She picked Tim

[Anonymous]

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.

Sounds good on the surface, if you are fine with increased taxes, increased gas and electricity prices, increased crowding of cities and schools. A huge no for many.

So the Republican plan is to force birth and, at this point, the babies can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And they wonder why polls are reversing.

I am pro choice but posts like this don’t help. There is another option that too many pro choice advocates ignore when screaming about how awful republicans are. If a woman gives birth to an unwanted baby she is not forced to raise it. Plenty of Americans would love to adopt a newborn.

Why would anyone like their body be used as a incubator for someone else?

[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.

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.

I think PP is trying to tell us that his copy of the Constitution skips from the Eighth Amendment to the Tenth.

[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!

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.

WTF are you a private school elitist who sneers at students taught by government employees? You sneer at career military because they have only been completely dependent on the government for their “wants and needs?” Wow. Says more about you than our fellow citizens who serve this country as teachers, firefighters, police, military, and yes feds who make sure our elderly receive Ss check, inspect our food for contamination, research cures and preventions for diseases, help out in natural disasters, make sure our water is drinkable and airplanes fly safely, and keep our national parks open. Apparently you don’t appreciate any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Thanks for the link! He is saying he is against targeting large numbers of minority women to be sent out of state for abortions. Who would think targeting one group for abortions is ever a good idea?

[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!

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

+1 The Pences also sold their home when they moved into the Governor’s mansion.

[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: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

Thanks for the link! He is saying he is against targeting large numbers of minority women to be sent out of state for abortions. Who would think targeting one group for abortions is ever a good idea?

Why would that be a FEDERAL response? What's the justification for that to happen in the Constitution, rather than a state issue?

[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.

2nd Amendment doesn't make any explicit reference to AR-15s with high capacity magazines, pistol grips, flash suppressors, bayonet mounts et cetera. So why are those protected?

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]

So what's the justification for using federal response to prevent women from going to another state to obtain abortion, whether individually or in groups?

If the US Constitution doesn't mention abortion, what are the legal grounds for the federal government taking over the situation?

[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.

There are many Constitutional scholars and advocates who say otherwise - here are a few of the arguments referencing the Constitution

Right to Privacy (14th Amendment - Due Process Clause)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): The Supreme Court recognized a constitutional "right to privacy" in marital relations, derived from the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections (1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments). This right was extended to reproductive choices, including contraception.

Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment)
Advocates argue that restricting access to abortion disproportionately affects women, particularly in terms of autonomy, health, and socioeconomic status. This can be seen as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The argument posits that denying women the ability to control their reproductive lives entrenches gender inequality and hinders women's participation in society on an equal footing with men.

13th Amendment (Prohibition of Involuntary Servitude)
Some legal scholars argue that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will constitutes a form of involuntary servitude, which the 13th Amendment prohibits. This interpretation focuses on the physical, emotional, and economic burdens of forced pregnancy and childbirth.

9th Amendment (Unenumerated Rights)
The 9th Amendment asserts that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other rights do not exist. This has been used to argue that the right to make personal decisions, including the decision to have an abortion, is one of those unenumerated rights that the Constitution protects.

Personal Autonomy and Liberty Interests
The Constitution is interpreted to protect individual liberty and autonomy under the Due Process Clause. This broader principle can be seen as encompassing the right to make deeply personal decisions, including reproductive choices, free from unwarranted governmental intrusion.

First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and Belief)
Some arguments suggest that laws restricting abortion may violate the First Amendment by imposing particular religious beliefs about the beginning of life on everyone, thereby infringing on religious freedom.

[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.

The Constitution makes no specific reference to AR-15s with high capacity magazines, pistol grips, flash suppressors and bayonet mounts so why are those protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[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.

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.

Education, environment, social safety net, healthcare and so on can all be considered under the General Welfare clause and that's been legally upheld for 200 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just plain good.

and shows empathy.

I’m voting down ballot and leaving the top of the ticket blank or writing in Biden, so I have no horse in this race, but the whole chest clutching, guffawing thing comes off as really fake and performative to me. Sorry.

I've said this before: people who don't vote for one of the two main candidates are making a statement only to themselves. This literally helps nothing. In the race before us, there is a clearly better choice and whatever your reason for "writing in Biden," it will not be advanced by doing so.

yep. and it's cowardly and narcissistic.

Just listen to yourself. Disparaging people who don’t agree with how you vote isn’t helping your cause.

Newsflash - people can vote any way they want. Doing so does not make them cowardly or narcissistic.

You have to admit that a person who can’t be bothered to vote in a way that helps protect their friends and neighbors from the greater evil is pretty self-centered.

Once again, anyone who doesn’t vote the way you do is evil and self centered.

This is a huge part of the reason I left the democratic party.

Vote however you want. If you think the Democrats are even close to as bad (or worse) as MAGA Republicans, you’re an idiot. Trump tried to overthrow our government when he lost in 2020. He’s a rapist and convicted felon. Just for starters. But if, despite all that, you thought Democrats were the same, it would be an ethical choice to not vote or vote third party.

But if you recognize Republicans as the greater evil, it’s unethical to harm your friends and neighbors by acting in a way that empowers and enables the rapist who tried to overthrow our democracy.

