Vita and Maggs, I'm curious why you support Trump strongly when he is so anti women?
Would it be better if he was a womanising lech like JFK or Clinton? Or perhaps a lying toad like Tricky Dicky? He's got a bad track record for mouthing off and calling some women nasty names. If I was voting I'd rather have someone with a spine and enough money not to be bought, quite frankly. I don't care if the POTUS has been caught with his dick out, or has kinky sexual peccadilloes. What is needed is someone who doesn't give a fuck what others think, isn't a flip flopping crowd pleaser and who can get the country by its balls and sort it out.
-- Edited by Digger on Tuesday 23rd of July 2024 07:10:16 PM
I meant him making abortion unlawful, denying women the right to control their own bodies and make their own decisions.
Abortion is not unlawful. It's readily available in many states based on the laws of that individual state.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment, written to make sure we eradicated slavery, did not grant a woman a right to an abortion, and therefore with the absence of a federal law addressing abortion, it fell to the states to determine when life begins.
If a certain State bans abortion, does Trump go along with that without attempting to bring their antiquated laws into the 21st century?
According to this chart below, at least 15 States have banned it, some make exceptions, but nine don't...even if the pregnancy is a result of incest or rape.
Congress could pass a law and then Trump could choose to sign ot veto it. But Trump, nor Biden now, have the authority to tell states when life begins..
I think there is an impression amongst Brits that the states are subordinate to the federal government in all matters..
That's simply not the case..
Maddog said
Jul 24 4:41 PM, 2024
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Above is the 10th Amendment.
In 1973 the Supreme Court decided the following Amendment (14th written about 1868) stated a women had a right to an abortion in the first trimester.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th had nothing to do with abortion (because it didn't).
All of this could have been prevented if the Dems and Obama passed a federal law granting women the right to an abortion, instead of relying on a silly interpretation of The 14th, to hold forever.
Legal scholars had been screaming for decades that the 1973 decision was shit and would be overturned one day..
Syl said
Jul 24 7:38 PM, 2024
Well then Congess should move quickly to change the law in those states that uphold such backward thinking views.
Insisting a girl or woman gives birth to a baby when she has been raped, even by her own father, is inhumane and belongs back in the dark ages.
Maddog said
Jul 24 8:37 PM, 2024
Syl wrote:
Well then Congess should move quickly to change the law in those states that uphold such backward thinking views.
Insisting a girl or woman gives birth to a baby when she has been raped, even by her own father, is inhumane and belongs back in the dark ages.
They have had 51 years (actually longer) to write a federal law protecting access to abortions.
They don't have the votes right now. But they did several times in the past.
Of course, the legislatures of each state can pass their own laws too. I guess they all have one way or another..
jackb said
Jul 24 10:19 PM, 2024
I was leaning toward her but having read how green she is and her net zero nonsense I think such statements will come across as very negative for the American people.
Maddog said
Jul 25 12:10 AM, 2024
jackb wrote:
I was leaning toward her but having read how green she is and her net zero nonsense I think such statements will come across as very negative for the American people.
Who's her?
It's Kamala. Unless she croaks, Bidens delegates have already pledged their support to her..
The only question is who will be her VP?
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 25th of July 2024 12:10:47 AM
jackb said
Jul 25 12:17 AM, 2024
Maddog wrote:
jackb wrote:
I was leaning toward her but having read how green she is and her net zero nonsense I think such statements will come across as very negative for the American people.
Who's her?
It's Kamala. Unless she croaks, Bidens delegates have already pledged their support to her..
The only question is who will be her VP?
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 25th of July 2024 12:10:47 AM
Are you as an American happy with her green extremism?
Extremism might be a little to heavy for some but that's my take on it.
Maddog said
Jul 25 12:43 AM, 2024
jackb wrote:
Maddog wrote:
jackb wrote:
I was leaning toward her but having read how green she is and her net zero nonsense I think such statements will come across as very negative for the American people.
Who's her?
It's Kamala. Unless she croaks, Bidens delegates have already pledged their support to her..
The only question is who will be her VP?
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 25th of July 2024 12:10:47 AM
Are you as an American happy with her green extremism?
Extremism might be a little to heavy for some but that's my take on it.
Well, the Democrats aren't going to ask me if I approve of their choice..
This is an internal matter for people of that party.
I'm not a member of either major party and don't vote in their primaries amd haven't voted for one of their candidates for President since 2004..
These two are the best the American people are offered
while the rest of the world look on flabbered!
Maddog said
Jul 28 9:05 PM, 2024
jackb wrote:
These two are the best the American people are offered while the rest of the world look on flabbered!
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are involved in party politics, so small numbers of people choose the candidates for the two major parties.
One would think with the steady rise of independent voters, that 3rd parties would be more popular.
That's not happening either. Partially because of stupidity on the voter, and partially because the major two parties make it as difficult as possible for them to get a foothold..
Trump is powerless to do anything.
Congress could pass a law and then Trump could choose to sign ot veto it. But Trump, nor Biden now, have the authority to tell states when life begins..
I think there is an impression amongst Brits that the states are subordinate to the federal government in all matters..
That's simply not the case..
Above is the 10th Amendment.
In 1973 the Supreme Court decided the following Amendment (14th written about 1868) stated a women had a right to an abortion in the first trimester.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th had nothing to do with abortion (because it didn't).
All of this could have been prevented if the Dems and Obama passed a federal law granting women the right to an abortion, instead of relying on a silly interpretation of The 14th, to hold forever.
Legal scholars had been screaming for decades that the 1973 decision was shit and would be overturned one day..
Insisting a girl or woman gives birth to a baby when she has been raped, even by her own father, is inhumane and belongs back in the dark ages.
They have had 51 years (actually longer) to write a federal law protecting access to abortions.
They don't have the votes right now. But they did several times in the past.
Of course, the legislatures of each state can pass their own laws too. I guess they all have one way or another..
Who's her?
It's Kamala. Unless she croaks, Bidens delegates have already pledged their support to her..
The only question is who will be her VP?
-- Edited by Maddog on Thursday 25th of July 2024 12:10:47 AM
Are you as an American happy with her green extremism?
Extremism might be a little to heavy for some but that's my take on it.
Well, the Democrats aren't going to ask me if I approve of their choice..
This is an internal matter for people of that party.
I'm not a member of either major party and don't vote in their primaries amd haven't voted for one of their candidates for President since 2004..
twitter.com/TaraBull808/status/1815378765490671715
while the rest of the world look on flabbered!
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are involved in party politics, so small numbers of people choose the candidates for the two major parties.
One would think with the steady rise of independent voters, that 3rd parties would be more popular.
That's not happening either. Partially because of stupidity on the voter, and partially because the major two parties make it as difficult as possible for them to get a foothold..