pro-American
Gosar - R - Pro-American
Cawthorn - R - TBD

I answered it! Yay

---

So did I...

---

Actually....lets go a little bit further on this if you both don't mind. Hokie and Cary - You've both put up your notes above....why?

Lets take Gaetz for instance. Hokie - What makes you think that he is anti-american and why do you think he is pro-american Cary?

---

if you think grifting your base for campaign money is your job as an elected official then you are anti-American. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric. Too many look at the rhetoric and think that's just good enough.

---

That's actually a really fair point.

Aside from grifting to his base, which is what all politicians do, how do you feel about the bills that he has sponsored in regards to doing his duty as a congressman?

---

there's nothing in his record aside from one bill that he has brought forth that would actually benefit his district. Everything else is just for show

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Please Hokie...tell us exactly what a "woman" is... YOUR party seems to have an issue when it comes to defining what a woman is and who can have a baby....

Why don't you "circle back" and let us know when you can define what a "woman" is and who exactly among us can and cannot become pregnant.

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is any democrat safe in 2022? Outside of Manhattan and San Francisco I mean. When will people learn anyway? My entire life democrats in power has led to a complete ****show. Clinton being the exception through some of his time... with a GOP controlled congress mind you.

---

A lot of democrats are safe in 2022 because of gerry mandering of congressional districts from both parties in the last few years.

---

If one party undoes another party's districts, is that considered Gerry mandering?

---

two wrongs don't make a right. And it's the number one reason why we are where we are with Congress and we get nutcases like AOC, Omar, Bush, Presley, Tlaib, Bowman, Greene, Gaetz, Gosar, Cawthorn, etc.

---

LOL... you named some very interesting individuals....

Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

that's not the point and you know it BBW. You are not responding to the point I'm trying to convey but rather just changing the subject because you don't care about why the quality of congressional candidates continues to deteriorate from both parties. You only care about owning the libs rather than congress doing their job and producing quality legislation.

But to answer your question, if you are elected to do a job and you choose instead to focus on self promotion of your name to fill your coffers over representing the interests of your district then I consider all of them anti American.

---

NO..it absolutely is the point. You once again try and make a point by associating the Anti-American left with a few extreme right congressmen from the GOP. Once you are called out for your shortcomings you deflect and refuse to answer the question.

Typical.

---

I did answer your question

---

LOL...NO you didn't.

Quote:

---

"Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from."

---

Once again when you are put on the spot you fail miserably.

---

Ok

AOC - D - Anti-American
Omar - D - Anti-American
Bush - D - Don't know
Presley - D - Don't know
Tlaib - D - Anti-American
Bowman - D - Don't know
Greene - R - Pro-American
Gaetz -R - Pro-American
Gosar - R - Pro-American
Cawthorn - R - TBD

I answered it! Yay

---

So did I...

---

Actually....lets go a little bit further on this if you both don't mind. Hokie and Cary - You've both put up your notes above....why?

Lets take Gaetz for instance. Hokie - What makes you think that he is anti-american and why do you think he is pro-american Cary?

---

if you think grifting your base for campaign money is your job as an elected official then you are anti-American. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric. Too many look at the rhetoric and think that's just good enough.

---

That's actually a really fair point.

Aside from grifting to his base, which is what all politicians do, how do you feel about the bills that he has sponsored in regards to doing his duty as a congressman?

---

there's nothing in his record aside from one bill that he has brought forth that would actually benefit his district. Everything else is just for show

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Please Hokie...tell us exactly what a "woman" is... YOUR party seems to have an issue when it comes to defining what a woman is and who can have a baby....

Why don't you "circle back" and let us know when you can define what a "woman" is and who exactly among us can and cannot become pregnant.

---

would you like to contribute to the discussion or just check your talking points box Bill O'Reilly?

^ Gotta be a Dimorat.

Werewolf said:

---

^ Gotta be a Dimorat.

---

what is a "Dimorat"?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

ncsualum05 said:

---

Is any democrat safe in 2022? Outside of Manhattan and San Francisco I mean. When will people learn anyway? My entire life democrats in power has led to a complete ****show. Clinton being the exception through some of his time... with a GOP controlled congress mind you.

---

A lot of democrats are safe in 2022 because of gerry mandering of congressional districts from both parties in the last few years.

---

If one party undoes another party's districts, is that considered Gerry mandering?

---

two wrongs don't make a right. And it's the number one reason why we are where we are with Congress and we get nutcases like AOC, Omar, Bush, Presley, Tlaib, Bowman, Greene, Gaetz, Gosar, Cawthorn, etc.

