Trump just lost Michigan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Irrelevant. You don't supporting codifying Roe because it would declare abortions past a certain stage illegal. So the point stands. The progressive left doesn't want Roe codified. They want zero legal constraints.

This is not true, except in the most semantic. There was a case Doe v Bolton shortly after Roe. The trimester regime of Roe was never the case the last 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to look at this the other way, will people who were going to vote for Trump consider voting for Harris? For many it’s a resounding no. And the conversation ends there.

Just like there is nothing Harris could do at this point that would make you vote for Trump.

If they don't want to vote for Harris they don't have to vote for Harris. But I can't see how anyone can, in good conscience, vote for Trump, given how clearly cognitively unfit he is to serve. A third choice would be to sit it out. They can absolutely survive Harris and will do just fine under a Harris term (sorry but the MAGA doom and gloom over a Harris term is grossly overblown), but Trump is at this point at best incoherent and at best outright malignant and likely to throw us into yet another set of completely unwarranted and unnecessary constitutional crises and other chaos far worse than his first term.

What were your plans before Biden dropped out? Were you still voting for him? Were you going to vote for a 3rd party? Did you think voting for Biden in his current mental state was better than the alternative? Try to understand how others in the same situation feel. Don’t agree with their decision but you were in the same situation not too long ago.

Biden was tored, slowing down, and a little confused. I trusted his administration to pursue their vision, and I trusted him to step down when the time would come for it

Trump is an erratic and insane career criminal megalomaniac who has never done a good thing for anyone but himself in 60 years.

The person given the power of the most powerful position in the world should never ever be tired, slowing down, and confused on the job. This is why Biden shouldn't be POTUS and why Trump has absolutely no business being anywhere close to power. Sorry, truth hurts sometimes.

Except the proof is in the pudding - and Biden did, and is doing, a great job as president.

Most Americans disagree with you. We see that in “wrong track” polls and in his approval ratings.

I think we’re on the wrong track, as in the MAGA crowd is removing fundamental rights of women. So the results of that poll may not mean what you think they mean.

+1
I’m another one of those “wrong track” people and it’s because of the loss of women’s rights and the fact that we’re cooking the planet and killing so many species. Biden and Harris have done and are doing what they can, but they’re having to fight the GOP who want to end women’s humanity and to cook the world.

The loss of “women’s rights”? The end of “women’s humanity”? All because some states have implemented laws protecting unborn babies? All countries have laws governing abortion, because the humanity of the child has to be considered as well. I find you and other women who are hyperfocused on abortion as the singular most important issue to be very strange.

Spoken like someone who has never had a doomed pregnancy that could turn dangerous at any moment.

Women are human beings. And yes they come first, before the embryos that rely on them to be gestated into babies.

None of the Republicans are after women with doomed pregnancies or emergency abortions.

They’re after elective abortions in the third term which Democrats are pushing nationwide. You can get an elective abortion at 9 months pregnant in Maryland, Washington DC, New York, and a few other places

No, Democrats want the decision to be between a woman and her doctor, not the government. The actual reality of a third trimester abortion - which is a very small percentage of abortions as a whole - is a woman who likely had a very wanted pregnancy and found out devastating news that there are significant fetal abnormalities or their life is at risk. And the decision on how to approach this should be solely between the woman/couple and the doctor.

Yes, and with appropriate abortion laws, that choice between a woman and her doctor can be protected due to it be a special exception case. We used to have these sensible laws that most agreed with. They went away.

So you agree with codifying Roe v. Wade?

What people do not think through is how nuance is lost depending on how the laws are written. For example, you agree that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother. At what point is this allowed? If there is a complication that may endanger the life of the mother, but the mother is currently medically stable, can you get an abortion in that case? Or (as is being seen now) does there have to be an IMMINENT risk of death, and prior to that doctors cannot intervene due to worry about getting sued? What if there is a fetal abnormality that is incompatible with life, but they would theoretically be able to survive days outside the womb? Weeks? What is the line?

Yes, I'd be fine with codifying Roe. Life was normal and I never heard anyone complain about abortion laws other than the evangelical idiots back when Roe V Wade was in effect.

The progressive left and the prolife right are united in their opposition to codifying Roe.

Progressive left is fine with Roe. What are you bleating about?

No they aren't. They are very clear, as they like to say. They say abortion is between a woman and her doctor and the government has no role whatsoever in restricting that. Only in funding it.

Not true. There are a few complete idiots out there that don't want Roe codified but the 99% of us normal people want to go back to when life was normal.

It's not 99%. It's both the far right and the progressive left, which makes up a sizable chunk.

Just watch. When Trump wins, he will seek to codify Roe and the left will fight it. Mark my words.

Trump is responsible for overturning Roe and he still brags about it. It’s the reason the critical evangelical voting bloc supports him. On what planet would he suddenly buck his entire party and try to codify it? You are so clueless it’s scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

No, it’s not. Congress passes a bill and president signs it. Are you actually this dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

No, it’s not. Congress passes a bill and president signs it. Are you actually this dumb?

Show me the current passed Roe V Wade bill and then we can discuss codification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

No, it’s not. Congress passes a bill and president signs it. Are you actually this dumb?

Show me the current passed Roe V Wade bill and then we can discuss codification.

You literally don't understand what codification is...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

If it is law, it is already codified. Did you think they were going to print out a law and put it in a fish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

Are you somehow under the impression that new laws can't be made, or do you not understand that ehen people say the government will codify Roe, they are saying that the law will be created. Are you really just arguing these stupid semantics? Christ, what a tiring chode you are.

Some people suggests Roe V Wade needs to be codified as if it were still in existence. There are a few steps that have to be completed before any Federal abortion related laws can be codified. Let's focus on those steps first.

[Anonymous]

GOP bleats about codifiying Roe.

They won't.

They can't win with out Evangelicals and conservative Catholics. They coexist now in their circus tent now, but they want payback. With the appointments to the SCOTUS Trump made, they see what's possible.

The rest will talk whatever point you want until they get in power, but really they'll have to pay the piper soon. Nationwide bans on abortion, IVF, birth control.

Don't say otherwise, I see behind the curtain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know what codification means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harris and Walz have both said they want to codify Roe. The "abortion should be between a woman and her doctor" is because the right insists on constantly portraying this narrative that women are waking up 8 or 9 months pregnant going "welp, changed my mind" or that people are killing babies after they are born which are just lies that show how the right views women.

0% chance Trump codifies Roe. He has consistently backed its overturn by saying "everyone wanted it to go back to the states" (obviously a lie).

Difficult to codify laws that no longer exist

Roe never existed as a law, simply precedent. And it's not difficult at all to codify laws that don't exist, you just...write them. Literally every law doesn't exist until it does.

If you were at all familiar with the US system of government you'd know that. This is basic stuff. Do a little research and your trolling might be slightly more believable comrade.

wrong, wrong, and wrong

Imagine being this proud of being this ignorant.

Show me the current Roe related law that could be codified? You can't codify laws that don't exist. You do understand that Roe V Wade was overturned, don't you? Idiots everywhere

I’m beginning to suspect you don’t know what codification means.

Yes, this exchange is really cringey.