She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Alabama Supreme Court said differently. Idaho is going after a banning of IVF. Project 2025, heritage foundation and JD Vance, all strong Donald supporters have vowed to go after a federal ban of abortion, followed by IVF and birth control.

Trump himself has said he does not want to ban abortion and he fully supports IVF.

Trump himself has also said he supports a 15 week ban.

Vance— VP to an elderly man with an unhealthy lifestyle— is even worse. Federal response to women seeking healthcare out of state.

I do not think it is legally possible to prevent a woman from traveling for healthcare. People go to out of state specialists all the time.

Well JD Vance disagrees with you. He said there would need to be a federal response if women went out of state to seek abortions in places where it remained legal. This guy is one KFC from the presidency.

Is it possible to share a link? I have not seen this reported in MSM.

DP, but here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/jd-vance-abortion-ban-travel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Alabama Supreme Court said differently. Idaho is going after a banning of IVF. Project 2025, heritage foundation and JD Vance, all strong Donald supporters have vowed to go after a federal ban of abortion, followed by IVF and birth control.

Trump himself has said he does not want to ban abortion and he fully supports IVF.

Trump himself has also said he supports a 15 week ban.

Vance— VP to an elderly man with an unhealthy lifestyle— is even worse. Federal response to women seeking healthcare out of state.

I do not think it is legally possible to prevent a woman from traveling for healthcare. People go to out of state specialists all the time.

Well JD Vance disagrees with you. He said there would need to be a federal response if women went out of state to seek abortions in places where it remained legal. This guy is one KFC from the presidency.

Is it possible to share a link? I have not seen this reported in MSM.

The prior link with tape of his voice was not enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this thread, so I haven't read the whole thing. I came looking for a place to ask this. I saw a WSJ article comparing the finances of both VP candidates. It was just another thing about Walz that left me feeling uneasy. How is a man his age so completely incapable of taking care of his family and himself financially? And with that in mind, how could anybody feel good about him being next in line for the presidency (not that the president is actually running the country, as we now know). I ask this sincerely. I am an independent voter who almost always voted Republican until Trump. Sat out the last election. But cannot see myself voting for this Harris/Walz ticket either. I live in DC, so my vote doesn't matter either way. But of course, almost all my friends are Dems, so I don't talk politics outside the home. When others impose their feelings onto me, they seem just blindly to be so excited about Harris/Walz and I truly find it baffling. She just doesn't engender confidence. And believe me, I want a woman president!

I will answer this in good faith. Between Gwen and Tim, they have 4 pensions (army, teacher, teacher, congressman). Between that and social security, their retirement is secure.

For a very long time, they were a dual income teacher/teacher household. You know how much money they make. For a long time, they tried IVF to have children. You know how much that costs. He has put money into his children’s 529 plan. They had a house that they sold when he moved into the governor’s mansion. Until his decision to run for office, the Walz family had a perfectly middle class life.

What he has not done, is to enrich himself while in office. This is not a failure, it’s a good thing. He didn’t sell himself out and make himself beholden to special interests, which means that he could actually work on behalf of his constituents without external pressures. I think we have became so used to corruption in politics that when we see someone who is not, it seems like a bad thing.

[phone]

My midwestern dad never made big bucks or had any investments but he did earn a pension over 35 years of hard work and that plus SS means his retirement has been more than comfortable for him.

A LOT of Americans can relate to someone who doesn’t have a million dollar investment portfolio.

I’d say Walz has done pretty good for himself and his family. I mean come on. He lives in a governor’s mansion. Sheesh.

DP.
So basically, he has only ever held government jobs and is completely dependent on the government for all his wants and needs.

A pension is earned. You know, by working. In this case, by working in jobs that serve the public. To you, this is a failing. Most people consider teachers and military men and women to be doing some of the most important jobs there are.

+1 Thank you!!

+2!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Alabama Supreme Court said differently. Idaho is going after a banning of IVF. Project 2025, heritage foundation and JD Vance, all strong Donald supporters have vowed to go after a federal ban of abortion, followed by IVF and birth control.

Trump himself has said he does not want to ban abortion and he fully supports IVF.

Trump himself has also said he supports a 15 week ban.

Vance— VP to an elderly man with an unhealthy lifestyle— is even worse. Federal response to women seeking healthcare out of state.

I do not think it is legally possible to prevent a woman from traveling for healthcare. People go to out of state specialists all the time.