---

LOL... you named some very interesting individuals....

Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from.

I'll hang up and listen.

---

that's not the point and you know it BBW. You are not responding to the point I'm trying to convey but rather just changing the subject because you don't care about why the quality of congressional candidates continues to deteriorate from both parties. You only care about owning the libs rather than congress doing their job and producing quality legislation.

But to answer your question, if you are elected to do a job and you choose instead to focus on self promotion of your name to fill your coffers over representing the interests of your district then I consider all of them anti American.

---

NO..it absolutely is the point. You once again try and make a point by associating the Anti-American left with a few extreme right congressmen from the GOP. Once you are called out for your shortcomings you deflect and refuse to answer the question.

Typical.

---

I did answer your question

---

LOL...NO you didn't.

Quote:

---

"Now list the names from those you posted who are Anti-American..... and list what party they are from."

---

Once again when you are put on the spot you fail miserably.

---

Ok

AOC - D - Anti-American
Omar - D - Anti-American
Bush - D - Don't know
Presley - D - Don't know
Tlaib - D - Anti-American
Bowman - D - Don't know
Greene - R - Pro-American
Gaetz -R - Pro-American
Gosar - R - Pro-American
Cawthorn - R - TBD

I answered it! Yay

---

So did I...

---

Actually....lets go a little bit further on this if you both don't mind. Hokie and Cary - You've both put up your notes above....why?

Lets take Gaetz for instance. Hokie - What makes you think that he is anti-american and why do you think he is pro-american Cary?

---

if you think grifting your base for campaign money is your job as an elected official then you are anti-American. Look at the actions, not the rhetoric. Too many look at the rhetoric and think that's just good enough.

---

That's actually a really fair point.

Aside from grifting to his base, which is what all politicians do, how do you feel about the bills that he has sponsored in regards to doing his duty as a congressman?

---

there's nothing in his record aside from one bill that he has brought forth that would actually benefit his district. Everything else is just for show

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Please Hokie...tell us exactly what a "woman" is... YOUR party seems to have an issue when it comes to defining what a woman is and who can have a baby....

Why don't you "circle back" and let us know when you can define what a "woman" is and who exactly among us can and cannot become pregnant.

---

would you like to contribute to the discussion or just check your talking points box Bill O'Reilly?

---

As expected from you. When you answer a question the first time it is asked it will be the first time.

Rather than address my question you obfuscate in your normal MO.

Nothing scares the MARXIST PARTY more than having to address the facts.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

Steve Videtich said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Which begs the question, given that this creature has failed at virtually everything, are we to believe that the one thing he did succeed at, is legitimately being elected President?

---

The only reasonable excuse would be that that many people were completely blinded by hatred for Trump. If that's the reality, that says even more about the sad state of our country.

---

Or about how just sorry of a person most Americans thought Trump was. On HRC level of completely unacceptability for people...and only tepid "because I don't want the other guy" support from many who do vote.

**It does speak the absolute crapshow we have for available candidates for the job.

Apparently we're at war with Russia now...

U.S. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "I know there's a lot of politics here, but we're at war." pic.twitter.com/M2ciNxiEoK

— The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸 (@ColumbiaBugle) May 13, 2022

Quote:

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

Are you sure it's the politicians making abortion a wedge issue? It is one of the first questions politicians are asked by potential voters. The voters want to know because they have very strong opinions on the topic. There was a good bit of diversity across the political spectrum on abortion but through the decades since Roe v Wade it has become very polarized.

How would you word this law, hokie?

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

hokiewolf said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

^ Gotta be a Dimorat.

---

what is a "Dimorat"?

---

Hey, I take that back..........shouldn't said it.

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

Are you sure it's the politicians making abortion a wedge issue? It is one of the first questions politicians are asked by potential voters. The voters want to know because they have very strong opinions on the topic. There was a good bit of diversity across the political spectrum on abortion but through the decades since Roe v Wade it has become very polarized.

How would you word this law, hokie?

---

is it really as big of an issue as it's made out to be? Aside from the hard core pro lifers and pro choicers, does the avg American even have abortion in their top 15 of issues? I think not. If this was such a huge issue for democrats then why did Biden rope it together with other social issues to rally the party?

This is obviously a oversimplification of the total issues related to abortion, so those of you who like to point out nuance, just save it. But I would allow for abortion in the first trimester, restrict it in the second trimester, and eliminate the ability on the third trimester unless there is a medical reason to do so.

