User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 3:41:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It doesn't "make" us walk our bans back, but there are stiff campaigns in every state with bans in place. A federal 15 week ban is going to give them ammunition to push back against existing bans. And we don't gamble because its poor stewardship. We get what we have because we work for it. Sorry, your reasoning why this will anger evangelicals is wildly weak and ridiculous. You're grasping for straws that just aren't there. A good Christian would admit that's why he wouldn't take a friendly wager.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 3:48:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, your reasoning why this will anger evangelicals is wildly weak and ridiculous. You're grasping for straws that just aren't there. A good Christian would admit that's why he wouldn't take a friendly wager. My man, I literally had this conversation with a group of guys yesterday evening. I'm not telling you why I think this is unpopular, I'm telling you why it is. You can shove your head in the sand because it doesn't fit your narrative if you want, or you can look at the top of the page and see that about 70% of arfommers agree this position sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 3:49:27 PM EDT
[#3]
I can't imagine any more effective & direct way to get huge swaths of Independents & Moderates to NOT vote for Trump - especially women a segment Republicans are already not doing well with - then Trump now announcing he is supporting a National Abortion Ban.
 Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 3:59:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, but saying that Trump adding more abortion restrictions will cost him evangelical votes is laughable. Let skip the nonsense and wager a PMAG on November. I say his numbers do not dip below the lowest of his previous elections (56%). We'll use Pew Research exit polls and stick to protestants for simplicity. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/291119/1000023561_png-3165427.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, ok... Guess what - Trump ran in 2016 on overturning Roe V Wade and banning abortion. He specifically stated it was his goal. Here he is in March of 2016, also 3 months before the convention, saying it should be banned and women who broke his yet-to-be abortion laws, should be punished...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-SgCndBWEDo you recall what happened that election? Oh yeah, he won with historic turnout. The pearl-clutching that goes on here about abortion is ridiculous. The left has convinced us that in order to win, we have to do what they would do. Meanwhile, all that ever did was make us lose. OK, cool. You're proving my point for me though. In 2016 Trump campaigned on overturning RvW & evangelicals turned out for him. RvW was overturned by SCOTUS & 24 states enacted abortion bans ranging from total bans to 15 week bans. Those are major wins we've been working toward for decades. Now Trump is pitching a federal ban on abortions after 15 weeks. To single issue pro life evangelicals, allowing abortions for 15 weeks is seen as a major betrayal, loss, and basically a return to the status quo that existed under RvW. That is going to push a lot of pro life evangelicals out of the Trump camp. I realize that people who think politics is just a team sport will never understand it, but principle driven voters vote their principles. Sorry, but saying that Trump adding more abortion restrictions will cost him evangelical votes is laughable. Let skip the nonsense and wager a PMAG on November. I say his numbers do not dip below the lowest of his previous elections (56%). We'll use Pew Research exit polls and stick to protestants for simplicity. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/291119/1000023561_png-3165427.JPG What’s the max bet allowed by the site? I’m taking bets that Trump won’t be sworn in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:11:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its 3 months before the convention. Polls are worthless right now and anyone putting stock in them is a joke. 24 states have banned abortions before the 15 week mark. If Trump establishes a ban only after 15 week point its going to be seen as a major loss and betrayal that will absolutely drive people away from Trump. That's not "dramatic", thats reality. And you're not going to be able to escape reality. At the end of the day 15 weeks is the reasonable compromise everyone except the southern bible thumpers wants. So deal with it or lose. That's the only options. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:14:28 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the max bet allowed by the site? I'm taking bets that Trump won't be sworn in. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, ok... Guess what - Trump ran in 2016 on overturning Roe V Wade and banning abortion. He specifically stated it was his goal. Here he is in March of 2016, also 3 months before the convention, saying it should be banned and women who broke his yet-to-be abortion laws, should be punished... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6n-SgCndBWEDo you recall what happened that election? Oh yeah, he won with historic turnout. The pearl-clutching that goes on here about abortion is ridiculous. The left has convinced us that in order to win, we have to do what they would do. Meanwhile, all that ever did was make us lose. OK, cool. You're proving my point for me though. In 2016 Trump campaigned on overturning RvW & evangelicals turned out for him. RvW was overturned by SCOTUS & 24 states enacted abortion bans ranging from total bans to 15 week bans. Those are major wins we've been working toward for decades. Now Trump is pitching a federal ban on abortions after 15 weeks. To single issue pro life evangelicals, allowing abortions for 15 weeks is seen as a major betrayal, loss, and basically a return to the status quo that existed under RvW. That is going to push a lot of pro life evangelicals out of the Trump camp. I realize that people who think politics is just a team sport will never understand it, but principle driven voters vote their principles. Sorry, but saying that Trump adding more abortion restrictions will cost him evangelical votes is laughable. Let skip the nonsense and wager a PMAG on November. I say his numbers do not dip below the lowest of his previous elections (56%). We'll use Pew Research exit polls and stick to protestants for simplicity. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/291119/1000023561_png-3165427.JPG What's the max bet allowed by the site? I'm taking bets that Trump won't be sworn in. I won't take that. But if you want to bet he loses evangelicals I'm all ears, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:15:49 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Enlighten me. How does a federal 15 week limit for abortions make states have to walk anything back? The only thing it does is force states like NY to have a threshold there, while other states can go even further if they want. And nowhere in the bible does it say gambling is a sin. Especially a silly, $15 piece of plastic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:16:59 PM EDT
