Great one
- Thread starter NYShoreGuy
- Start date
How does one measure “equivalence”? Are you the arbiter? Because you’re so balanced? Lol
Why wouldn't they be? Two examples of flip flopping, spineless politicians who just say whatever is popular at the time to advance their agenda.
Kamala was running against Joe trying to land punches during a debate/campaign. It was in her personal interest to damage her opponent.
There was no similar personal interest for Lindsey. He was saying what was best for the Republican party at the time and he was correct.
That said, I agree with the spineless politician assessment for both.
Lindsey Graham was running for president in 2015 so, like Harris, it was in his interest to land punches. How quickly you forget.
Not all of them. The bottom line is he is a spineless flip flopper, just like the current VP and most politicians.
Crazy, race baiting xenophobic religious zealot tell DT to go to hell, he taints conservatism for generations to come, look not fit to be president, he’s a jackass,
Harris: it was hurtful that you talked about the reputations about 2 Senators that built their reputation on being segregationists. ( she prefaced this by saying Joe B was not a racist). Do you agree that Opposing busing was wrong?
Grahams were all personal attacks against Trump with very strong language. Harris was talking about an actual vote Biden made and she specifically did not call Joe a racist.
No. They are not equivalent. If you can’t see that, then u have no understanding but a superficial one. Or you are just so biased that your blind to it.
Sounds to me like Lindsey was bought off by the former president or threatened in some way.
Now he's out there today talking about some kooky national abortion ban, which he had to know would be seized upon immediately by the Democrats and their media allies. The SCOTUS decision was the right one - it returned the issue to the states for their people and representatives to decide. Abortion policy, either pro or against, should not be decided at the Federal level.
Now he's out there today talking about some kooky national abortion ban, which he had to know would be seized upon immediately by the Democrats and their media allies. The SCOTUS decision was the right one - it returned the issue to the states for their people and representatives to decide. Abortion policy, either pro or against, should not be decided at the Federal level.
From what I recall, you are correct in how you characterize what Harris said about Biden during that debate. She was lumping him in with racists so the media would run with it and/or the public would be galvanized against him because of it. She prefaced that he "wasn't a racist" but then insinuated he supported blatantly racist actors and actions (which effectively makes you one). Just like I recall her saying she believed the various women who said Biden's "unwanted" touching of them made them feel uncomfortable, etc.
It is why one of the political books about the 2020 election has a quote in which our First Lady told a room of other political operatives that Harris could go "F" herself.
Not sure why he is pushing that bill which has zero chance of becoming law while Biden is president right before the midterms. Odd strategy.
He's wrong on multiple levels to do it. The strategy, I think, is to come out in favor of federal legislation allowing abortions within 15 weeks with exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother, and the like. Which I believe is similar to what Western Europe has, and for many is a reasonable compromise on a divisive and difficult issue (at least polling I've seen suggests this). And which in turn makes Ds come out against it, pushing for a longer period in which abortions are allowed (e.g., like a 23/24 week cut-off), which some folks who are in the "middle" of this issue may have a problem with.
If I'm correct about those details of the bill -- I only read the WSJ article on it this morning -- the problem is that it will be painted by Ds and much of the corporate media as a "nationwide" abortion ban without getting into the details or how it is similar to what exists in other Western European countries. For some, the specifics or nuances will get lost because they always do.
On top of that, it has no chance of passing. And runs counter to the notion that this issue should be addressed on a state-by-state basis by constituents.
No not all.
The post was in reply to "Great One"
My post was much greater.
Any chance you could get a life? LOL
Last edited:
Agree with all of that. I even agree that 15 weeks is a reasonable timeframe for a compromise and 96% of abortions occur in that timeframe.
That is something I would personally like to see as long as we provide enough latitude for a doctor to decide when an abortion is medically necessary outside that window.
My wife ran an OBGYN practice for 8 years. 30+ physicians.
Not once was an abortion medically necessary.
