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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Football coach, public school teacher, mentor, national guard for 20+ years, IVF dad, american patriot - I LOVE Tim Walz!

+1 love this from 18 years ago

He is so plain vanilla white old dude. He does not appeal to anyone except radical left, rioters or illegal immigrants.

I am still trying to understand who is his base. He clearly not a person who appeals to minorities. He has no appeal to young voters. He is not very educated to appeal to city elites. Midwestern overweight middle age white woman? It was a poor choice.

Young voters love him.

I don't have polling on how minorities feel about him - but I think generally, you'll find appreciation for a a white guy who is taking second chair to a Black woman and giving her all his support. See also, Joe Biden.

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: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”

The Republican party doesn't learn, does it.

Abortion was their albatross in 2022 and 2023. Every time it appeared on the ballot in state elections, the GOP lost. Their predicted red wave ebbed and they lost in Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky and Virginia.

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.

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?

Shall not be infringed, infringer.

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.

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?

Shall not be infringed, infringer.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

So that means the second amendment only applies to muskets and ball pistols, right?

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: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 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: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 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 enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

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.

+10000000

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.

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!