[#8]
Dammit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:32:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well to get it passed it's going to require protections against states banning before 15 weeks. Which we could argue the federal government doesn't have authority to do but is kind of a lost point because nearly everything the federal government does, it doesn't have constitutional authority to do. The legislation will likely make it through the courts since overturning roe v wade was more about the court not having authority to implement it in the first place. Please explain that further. Why, and what would have to change specifically with the federal law? If it's a federal law, it doesn't matter what the states do or do not have in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:33:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Watch those state polls take a turn for the meat puppet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:34:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump is a dumbass. Congressional legislation does not make a abortion ban constitutional, only a ratified amendment can do that. It is a state matter to regulate or not regulate. Congress, like the courts cannot change that. Dipshits, all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:39:11 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well trump will absolutely lose if he doesn't pick.up moderate and women voters. The democrats would likely run on abortion and the GOP pushing first trimester. bans. If trump doesn't do this he will lose by huge margin. If pro life people refuse to vote for him because he sides with the vast majority of voters on this issue then oh well. Hell still lose either way. At the end of the day 15 weeks is the reasonable compromise everyone except the southern bible thumpers wants. So deal with it or lose. That's the only options. The neat thing is that Trumps plan does nothing to appeal to women and moderates. It alienates them because its a ban. And it alienates his pro life base because it allows abortions. This is the kind of unforced error that is going to produce a Trump loss in November. And just for the record, pro lifers extend well past "southern bible thumpers". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:40:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The neat thing is that Trumps plan does nothing to appeal to women and moderates. It alienates them because its a ban. And it alienates his pro life base because it allows abortions. This is the kind of unforced error that is going to produce a Trump loss in November. And just for the record, pro lifers extend well past "southern bible thumpers". https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/24/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-promo-1653427828806/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-promo-1653427828806-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600-v93.png Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well trump will absolutely lose if he doesn't pick.up moderate and women voters. The democrats would likely run on abortion and the GOP pushing first trimester. bans. If trump doesn't do this he will lose by huge margin. If pro life people refuse to vote for him because he sides with the vast majority of voters on this issue then oh well. Hell still lose either way. At the end of the day 15 weeks is the reasonable compromise everyone except the southern bible thumpers wants. So deal with it or lose. That's the only options. The neat thing is that Trumps plan does nothing to appeal to women and moderates. It alienates them because its a ban. And it alienates his pro life base because it allows abortions. This is the kind of unforced error that is going to produce a Trump loss in November. And just for the record, pro lifers extend well past "southern bible thumpers". https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/05/24/us/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-promo-1653427828806/abortion-laws-roe-v-wade-promo-1653427828806-videoSixteenByNineJumbo1600-v93.png How does it "allow abortions"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:43:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. Sex trafficking victims. Also girls being abused in their own home by their father, uncle, brother. Pregnancy might go unnoticed until the start of the school year. Or religious sect members with limited contact with the outside world. Their first opportunity to report their abuse may be after they’ve been pregnant 15-weeks I don't personally support exemptions for it but politically sure exempt those 0.001% of abortions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:46:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How does it "allow abortions"? It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:48:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can’t do a national ban. You have to do a constitutional amendment. It’s why Roe V Wade got shot down. Dems have to get abortion nationwide the same way. Why do you have to play into their hands Republicans??? It’s a states issue. Win or die on the state level. roe got shot down cause it was garbage case law. there is no constitutional amendment needed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:49:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Nobody is coming to take their abortions.
