Biden seeks to motivate voters from all parties against ‘Maga Republicans destroying

You obviously don't understand that a single vote would not have changed the results. You come up with wild claims to attack people knowing they make no sense.

So then why vote at all, Flash?

Why even cast a ballot?

Why even post about it?

Why even go to JPP and run your mouth?

If none of your actions matter, then what the fuck are you even DOING here?

So you toss your vote away because you think it's meaningless.

But Flash, it's not your vote that is meaningless...
 
The optics of Biden's speech were pretty bad. The depths of hell thing didn't go over well; neither did the Marines in the background. I think turning it into some kind of campaign rally at the end was a mistake. I'm 100% for all voters trying to keep, at the very least, election deniers out of office. I vote Libertarian when I can, but I plan to vote for the Democrat SoS candidate in AZ to keep Mark Finchem out of office.
 
Obergefell would like a word there.

I said nothng about gender because Obergefell changed that. (see, established law can be changed).

But, all those other differences in state law remain:age requirements, medical requirements, reasons for divorce, spousal support, property division, common law.

Where is that noted in the Constitution?

Do I have to teach you high school civics?

Powers of the states are determined by each state under the 10th amendment. Powers of Congress are established under Article I, Section 8. If a power is allowed and not denied the federal or state government they can both exercise that power--civil and criminal laws, the police powers that allows states to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals.

You should know that there were already SCOTUS decisions upholding Medicare as a federal law.

That is why it is a concurrent power--both the federal government and states can perform that function.

In the Constitution? Where? So you're contradicting yourself...you're saying health care is a state issue, yet you're saying it's not for older folks. So why is it not for older folks but it is for younger folks? Shouldn't Medicare be unconstitutional then since health care is a 10th Amendment issue?

The federal law creating Medicare makes it for those over 65. I never said health care is just a state issue. I said it is a concurrent power that both federal and state can perform. Then I had to explain what a concurrent power is because you never took high school civics. You couldn't pass the citizenship test.


You mean Medicaid, which is also a federal program.

No, I don't mean Medicaid which is a joint federal state program. I mean the many state/local health care programs. Remember Romneycare? States have multiple health care programs.

You call me lazy but then make me teach you basic civics because you're too dumb to understand basic constitutional powers. What a hypocrite.

I'm tired of fooling with you. You lie constantly to me and other posters, you attack with personal insults and hostility, you can't remember shit and claim you said stuff you never said and forgot stuff you did say. If anybody gives any personal information about themselves you use it to attack them. Worse, I check my notifications I've got 10 posts from you whining about something.

Bye. You are now on IGNORE.
 
Trump has a more than 90% approval rating amongst Republicans and any republican who doesn't support the America First agenda shouldn't be welcome in the GOP to begin with.
90% of 35% of the electorate isn't enough to win anything.
 
It's killing them that Biden's team successfully stole the term MAGA and turned it into the proper derogatory term that it is.

Kinda takes all the steam out of it.

These midterms are gonna be weird...but I've been reading a lot about the new voter registrations being mostly female and mostly under 35.

If they all show up, the Democrats may actually gain a couple House seats because of terrible GOP candidates.

Don't forget that the GOP narrowly picked up about 5 seats in CA in 2020 that they will lose in 2022 with no Trump on the ballot.
 
LMAO!

So if Alito lied about Roe while being confirmed, why would he be telling the truth about the safety of other cases in his decision?

Because he does not get to decide about the other cases. It requires a majority vote.
 
I said nothng about gender because Obergefell changed that.

What did Obergefell change?


Powers of the states are determined by each state under the 10th amendment. Powers of Congress are established under Article I, Section 8. If a power is allowed and not denied the federal or state government they can both exercise that power--civil and criminal laws, the police powers that allows states to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals.

OK, so here you're making a massive assumption; that those regulated powers are enumetated to the states, and you've yet to actually show where in Article I, Section 8 the COnstituition specifically remanded those issues to the states.

The 10th amendment is very broad, and doesn't explicitly state what falls under that since health care obviously doesn't thanks to Medicare.


That is why it is a concurrent power--both the federal government and states can perform that function.

So now you're reversing yourself and saying that the power isn't just for the states, and that Congress can pass federal health care laws.


The federal law creating Medicare makes it for those over 65.

Right, so it's not in the Constitution, and prior to the Medicare Act, there was no Constitutional Amendment that established health care as something enumerated to the states.


I never said health care is just a state issue.

Yes you did. Two posts ago.


I said it is a concurrent power that both federal and state can perform.

You just moved that bar right now.


No, I don't mean Medicaid which is a joint federal state program. I mean the many state/local health care programs. Remember Romneycare? States have multiple health care programs.

The point is that they don't need to.


You call me lazy but then make me teach you basic civics because you're too dumb to understand basic constitutional powers. What a hypocrite.

I understand them just fine...what I don't understand is how you can continue flip-flopping and moving the bar while calling me a hypocrite.


I'm tired of fooling with you. You lie constantly to me and other posters, you attack with personal insults and hostility, you can't remember shit and claim you said stuff you never said and forgot stuff you did say. If anybody gives any personal information about themselves you use it to attack them. Worse, I check my notifications I've got 10 posts from you whining about something.

Unlike you, I do not have dementia or early onset Alzheimer's.

I've had to do the work of correcting every single one of your mistakes here, and instead of thanking me, you decide to be an asshole about it because of your bruised ego.