I believe that the major majority of people in this country would be perfectly fine with the above approach.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

First amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law."

OOldsouljer said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

First amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law."

---

This ain't a free speech issue

hokiewolf said:

---

OOldsouljer said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

First amendment starts out with "Congress shall make no law."

---

This ain't a free speech issue

---

Couldn't resist. Just funnin' ya.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

Yes they can; however, what power, in the constitution, is given to congress for this jurisdiction?

hokiewolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

Are you sure it's the politicians making abortion a wedge issue? It is one of the first questions politicians are asked by potential voters. The voters want to know because they have very strong opinions on the topic. There was a good bit of diversity across the political spectrum on abortion but through the decades since Roe v Wade it has become very polarized.

How would you word this law, hokie?

---

is it really as big of an issue as it's made out to be? Aside from the hard core pro lifers and pro choicers, does the avg American even have abortion in their top 15 of issues? I think not. If this was such a huge issue for democrats then why did Biden rope it together with other social issues to rally the party?

This is obviously a oversimplification of the total issues related to abortion, so those of you who like to point out nuance, just save it. But I would allow for abortion in the first trimester, restrict it in the second trimester, and eliminate the ability on the third trimester unless there is a medical reason to do so.

I believe that the major majority of people in this country would be perfectly fine with the above approach.

---

Agree that a middle ground could be found and that what you've described is reasonable.

Most fundamentally, states should not have the capacity to not allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity for the mother. Full stop. That aspect of abortion, at a minimum, should be established as a basic right for women and should not be decided on a state by state basis.

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Quote:

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

Are you sure it's the politicians making abortion a wedge issue? It is one of the first questions politicians are asked by potential voters. The voters want to know because they have very strong opinions on the topic. There was a good bit of diversity across the political spectrum on abortion but through the decades since Roe v Wade it has become very polarized.

How would you word this law, hokie?

---

is it really as big of an issue as it's made out to be? Aside from the hard core pro lifers and pro choicers, does the avg American even have abortion in their top 15 of issues? I think not. If this was such a huge issue for democrats then why did Biden rope it together with other social issues to rally the party?

This is obviously a oversimplification of the total issues related to abortion, so those of you who like to point out nuance, just save it. But I would allow for abortion in the first trimester, restrict it in the second trimester, and eliminate the ability on the third trimester unless there is a medical reason to do so.

I believe that the major majority of people in this country would be perfectly fine with the above approach.

---

Agree that a middle ground could be found and that what you've described is reasonable.

Most fundamentally, states should not have the capacity to not allow abortion in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity for the mother. Full stop. That aspect of abortion, at a minimum, should be established as a basic right for women and should not be decided on a state by state basis.

---

agree, problem is right now you're getting politically driven, rushed, and poorly written legislation in the states on abortion from both parties.

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

Yes they can; however, what power, in the constitution, is given to congress for this jurisdiction?

---

Cary, for this specific issue, I just feel like this is the best way to get to a compromise that would be supported by an overwhelming amount of Americans and once and for all end this charade of outrage on this issue.

You are 100% correct, but what as I said above responding to Civ, you're seeing some really poor state legislation right now in response/preparation of the SC ruling

There has never been an administration that blatantly lies and has the media cover for them in the manner that this one does.

Kudos to Fake Jake Tapper for finally calling them out.

JAKE TAPPER: "Why is the White House politicizing the pandemic by tweeting out that there was no vaccine available until Joe Biden became president? It's not true."

FAUCI: "I just can't explain it." pic.twitter.com/9oFe9lZ6OL

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 13, 2022

You should just call him Fake Tapper, that way your fun nicknames have a consistent structure to them.

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

Yes they can; however, what power, in the constitution, is given to congress for this jurisdiction?

---

Cary, for this specific issue, I just feel like this is the best way to get to a compromise that would be supported by an overwhelming amount of Americans and once and for all end this charade of outrage on this issue.

You are 100% correct, but what as I said above responding to Civ, you're seeing some really poor state legislation right now in response/preparation of the SC ruling

---

That is a scary statement by anyone, as far as I'm concerned. Remember, we will have an issue that does not have the constitutional power and made law, that you don't support. I have tried to be very consistent and call out my supporting issues to the states.

The beauty of this country is that Citizens in each state can change their legislatures to mold a bill the way they see fit. Taking your own opinion and applying it to California… they are working on and/or already have legislation to allow any abortion up to the day before birth. That is in counter to "your" federal legislation idea.