This is common sense abortion control which will literally save the children. And if it saves just one life, it's worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:50:21 PM EDT
[#18]
It would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:51:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How does it "allow abortions"? It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks. So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:53:48 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, it was fun while it lasted. Dreaming about Trump winning now will be the same as dreaming about what you would do with all that lottery money... He just gave Dems their talking point for the rest of the election cycle, they will hone in on this and it's what they will use to push people from Trump. it was already their talking point. he's actually stating a more moderate position than what the msm has been saying he would do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:55:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's only a fraction of the abortions performed. I can easily find stats that say 1% of abortions are from rape. In a multiple choice survey on reason for abortion 74% said "having a baby would dramatically change my life" 73% said "can't afford a baby now" 48% cited "don't want to be a single mother" or "relationship issues" 38% said "I have finished childbearing" Basically abortion is just a form of contraception, and most pro-lifers, especially those who are elected, are fine with exceptions for rape/incest. And ectopic pregnancies aren't viable pregnancies, and no one is suggesting to ban those. It's a fear tactic from the left who want to be able to choose up till crowning. those stats are only the percentages of the small minority that even came up with a reason at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 4:58:33 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So they should trust Republicans when they say they only want to ban abortion after 15-weeks? Just like we should trust democrats when they say they only want to ban assault weapons? Slippery slope is not limited to the 2A. It applies to all issues of government control over ordinary citizens assault weapons are an inanimate object capable of no evil of their own. Abortion is an inherently evil act of taking another human beings life. And no there shouldn't really be trust of either side on either of those issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 5:05:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well trump will absolutely lose if he doesn't pick.up moderate and women voters. The democrats would likely run on abortion and the GOP pushing first trimester. bans. If trump doesn't do this he will lose by huge margin. If pro life people refuse to vote for him because he sides with the vast majority of voters on this issue then oh well. Hell still lose either way. At the end of the day 15 weeks is the reasonable compromise everyone except the southern bible thumpers wants. So deal with it or lose. That's the only options. anecdotally I am not a southern bible thumper and support full abolition of abortion. I also view this as a positive step in the right direction which will not sway my vote for trump. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 5:20:13 PM EDT
[#24]
Trump's mouth has always been his worst enemy, 87% of the time he opens it stupid shit rolls out.