And yet there are states trying to do just that.
https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2023/10/16/the-constitutionality-of-banning-interstate-travel-for-abortion/
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/17/1252218618/interstate-travel-becomes-a-target-for-the-anti-abortion-movement-with-texas-fil

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/doubts-over-abortion-travel-bans-lead-states-to-try-other-means

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this thread, so I haven't read the whole thing. I came looking for a place to ask this. I saw a WSJ article comparing the finances of both VP candidates. It was just another thing about Walz that left me feeling uneasy. How is a man his age so completely incapable of taking care of his family and himself financially? And with that in mind, how could anybody feel good about him being next in line for the presidency (not that the president is actually running the country, as we now know). I ask this sincerely. I am an independent voter who almost always voted Republican until Trump. Sat out the last election. But cannot see myself voting for this Harris/Walz ticket either. I live in DC, so my vote doesn't matter either way. But of course, almost all my friends are Dems, so I don't talk politics outside the home. When others impose their feelings onto me, they seem just blindly to be so excited about Harris/Walz and I truly find it baffling. She just doesn't engender confidence. And believe me, I want a woman president!

You are more concerned that someone doesn’t have investments than you are with one who regularly stiffs and cons people (see Trump’s multiple lawsuits, bankruptcies and felony convictions) and never pays his bills (see his inability to fly into Bozeman bc he still owes the airport money from the last election)? Your concerns cannot be taken seriously with that mentality.

Love it. Good for Bozeman giving Trump the middle finger using both hands.

That’s hilarious, I haven’t seen any reporting on this. Do you have a link?

The media saying his plane was diverted for mechanical reasons. If you have a link to the contrary, please supply it. Otherwise, let's not spread lies the way the right constantly does.

What is funny though is the fact that his "rally" was tiny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

"Ensure the blessings of liberty" means that citizens have the right and freedom to make their own life and medical decisions.

"All persons born or naturalized...". So women who are citizens have rights. Fetuses which have not yet been born do not have rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

On what justification would the federal government respond to prohibit a citizen of one state from obtaining health car ein another?

[Anonymous]

^^care in another

Because that's the plan of JD Vance, candidate for Vice President and standing half a cheeseburger behind the 78 year old convicted felon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

"Ensure the blessings of liberty" means that citizens have the right and freedom to make their own life and medical decisions.

"All persons born or naturalized...". So women who are citizens have rights. Fetuses which have not yet been born do not have rights.

Yes, who could possibly argue that constitutional liberty supports enforced pregnancies? Yet no-one is forced to donate an unnecessary part of the body (organ, blood) even though it would save a life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Then another reason to vote against people who want to restrict it since we cannot count on the courts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Alabama Supreme Court said differently. Idaho is going after a banning of IVF. Project 2025, heritage foundation and JD Vance, all strong Donald supporters have vowed to go after a federal ban of abortion, followed by IVF and birth control.

Trump himself has said he does not want to ban abortion and he fully supports IVF.

Trump himself has also said he supports a 15 week ban.

Vance— VP to an elderly man with an unhealthy lifestyle— is even worse. Federal response to women seeking healthcare out of state.

I do not think it is legally possible to prevent a woman from traveling for healthcare. People go to out of state specialists all the time.

Well JD Vance disagrees with you. He said there would need to be a federal response if women went out of state to seek abortions in places where it remained legal. This guy is one KFC from the presidency.

Is it possible to share a link? I have not seen this reported in MSM.

It's everywhere. Do you only watch fox?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

"Ensure the blessings of liberty" means that citizens have the right and freedom to make their own life and medical decisions.

"All persons born or naturalized...". So women who are citizens have rights. Fetuses which have not yet been born do not have rights.

Abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution.


The Constitution does grant Americans authentic rights to privacy, founded in the Fourth Amendment. This right protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures. Others enjoy this genuine right to privacy, including married couples, doctors and patients, attorneys and clients, people engaging in business transactions, and priests and penitents.

For two hundred years in the United States, the right to abortion was never considered part of the Constitution.