So, what do you do then? Fight California and the will of their people? Not a good idea!

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

caryking said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Not that I don't disagree with you but isn't that what all politicians do?

---

that's kind of my point, the districts have been so distorted that all you're getting now is extreme right and left, and you're not getting real worked on legislation that is sound

---

Just not a sound argument! The constitution provides for certain powers at the Federal Government; so, what should be acceptable for a House member, regardless of how extreme they are?

---

let's take abortion for an example. I'm not for it except in certain rare conditions. A sound legislator would work on legislation that doesn't appease just their base, they would work to get to the halfway point. This all or nothing stuff, all it does is continue the issue for the purposes of fund raising. Do your job and solve the damn issue that 75% of America would most likely live with

---

Hokie, where in the constitution does the Federal Government have jurisdiction over any law regarding Abortion? Please don't be lazy and say: the federal government makes laws and rules without explicit jurisdiction all the time.

---

it doesn't, but I'd rather have a national law that ends this debate then the hodge podge of poorly written legislation in the states where dumb stuff like ectopic pregnancies aren't addressed.

Orinstead of a compromise in legislation you get dumb abortion law that doesn't even include the word "woman"

---

Hokie, taking what I thought about you, that statement is the complete antithesis.

I think you say you're from the conservative flank of the political spectrum. If so, Federalism is what you would want, right? The constitution is explicitly set up with Federalism as its structure. That would take this ruling, in the early 70's, as a bad ruling. So, this would push it back to the States to solve, regardless of how its own law is written.

Conservative, Inc, says things like you said. Conservatives do not!

---

I think a national law is the only conclusion into which making this issue moot. Therefore I'm all for that. Otherwise politicians will continue to make this a wedge issue.

---

So, you will throw away the constitution to make an issue moot?

---

last time I checked, the constitution allowed for congress to pass laws

---

Yes they can; however, what power, in the constitution, is given to congress for this jurisdiction?

---

Cary, for this specific issue, I just feel like this is the best way to get to a compromise that would be supported by an overwhelming amount of Americans and once and for all end this charade of outrage on this issue.

You are 100% correct, but what as I said above responding to Civ, you're seeing some really poor state legislation right now in response/preparation of the SC ruling

---

That is a scary statement by anyone, as far as I'm concerned. Remember, we will have an issue that does not have the constitutional power and made law, that you don't support. I have tried to be very consistent and call out my supporting issues to the states.

The beauty of this country is that Citizens in each state can change their legislatures to mold a bill the way they see fit. Taking your own opinion and applying it to California… they are working on and/or already have legislation to allow any abortion up to the day before birth. That is in counter to "your" federal legislation idea.

So, what do you do then? Fight California and the will of their people? Not a good idea!

---

All I'm pointing out here is that if you take away the two extreme sides of this issue, there is middle ground that would satisfy an overwhelming majority of Americans. The problem again, with State Legislation on this issue is that it has been rushed and poorly thought out and some of it is going to bring this issue up again through the courts.

So to me, the ONLY way to permanently get rid of this as a political issue is to provide a compromised solution in Congress.

Frankly I'm just tired of all of the shenanigans with Sc Justice fights and the haranguing of new state laws and how "draconian" they are.

It's just childish behavior to create a wedge between all Americans for the purposes of filling campaign coffers. It's all theater. I want to eliminate the theater and move on. A federal compromised legislation seems like the only way to do it.

A number of signs that MAGA may be closer to return than I expected. I prefer DEVOLUTION for another 4-5 months so that the SHEEP can experience a real HOT finger over the fire.

What is the moral lesson of Art of war? In The Art of War, Sun Tzu says that nations must only engage in armed conflict when they have a clear advantage, and avoid spreading their forces too thin....

I'm on it!

cary, if u were watching, SKB alluded to an ULTRA MAGA return this AM. There have been a number of other indications the last couple of weeks. It may take a nuclear missile scare to push "the return" to the other side of the fulcrum.

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

He's too busy making snide remarks to actually ever address a question or a fact.

Typical liberal mindset.

---

never too busy to do both!

---

Still waiting on you to define what your party has determined is a "woman."

Add that to the list of questions you conveniently avoid.

BBW12OG said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

He's too busy making snide remarks to actually ever address a question or a fact.

Typical liberal mindset.

---

never too busy to do both!

---

Still waiting on you to define what your party has determined is a "woman."

Add that to the list of questions you conveniently avoid.

---

I don't have a party and I don't need to answer questions that aren't relevant to the discussion