For someone so fucking old, you sure have a ton of growing up left to do.
 
But abortion is universal, in that abortion is the same procedure in Montana as it is in New Jersey, so why is it a state thing?

What is the specific reason beyond control of women?
Not to jump into this sewer of a discussion, but each state can decide to limit abortion as it sees fit.

Until Congress makes it legal on the national level...which will likely never happen.

Personally, I don't think the 15 week parameter sans a medical condition is so bad. Assuming that many women don't know that they're pregnant for a month, that still leave more than 2 months to take necessary action.
 
Because he does not get to decide about the other cases. It requires a majority vote.

OK, so now you're actually admitting that he's not going to honor his word, and that we shouldn't expect him to.

Does that sound like a court that has the legitimacy to be taking rights away from people?
 
Not to jump into this sewer of a discussion, but each state can decide to limit abortion as it sees fit.

Except that my perpetual question is WHY?

Abortion isn't an enumerated power given to the states, it's an individual freedom, portable.

You all do a real nice job of saying "each state can decide to limit abortion" but none of you are doing a nice job of asking "why"; and because you're not asking why, we are in this place.

And any federal abortion law that isn't a total ban will get struck down by this SCOTUS. So that isn't the answer.


Personally, I don't think the 15 week parameter sans a medical condition is so bad. Assuming that many women don't know that they're pregnant for a month, that still leave more than 2 months to take necessary action.

It's none of your business why anyone gets an abortion, and you will never know why a person got an abortion unless they tell you.

So if they want an abortion at 8.99 months, it's none of your business why and no one should have to justify that since it doesn't involve anyone other than the woman and the doctor, and even then the doctor still can't ethically ask why..

This fascination some people have with moral high ground is absurd when we're talking about a woman's choice over her own body.

Or think of it this way...if you could donate a kidney that would save someone's life, does the state have the power to force you to donate your kidney? Of course it doesn't. So why does the state have the power to force you to give birth?
 
The tenth amendment states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Supreme Court should have argued that the medical procedure of abortion is not murder by US law. Thus, allowing states to make it illegal violates the "powers...to the people".
I don't believe the court 'argues'. They listen to arguments and decide if same was valid.

In this case, McConnells's court ignored reason and plodded along. Although, arguing privacy when Roe was debated was a weak technicality that worked.

Perhaps kids should have bothered to vote in '16, when they were warned that the SC was at stake?
 
I don't believe the court 'argues'. They listen to arguments and decide if same was valid.

In this case, McConnells's court ignored reason and plodded along. Although, arguing privacy when Roe was debated was a weak technicality that worked.

Perhaps kids should have bothered to vote in '16, when they were warned that the SC was at stake?

You are wrong. The Court makes an argument justifying their decision.
 
Perhaps kids should have bothered to vote in '16, when they were warned that the SC was at stake?

Don't forget about all the selfish jackasses who threw their votes away on jokes like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein because "my vote is just one vote and it doesn't make the difference".

We warned them all...and they laughed.

Now, no one is laughing and those who threw their votes away are now being forced to reconcile with those poor choices.

(It's not going well for them)
 
These midterms are gonna be weird...but I've been reading a lot about the new voter registrations being mostly female and mostly under 35.

If they all show up, the Democrats may actually gain a couple House seats because of terrible GOP candidates.

Don't forget that the GOP narrowly picked up about 5 seats in CA in 2020 that they will lose in 2022 with no Trump on the ballot.
We can only hope. Arguing against historical norms w/respect to midterms suddenly became feasible with this SC decision. trump's illegal Census made it a very different House election this year.

Hopefully, there will be momentum up until November.

The Lincoln Project is just getting started ;)
 
Except that my perpetual question is WHY?

Abortion isn't an enumerated power given to the states, it's an individual freedom, portable.

You all do a real nice job of saying "each state can decide to limit abortion" but none of you are doing a nice job of asking "why"; and because you're not asking why, we are in this place.

And any federal abortion law that isn't a total ban will get struck down by this SCOTUS. So that isn't the answer.




It's none of your business why anyone gets an abortion, and you will never know why a person got an abortion unless they tell you.

So if they want an abortion at 8.99 months, it's none of your business why and no one should have to justify that since it doesn't involve anyone other than the woman and the doctor, and even then the doctor still can't ethically ask why..

This fascination some people have with moral high ground is absurd when we're talking about a woman's choice over her own body.

Or think of it this way...if you could donate a kidney that would save someone's life, does the state have the power to force you to donate your kidney? Of course it doesn't. So why does the state have the power to force you to give birth?
My personal opinion is that you should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. My personal opinion is also that doing so in late term just because you procrastinated is cruel.

It's a scientific thing, not a religious/emotional thing.
 
Don't forget about all the selfish jackasses who threw their votes away on jokes like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein because "my vote is just one vote and it doesn't make the difference".

We warned them all...and they laughed.

Now, no one is laughing and those who threw their votes away are now being forced to reconcile with those poor choices.

(It's not going well for them)
Yup. Although, making a statement in a solid Red/Blue state is easy. You can vote for Mickey Mouse and know that your state will still come out the same.

If you live in a swing state and opt to make a statement, or refuse to vote,then you are part of the problem.

I have a message board friend who lived in California and always voted third party. He moved to Pa, and openly admits that he lost that privilege.
 
Back
Top