Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Sure............whatever lets you sleep at night........Democrats don't give one more or less shit about this country and its people then republicans. They'll elect whomever get them in control and not look back for one second.
You don't really believe that and you know it. The truth is that while many of us thought (myself included) that the Dems would want someone who would get in the pen with Fat Nixon and match him tweet for tweet, mudsling for mudsling--someone who would play the game... turns out that's not at all what they want. That candidate was probably Kamala Harris and she's done. Listen to what they're saying in Iowa. They want someone who will end the juvenile divisiveness. They want a president they can be proud of again.
Nope, thats exactly what I believe. There isn't a damn bit of difference between the two. There's surface issues like abortion for example that the republicans and democrats say they're different on. They'll even pass a few laws here and there to appease their subjects but when it boils right down to it....nope they don't give a shit. They know Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere. They know that even if it did there'd be enough court challenges that it'd never change.
As far as orange man bad. If he switched parties and said he was now a Democrat they'd happily elect him right now.
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Sure............whatever lets you sleep at night........Democrats don't give one more or less shit about this country and its people then republicans. They'll elect whomever get them in control and not look back for one second.
You don't really believe that and you know it. The truth is that while many of us thought (myself included) that the Dems would want someone who would get in the pen with Fat Nixon and match him tweet for tweet, mudsling for mudsling--someone who would play the game... turns out that's not at all what they want. That candidate was probably Kamala Harris and she's done. Listen to what they're saying in Iowa. They want someone who will end the juvenile divisiveness. They want a president they can be proud of again.
Nope, thats exactly what I believe. There isn't a damn bit of difference between the two. There's surface issues like abortion for example that the republicans and democrats say they're different on. They'll even pass a few laws here and there to appease their subjects but when it boils right down to it....nope they don't give a shit. They know Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere. They know that even if it did there'd be enough court challenges that it'd never change.
As far as orange man bad. If he switched parties and said he was now a Democrat they'd happily elect him right now.
nah, they wouldnt elect him, but I bet they would welcome him and his money back into the fold.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
is that the law? 3rd trimester abortions are only in instances of womens health? if that were the law, i could understand that, how many are due to complications with the baby? I can understand sparing a baby a lifetime of pain if its certain that a birth defect is going to create such an awful existence but what is considered an abortable defect, and who decides that? For the babies sake I think this should go beyond what one woman thinks, at what point does science and a screwed legal system start to rule left handed or green eyed a birth defect or other common unusual things in todays society? what if parents were able to determine that sexual preference is indeed something that is set before birth and its "gene" was identifiable, could that then be an abortable "defect"?
I am sure there are many that are legit health reasons, but I am also sure they all arent and without some sort of limitation then infanticide is being practiced and not for ethical reasons.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
is that the law? 3rd trimester abortions are only in instances of womens health? if that were the law, i could understand that, how many are due to complications with the baby? I can understand sparing a baby a lifetime of pain if its certain that a birth defect is going to create such an awful existence but what is considered an abortable defect, and who decides that? For the babies sake I think this should go beyond what one woman thinks, at what point does science and a screwed legal system start to rule left handed or green eyed a birth defect or other common unusual things in todays society? what if parents were able to determine that sexual preference is indeed something that is set before birth and its "gene" was identifiable, could that then be an abortable "defect"?
I am sure there are many that are legit health reasons, but I am also sure they all arent and without some sort of limitation then infanticide is being practiced and not for ethical reasons.
Oh fer fuck sake. What the hell world do you live in? "Yes, Mrs Smith, we've been able to determine that little Jonny will in fact be gay. We can't tell you what to do, but we think you should consider ending the pregnancy...."
Quote: @AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Sure............whatever lets you sleep at night........Democrats don't give one more or less shit about this country and its people then republicans. They'll elect whomever get them in control and not look back for one second.
You don't really believe that and you know it. The truth is that while many of us thought (myself included) that the Dems would want someone who would get in the pen with Fat Nixon and match him tweet for tweet, mudsling for mudsling--someone who would play the game... turns out that's not at all what they want. That candidate was probably Kamala Harris and she's done. Listen to what they're saying in Iowa. They want someone who will end the juvenile divisiveness. They want a president they can be proud of again.
Nope, thats exactly what I believe. There isn't a damn bit of difference between the two. There's surface issues like abortion for example that the republicans and democrats say they're different on. They'll even pass a few laws here and there to appease their subjects but when it boils right down to it....nope they don't give a shit. They know Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere. They know that even if it did there'd be enough court challenges that it'd never change.
As far as orange man bad. If he switched parties and said he was now a Democrat they'd happily elect him right now.
I think you need a civics class. And a lobotomy.
Counter punchers be ware! The refs always miss the first punch and flag the second one.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
Once again, your personal attacks say more about you than me.
Infanticide: as in, killing a child AFTER he/she is born. No, I wasn't talking about third trimester abortions (although that's pretty evil, too). Legislation was introduced to strengthen the infanticide laws... and every Democratic member of congress voted against it. In fact, I even pointed out in my post that I was talking about the killing of children AFTER they were born (i.e. NOT abortion), but apparently you can't be bothered to read a relatively brief post before you go on the attack. What I posted about infanticide IS the truth. If you would like to debate that, please do. I've got the facts on my side... and I can find and post the link stating such.