So again, if I don’t vote the way you do, I’m an idiot.
This name calling is just so…enlightened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just plain good.

and shows empathy.

I’m voting down ballot and leaving the top of the ticket blank or writing in Biden, so I have no horse in this race, but the whole chest clutching, guffawing thing comes off as really fake and performative to me. Sorry.

I've said this before: people who don't vote for one of the two main candidates are making a statement only to themselves. This literally helps nothing. In the race before us, there is a clearly better choice and whatever your reason for "writing in Biden," it will not be advanced by doing so.

yep. and it's cowardly and narcissistic.

Just listen to yourself. Disparaging people who don’t agree with how you vote isn’t helping your cause.

Newsflash - people can vote any way they want. Doing so does not make them cowardly or narcissistic.

You have to admit that a person who can’t be bothered to vote in a way that helps protect their friends and neighbors from the greater evil is pretty self-centered.

Once again, anyone who doesn’t vote the way you do is evil and self centered.

This is a huge part of the reason I left the democratic party.

Vote however you want. If you think the Democrats are even close to as bad (or worse) as MAGA Republicans, you’re an idiot. Trump tried to overthrow our government when he lost in 2020. He’s a rapist and convicted felon. Just for starters. But if, despite all that, you thought Democrats were the same, it would be an ethical choice to not vote or vote third party.

But if you recognize Republicans as the greater evil, it’s unethical to harm your friends and neighbors by acting in a way that empowers and enables the rapist who tried to overthrow our democracy.

So again, if I don’t vote the way you do, I’m an idiot.
This name calling is just so…enlightened

[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: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

Thanks for the link! He is saying he is against targeting large numbers of minority women to be sent out of state for abortions. Who would think targeting one group for abortions is ever a good idea?

Or…here’s a direct quote which better explains what he wants “So, you know, how hopefully we get to a point where Ohio bans abortion in California”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just plain good.

and shows empathy.

I’m voting down ballot and leaving the top of the ticket blank or writing in Biden, so I have no horse in this race, but the whole chest clutching, guffawing thing comes off as really fake and performative to me. Sorry.

I've said this before: people who don't vote for one of the two main candidates are making a statement only to themselves. This literally helps nothing. In the race before us, there is a clearly better choice and whatever your reason for "writing in Biden," it will not be advanced by doing so.

These kind of people are self-important drama queens. PP was just using it as an opportunity to take a dig at Walz. It’s just an inauthentic post.

Different undecided voter here. People who are concerned about this far left ticket, who also refuse to vote for Trump, will just stay home.

I know it’s just a small subset of us, and the Dems are going after special interest groups with a large number of voters. So basically we are unhoused at the moment.

Look, I understand. I'm a RINO that is now a registered Independent. I'm a Bush-41 republican who thinks that Reagan and Bush-41 are spinning in their graves after what Trump has done to the GOP.

The difference is that not only do I refuse to vote for Trump, I refuse to let him worm his way back into office just to pardon himself from his crimes. I disagree with a lot of the DNC platform, but I will vote for Harris-Walz because I refuse to allow him to get back into office and further erode our government. I think the damage that Trump would cause is far worse than anything that Harris can do in one term. The same as Biden, we can recover from the things that Harris can do. We cannot recover from changes that Trump would do.

Examples? Trump would take us out of NATO which would have world-wide repercussions. Such as changes which would allow Putin to continue his imperialistic ways. Putin wants to reconstitue the Soviet Union under the Russian flag. Trump would allow Russia to become the dominant superpower in the world. Trump would continue to make the court system more and more conservative allowing the court system to deny more and more human rights to women and minorities. Returning to the 1950s before the civil rights era is a terrible idea. Women are and would die from the Republican system of denying health care to pregnant women because doctors are afraid of legal percussions should they treat their pregnant patients as their medical training suggests. So they have to choose between their Hippocratic oaths and their legal obligations. Families of LGBTQ parents will get torn apart since Thomas has already said he is targeting Obergefell and more conservative judges on lower courts will push up cases that will test that ruling to the SCOTUS.

Sorry, but I, too, long for a more reasonable Republican party, like we had when we were younger, but that will not happen as long as the MAGA movement have a stranglehold on the GOP. To kill this monster, we need to cut off its head and keeping him from public office is paramount and the first step. The ultra-conservatives have taken over the Republican party and the only way to get them out of power is to keep them from being elected. If they cannot get a candidate elected, then they will lose power and maybe the more reasonable minded can regain power by showing that they can win in a general election.

Thank you for this post. One that actually helps those of us RINOs put things into perspective. I have never seen Trump as ultra-conservative and other than the conservative appointments to SCOTUS, I am unable to identify what he did that destroyed the country to the level that the left insists he did. As I just said in my last post, Trump really isn't an extreme conservative. He acts like one in his speech and performance, but his actions are not. In any event, can you help me understand how you can feel confident in the safety of our country with a Harris/Walz ticket? I truly feel like we won't really know who is actually running the country if we elect them. Neither of them are fit or capable of doing so. Their intellect is so low, with literally zero foreign policy experience that I just don't see how it's possible. With what happened to Biden, it is more clear than ever that we have a shadow government. Don't you want to know who that is?

And it turns out, those appointments are not conservative at all, but rather total partisan hacks.