Related to this, an ectopic pregnancy termination is not an abortion. Perfectly legal medical operation. and unrelated to Roe v Wade
Last edited:
Einstein,
The equivalence is that politicians attack each other in the in the primaries and they love each other in the general.
To quote the self appointed false equivalence czar: "If you can’t see that, then u have no understanding but a superficial one. Or you are just so biased that your blind to it."
Last edited:
Its all political strategy. The Democrats for the next 7 weeks will all be about the threat of Republicans shutting down abortion all together. This is the response to that. We're not looking to shut down abortion completely. Look at what we're proposing that will never get passed.
Why would you need an exception for rape and incest if you already have 15 weeks to decide?
Not just for the life of the mother though. Like that recent case from Louisiana where a woman was carrying a nonviable fetus but could not get an abortion in her state. Several other cases have popped up already with significant medical issues where the hospital was restricted with what they were allowed to do under state law.
I think that is wrong. I think the doctors should be trusted on when to make the decision on what should be medically necessary without the state being involved.
Republicans used to have “this is a state rights isssue” as their argument. Lindsey’s bill really hurts that argument, and it can’t even pass. Seems like a mistake heading into the midterms.
Contradictory for sure. But honestly I think most voters don’t even care about or appreciate that specific nuance. I can see why strategically they want to hold 15 weeks with exceptions out as their “standard” - especially given the similarities to Western Europe - and then make Ds pivot off that benchmark. Still think it’s a silly charade though.
Doesn’t seem like you would. But maybe a scenario where someone was torn about it for whatever reason or repressed certain memories. Or some other outlier scenario.
because theyre terrible people and idiots tried to deny or pretend this wasnt the next step after going after roe v wade. kinda when reublican leaders/supporters wouldnt actually try to overthrow an election. oops!
Agreed. I think the dems are pushing to make this an issue and based on polling and early election results, it seems like it has been effective politically so far.
I could be wrong but I think Lindsey doing this now hurts republicans in November. It just adds to the narrative that they aren’t stopping with overturning Roe.
Well because you would have missed at least 3 periods so you’d certainly know you were pregnant and would know way before then if it was due to rape or incest. Plenty of time to make that decision.
Agreed. The Dems want to make every race about Trump and abortion/Roe, even though in certain races they are actually supporting the far right Trump-loving candidates (which while I get the strategy is also completely contradictory to the whole “threat to democracy” theme). I don’t see how Graham elevating this works for the Rs even if I understand what the strategy might be.
Every R should be running exclusively on the kitchen-table issues people talk about every single night and that have impacted them daily the past 2 years.
Look if a majority want abortion up to birth,open borders,believe republicans are semi-nazis, feel systematic racism exists in every occupation so you have to ignore seniority of white people in layoffs,want to spend billions on a unproven view of how to eliminate global warming etc.then it will not be an America a lot of people like living in.When the economically illiterate realize printing money in the trillions has a consequence called inflation and open borders with welfare benefits will result in a lower standard of living and change is needed it will sadly have caused harm for decades.
If you research that case a bit you will discover that the law permitted that procedure but the hospital misinterpreted the law on the side of caution against legal ramifications.
There are situations where the mother's life is in danger. Early broken water, preeclampsia, placental abruptions, etc. These happen but are not the norm.
As you stated, a doctor(s) should be allowed to use their professional judgment in these cases.
However, this should not be a rationale for universal abortions. (I am not implying you said that)
Last edited:
Right, that's the part I think we can and should aim to avoid by letting doctors make these decisions without having to worry about the legal ramifications.
We should also add in safeguards to ensure it doesn't become universal abortion like a concurring sign off from another doctor, etc.
Shrewd people know Lady Lindsey is a Uniparty puppet and fraud
Trump ally Lindsey Graham booed off the stage at MAGA rally near his South Carolina hometown
A rowdy crowd of South Carolina conservatives rained boos and catcalls on their home-state Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham Saturday, as he sought to praise former President Donald Trump during his s…
nypost.com