So, since that seems to be the thrust of your post: that I was conflating 3rd term abortions with the killing of children after they are born... perhaps you'd like to offer a retraction?
By the way, I don't recall "judging" anyone ("condemning them to hell"). Perhaps, while you're offering up your retraction, you could point out where I passed judgment on anyone's eternal soul?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ pumpf said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
The more any one party is in charge the worse things get regardless of which party it is. I just hope that we remain in a 2/3s branches of .gov one way and 1/3 the other.
What I imagine will happen is the pendulum will swing hard towards blue. They F it up like they normally do and by 2022 there will be a red wave. Then team red will F it up like they normally do and we'll rinse and repeat.
This is how it typically goes. As they say, every action has a reaction equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.
The good news for the country is that Democrats would never elect the left's version of Donald Trump. What Democrats consider the opposite of Trump is just someone decent and smart, someone with morals and authenticity.
Decent? Like someone who is OK with infanticide? While the pro-abortion Democrats will say that no additional legislation was necessary, over 40 (known) cases have been reported of children being born alive- and then left to die (or killed after birth). Sorry, but anyone who is OK with that... cannot be said to have "morals".
As for "smart", well... they might be book smart. But it sure does seem like none of them have ever run a business. In fact, I'm guessing they've never even had a family budget to worry about. Their economic polices (which are- unfortunately- tied to their other ideological boondoggles, like Global Warming) are pure insanity.
Authenticity? You mean like how they say "believe all women"... unless the woman is accusing a Democrat of wrong-doing? Or how they all fight to "help the poor"- by raising taxes on others- but donate very little of their own money towards charity? Or is it their political support for public schools (or, more accurately, teachers' unions)- and opposing vouchers to help give poor people a better option for their own kids- all the while sending their own kids to private schools?
Donald Trump has ALOT of flaws. I was one of his most out-spoken critics before (and after) the election. But no matter how bad he is... he's better than any candidate the Democrats have put forth. If the Democrats weren't so busy with intersectionality... and dividing people to increase their own power... they might have someone worth voting for. But the far-left now owns the party. And if they were to ever gain full control of all 3 branches, the whole US would look like Detroit... or San Francisco... or LA... or NY. No thanks.
Yeah, I know, we'll all burn in the fires of hell. Thanks Reverend Phelps.
Well, when you can't debate with someone's points... insult them. Way to go.
By the way, I have spoken often about Phelps being a "false prophet" whose message had nothing to do with the God of the Bible. But yeah: I'm just like him.
I think you are as well. Infanticide!? It kills me to think that you have influence over dozens, if not hundreds, of good people every week. People who actually respect you and think you're telling them the truth.
I grew up in a church where I thought my pastor was infallible. It's just what kids think. Kids, and even many adults, are so vulnerable to the influence and beliefs of their spiritual leaders. And so when you use words like "infanticide" to describe late-term abortions, your followers, sharing in your sneering judgement, likely envision some reckless, drug-abusing whore and a lecherous, knife-wielding doctor, neither of whom give a shit about life or babies. So, considering your influence, you should be more careful how you characterize it.
I've gone over this a dozen times so I won't again now. However, I do like how Pete Buttigieg put it on Fox (another of us who will burn in hell according to you).
Chris Wallace: “Do you believe, at any point in pregnancy, that there should be any limit on a woman’s right to an abortion?”
Pete: "The dialogue has gotten so caught up in where you draw the line. I trust women to draw the line."
Wallace: "So just to be clear, you're saying you would be okay with a woman well into the third trimester deciding to abort her pregnancy?"
Pete: “Look, these hypotheticals are set up to provoke a strong emotional...."
Wallace: “It's not hypothetical. There are 6,000 women a year who get an abortion in the third trimester."
Pete: “That’s right, representing less than 1 percent of cases a year. So Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation. If it’s that late in your pregnancy ...then almost by definition, you’ve been expecting to carry it to term. We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name. Women who have purchased a crib. Families ... then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother or viability of the pregnancy that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. And the bottom line is as horrible as that choice is, that woman, that family may seek spiritual guidance (let's just hope they don't come to you, Pumpf), they may seek medical guidance, but that decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made."
is that the law? 3rd trimester abortions are only in instances of womens health? if that were the law, i could understand that, how many are due to complications with the baby? I can understand sparing a baby a lifetime of pain if its certain that a birth defect is going to create such an awful existence but what is considered an abortable defect, and who decides that? For the babies sake I think this should go beyond what one woman thinks, at what point does science and a screwed legal system start to rule left handed or green eyed a birth defect or other common unusual things in todays society? what if parents were able to determine that sexual preference is indeed something that is set before birth and its "gene" was identifiable, could that then be an abortable "defect"?
I am sure there are many that are legit health reasons, but I am also sure they all arent and without some sort of limitation then infanticide is being practiced and not for ethical reasons.
Oh fer fuck sake. What the hell world do you live in? "Yes, Mrs Smith, we've been able to determine that little Jonny will in fact be gay. We can't tell you what to do, but we think you should consider ending the pregnancy...."
Reality, I will leave a map and a door open in case you want to try it.
I didn't say the doctor would suggest it but with the way the laws are getting interpreted anymore I can see a time when what is considered ludicrous now becomes a future norm.
|