When the 14th Amendment was established (an Amendment that allegedly protected abortion), abortion at any point during pregnancy was prohibited in three-quarters of the states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm new to this thread, so I haven't read the whole thing. I came looking for a place to ask this. I saw a WSJ article comparing the finances of both VP candidates. It was just another thing about Walz that left me feeling uneasy. How is a man his age so completely incapable of taking care of his family and himself financially? And with that in mind, how could anybody feel good about him being next in line for the presidency (not that the president is actually running the country, as we now know). I ask this sincerely. I am an independent voter who almost always voted Republican until Trump. Sat out the last election. But cannot see myself voting for this Harris/Walz ticket either. I live in DC, so my vote doesn't matter either way. But of course, almost all my friends are Dems, so I don't talk politics outside the home. When others impose their feelings onto me, they seem just blindly to be so excited about Harris/Walz and I truly find it baffling. She just doesn't engender confidence. And believe me, I want a woman president!

I will answer this in good faith. Between Gwen and Tim, they have 4 pensions (army, teacher, teacher, congressman). Between that and social security, their retirement is secure.

For a very long time, they were a dual income teacher/teacher household. You know how much money they make. For a long time, they tried IVF to have children. You know how much that costs. He has put money into his children’s 529 plan. They had a house that they sold when he moved into the governor’s mansion. Until his decision to run for office, the Walz family had a perfectly middle class life.

What he has not done, is to enrich himself while in office. This is not a failure, it’s a good thing. He didn’t sell himself out and make himself beholden to special interests, which means that he could actually work on behalf of his constituents without external pressures. I think we have became so used to corruption in politics that when we see someone who is not, it seems like a bad thing.

[phone]

My midwestern dad never made big bucks or had any investments but he did earn a pension over 35 years of hard work and that plus SS means his retirement has been more than comfortable for him.

A LOT of Americans can relate to someone who doesn’t have a million dollar investment portfolio.

I’d say Walz has done pretty good for himself and his family. I mean come on. He lives in a governor’s mansion. Sheesh.

Pence in 2016:
Mike Pence, the Republican vice presidential candidate, filed a sparse financial disclosure, suggesting a relatively modest income and lifestyle.

That offered a sharp contrast with his running mate, Donald Trump, who has controversially refused to release his tax forms.

According to Pence’s filing with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday, his family’s income from the beginning of 2015 through August 16 was $173,000, all from his salary as governor of Indiana.

His wife’s craft and painting business, which was closed around the time that Pence was tapped as the vice presidential candidate, was listed as having income of none or less than $1,000.

Pence’s other assets and income form included a bank account worth no more than $15,000 and two education savings plans, known as 529 plans after the portion of the tax code, each worth no more than $15,000, according to the filing.

The family, which includes three children, had seven student loans, which could range in value from $10,000 to $50,000 each.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/19/sparse-mike-pence-personal-finance-disclosure-offers-sharp-contrast-with-donald-trump.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was up to JD Vance, I wouldn't have a family because of IVF.
Walz:

“Democrats are investing in prenatal care. We're the ones that are for universal pre-K. We're the ones that are providing school meals. I'm not gonna back down one bit on this whole family values thing. We're making it more affordable to have children by having paid family and medical leave. Where is JD Vance's program?”

Damned straight, Tim. This is why people like him & not the that freak, Vance.

The fed gov is supposed to be protecting our borders and funding and training our military. That’s its number one priority.

How about we do both? It's not a small government.

We don’t have the money to do both. The constitution says nothing about funding or investing in pre-k.

One in three families can’t afford basic school supplies for their kids. The economy stinks on ice. Why should the government take tax dollars to fund pre-k when taxpayers can’t afford school supplies?

The government has no mandate to fund so many things they are funding. Whatever personal challenges Walz or any other government official has faced, it’s their personal issue. Every single American has personal struggles and issues. The government should not be the answer to these personal issues and cannot be. The government cannot legislate personal issues. Walz is not speaking about the issues government has a duty to address; he’s speaking about his private fertility issues and those have no intersection with government.

Dobbs had a helluva lot to do with a lot of people's reproductive decisions. Did you want people to be ashamed and afraid to talk about what impact federal legal decisions are having on their real, lived lives in that setting as well?

The United States is made up of more than women of childbearing age who want to kill their unborn babies. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution regarding abortion.

There's certainly something about restrictions on interstate commerce, and the GOP is salivating on preventing women from trvelling across state lines to get necessary health care. That's your creepy VP Vance, right here: a "federal response to keep that from happening ... I'm pretty sympathetic to that, actually."

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

Marriage, contraceptions, health care, clean air & water, education, social security, etc are not referenced either. What point, or lack thereof are you attempting to make.