His campaign would be better off if he went to the 2020 Joe Biden in the basement plan and shut the fuck up, He's going to talk himself into a loss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 5:25:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? Lol. First, you're putting words in my mouth. In this thread you've consistently talked past me and now you're just flat out lying. So no, I'm not taking a homework assignment from you. Second, five pages into the thread and two pages into arguing about it and now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks? You sycophants really are delusional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 5:38:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. First, you're putting words in my mouth. In this thread you've consistently talked past me and now you're just flat out lying. So no, I'm not taking a homework assignment from you. Second, five pages into the thread and two pages into arguing about it and now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks? You sycophants really are delusional. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? Lol. First, you're putting words in my mouth. In this thread you've consistently talked past me and now you're just flat out lying. So no, I'm not taking a homework assignment from you. Second, five pages into the thread and two pages into arguing about it and now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks? You sycophants really are delusional. Wut...?  You said "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." Yet, nowhere has anybody said such a thing except you. I asked you simply to cite where you got that and suddenly you're angy and not doing my homework for me. "now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks?" If you got that from something I wrote, you are extremely confused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 5:51:01 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut...? You said "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." Yet, nowhere has anybody said such a thing except you. I asked you simply to cite where you got that and suddenly you're angy and not doing my homework for me. "now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks?" If you got that from something I wrote, you are extremely confused. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? Lol. First, you're putting words in my mouth. In this thread you've consistently talked past me and now you're just flat out lying. So no, I'm not taking a homework assignment from you. Second, five pages into the thread and two pages into arguing about it and now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks? You sycophants really are delusional. Wut...? You said "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." Yet, nowhere has anybody said such a thing except you. I asked you simply to cite where you got that and suddenly you're angy and not doing my homework for me. "now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks?" If you got that from something I wrote, you are extremely confused. Don't play coy, the thread is here for everyone to read. You asked me to cite Trumps law that disallows States to expand bans further - which is something I never said. That's a snake that's entirely in your head. Why look, here's your exact quote right here. Quoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 6:00:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't play coy, the thread is here for everyone to read. You asked me to cite Trumps law that disallows States to expand bans further - which is something I never said. That's a snake that's entirely in your head. Why look, here's your exact quote right here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this? Lol. First, you're putting words in my mouth. In this thread you've consistently talked past me and now you're just flat out lying. So no, I'm not taking a homework assignment from you. Second, five pages into the thread and two pages into arguing about it and now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks? You sycophants really are delusional. Wut...? You said "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." Yet, nowhere has anybody said such a thing except you. I asked you simply to cite where you got that and suddenly you're angy and not doing my homework for me. "now you're calling into question whether or not Trump is publicly supporting a ban after 15 weeks?" If you got that from something I wrote, you are extremely confused. Don't play coy, the thread is here for everyone to read. You asked me to cite Trumps law that disallows States to expand bans further - which is something I never said. That's a snake that's entirely in your head. Why look, here's your exact quote right here. Quoted: So this theoretical law, that hasn't been written yet, that Trump uttered three words about, disallows States to expand bans further (even though nobody has suggested it), despite Dobbs specifically giving states the ability to do so? Can you please cite this?  That was a (very obviously) sarcastic post pointing out the absurdity of you saying, "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." You are drawing conclusions about a non-existent piece of legislation out of thin air. And the conclusions you are drawing are perplexing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 6:09:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That was a (very obviously) sarcastic post pointing out the absurdity of you saying, "It only bans abortions after 15 weeks. Thus allowing them up to 15 weeks." You are drawing conclusions about a non-existent piece of legislation out of thin air. And the conclusions you are drawing are perplexing. Ah, so you were just pretending to be retarded. Wow. Got me good there. So when Trump said he supported an abortion ban after 15 weeks, you just have no idea what its legal state will be before that? That's just a perplexing conundrum to you? Maybe you aren't pretending. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 6:38:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah, so you were just pretending to be retarded. Wow. Got me good there. So when Trump said he supported an abortion ban after 15 weeks, you just have no idea what its legal state will be before that? That's just a perplexing conundrum to you? Maybe you aren't pretending. It will continue to be legal, federally, and up to the States locally. So if it is banned in your state after 10 weeks (as opposed to the federal 15), it would continue to be so. After 15 weeks you'd be breaking both federal and state law. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Everything stays the same with the States, with this overlayed on top. ETA - Federal and State laws are totally independent of each other. They don't have to repeal state laws if this were to pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 6:44:33 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It will continue to be legal, federally, and up to the States locally. So if it is banned in your state after 10 weeks (as opposed to the federal 15), it would continue to be so. After 15 weeks you'd be breaking both federal and state law. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Everything stays the same with the States, with this overlayed on top. Except that having a federal ban in place gives the left another talking point. Because in the world we actually live in, the left will always use this, were it enacted, to their benefit, appealing to it the same way republican governors appeal to weak CCW laws when confronted with questions about real con-carry laws. I can see the headlines now "NEW GOP LAW GOES BEYOND EXISTING DRACONIAN FEDERAL RULES!1111!". They will quite literally leverage it - were it to be enacted - to stop the *actual* prohibition of abortion. And said federal ban does little or nothing to actually prevent abortion, because 15 weeks is a long time. Any functional retard - even the average leftist - can get figure out they're pregnant and schedule an appointment to go kill their kids with time to spare. Let the states figure it out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 7:07:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well unfortunately abortion is a lose/lose issue for republicans and the left knows it. Sound pro-choice and the religious right may not turn out, and that traditionally is a dependable voting block for republicans. Come out pro-life and you'll lose many women on the right because they vote their pussies over their principles. Try to not take a stand and you get attacked from both camps. Say it is a states' rights issue and it will be spun as you favor a ban because you don't support an absolute right to abortion. It is the most polarizing issue because we were dumb enough to give women the right to vote. Like it or not, by about 1920 if American men didn't all turn gay, the power of the pussy was getting women the right to vote. Next, it's a fallacy to frame this as "pussies over their principles", which in part illustrates why Trump is the pinnacle of stupid dumbassery. For women it's not about abortion at all. It's about old white men telling them what they can and can't do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 7:18:29 PM EDT
[#33]
Great way to make everyone vote for doe Biden.
Keep that out of politics and keep politicians out of abortion and weed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 7:18:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Please explain that further. Why, and what would have to change specifically with the federal law? If it's a federal law, it doesn't matter what the states do or do not have in place. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Well to get it passed it's going to require protections against states banning before 15 weeks. Which we could argue the federal government doesn't have authority to do but is kind of a lost point because nearly everything the federal government does, it doesn't have constitutional authority to do. The legislation will likely make it through the courts since overturning roe v wade was more about the court not having authority to implement it in the first place. Please explain that further. Why, and what would have to change specifically with the federal law? If it's a federal law, it doesn't matter what the states do or do not have in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 7:44:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Sorry, OP. You're right. As soon as I heard what he'd said I started raging. It is so stupid. As a woman and a registered Republican, I have to wonder why I bother.
*sigh* Republicans- always snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 8:16:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know what the mechanism will be but if he actually wants a bill to sign that's the only way it will happen. Democrats won't allow a federal ban of any kind unless it somehow stops states from bans before the 15 weeks Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well to get it passed it's going to require protections against states banning before 15 weeks. Which we could argue the federal government doesn't have authority to do but is kind of a lost point because nearly everything the federal government does, it doesn't have constitutional authority to do. The legislation will likely make it through the courts since overturning roe v wade was more about the court not having authority to implement it in the first place. Please explain that further. Why, and what would have to change specifically with the federal law? If it's a federal law, it doesn't matter what the states do or do not have in place. There are literally zero scenarios where Republicans and Democrats are crafting and/or compromising on Federal abortion ban language together. But if (big if) Trump wins, there's a pretty decent chance both the Senate and the House turn red too. That's the only way any of this happens at all, and even then the odds of this happening are super slim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/21/2024 8:19:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry, OP. You're right. As soon as I heard what he'd said I started raging. It is so stupid. As a woman and a registered Republican, I have to wonder why I bother. *sigh* Republicans- always snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. He's been saying the exact same things since 2016. Did you not vote for him then? Did you think his stance had changed? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
