A rare Trump vs. MAGA disagreement

[RobDownSouth]

There is a rare policy disagreement brewing between convicted felon presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the MAGA faithful.

Trump is insisting that after "his" Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision that it is now up to individual states to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal. Six states have codified this in their state constutution, with six more constitutional state amendments on the ballot in November.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is the only possible solution to abortion,

The Federalist Society has spent millions urging MAGA to work towards federal legislation outlawing abortion at the federal level, superceding states rights, and MAGA seems to now be keen on this idea.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is also the only possible solution to abortion.

 

[adrina]

The end goal has always been a national abortion ban.

 

[KeithD]

By his own statements on how to win an election, what Trump says on any given day has to be taken only as what he feels he has to say on that given day to solidify votes--not what he'll try to do when he's in office.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the way it is with many other politicians too. Nicky Haily and the boys who have momentarily put themselves up against Trump at any point (DeSantis, Rubio, Cruz, etc.) come to mind.

 

[Lazaran]

There is a rare policy disagreement brewing between convicted felon presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the MAGA faithful.

Trump is insisting that after "his" Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision that it is now up to individual states to determine whether or not they want abortion to be legal. Six states have codified this in their state constutution, with six more constitutional state amendments on the ballot in November.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is the only possible solution to abortion,

The Federalist Society has spent millions urging MAGA to work towards federal legislation outlawing abortion at the federal level, superceding states rights, and MAGA seems to now be keen on this idea.

Lit Legal Expert HisArpy assures us that this is also the only possible solution to abortion.

I see what you did there.

 

[Lazaran]

The end goal has always been a national abortion ban.

For many who helped get that orange POS elected? -yes.

For the orange POS? - No.

The orange POS just says whatever is politically expedient / convenient to regain power for protection from criminal prosecution and to continue the grift.



I believe we all can agree that the orange POS has probably PAID for some unfortunate girl to have an abortion AND also FORCED some unfortunate girl to have an abortion.



JFC

SAD!!!

 

[dmallord]

I see what you did there.

Played Harpy against Harpy... two-faced paradox still confused over carbon water and 12-volt death batteries.

 

[YDB95]

I believe we all can agree that the orange POS has probably PAID for some unfortunate girl to have an abortion AND also FORCED some unfortunate girl to have an abortion.

Entirely responsible that he caused numerous other ones without ever knowing about them, too.

 

[Lazaran]

Entirely responsible that he caused numerous other ones without ever knowing about them, too.

Well having sex in the 60’ and 70’s and WAS that orange POS ‘s “Vietnam”, so what with the fog of war and all, it’s very likely that “things happened”…

 

[ChloeTzang]

The end goal has always been a national abortion ban.

That's the end goal of a lot of the fundamentalist anti-abortionists, but SCOTUS already ruled it's a State by State decision and I can't see SCOTUS changing that one at this point. So whatever they try at the Federal level will just get turned down by SCOTUS, as they should. That was a constitutionally sounds decision, says the noted legal expert, Chloe. LOL. But whatever, SCOTUS decisions are not lightly overturned. They will never get a national abortion ban, and depending on what state you're in, you just move if that's what you want.

Which will only accelerate our split into hard red and hard blue states, so far far better to keep emphasizing State rights, and getting the Feds out of as much as possible, to reduce the possibility of fucking each other off enough for the shooting to start. We have to recognize that we have a population that is diametrically split down the middle and adapt. That means more State rights and responsibilities and less Federal intrusion. It also means separating off blue cities from the red hinterland. I mean we already have blue Oregon and Washington wanting to separate from Seattle and Portland, and Northern California (Jefferson) wanting nothing to do with Commiefornia. Best we agree to legitimize all of this and live and let live. Difficult for lefties, I know, but really, what do we need the Feds for?

Defense. Foreign Affairs. Regulating interstate agreements. Very little else.

 

[ll74]

That's the end goal of a lot of the fundamentalist anti-abortionists, but SCOTUS already ruled it's a State by State decision and I can't see SCOTUS changing that one at this point. So whatever they try at the Federal level will just get turned down by SCOTUS, as they should. That was a constitutionally sounds decision, says the noted legal expert, Chloe. LOL. But whatever, SCOTUS decisions are not lightly overturned. They will never get a national abortion ban, and depending on what state you're in, you just move if that's what you want.

You don't understand the Dobbs ruling.

Congress is the one who would make a national ban. The courts would rule on that law, which would not even be a ruling on roe.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You don't understand the Dobbs ruling.

Congress is the one who would make a national ban. The courts would rule on that law, which would not even be a ruling on roe.

Understand it? Not really. And yeah, I do understand Congress would make the law and it would be ruled on, but I'd see the same logic applying. State vs Fed.

Feel free to correct me if you want - I'd like to understand the whole thing better but I'm not taking the time to do it and I don't expect anyone to spoonfeed me. LOL. No time to get into that sort of depth.

 

[ll74]

Understand it? Not really. And yeah, I do understand Congress would make the law and it would be ruled on, but I'd see the same logic applying. State vs Fed.

The roe v Wade law was made on privacy laws. An actual abortion law would be created about abortion

Feel free to correct me if you want - I'd like to understand the whole thing better but I'm not taking the time to do it and I don't expect anyone to spoonfeed me. LOL. No time to get into that sort of depth.

If you don't want to take time to understand things, the simply refrain from making comments and expecting others to explain things to you.

 

[ChloeTzang]

If you don't want to take time to understand things, the simply refrain from making comments and expecting others to explain things to you.

But tweaking Adrina is such fun. And besides, who takes anything here seriously? Nothing said here will change a thing, altho one may accidentally learn a few things along the way, so why not have at it and have fun.

 

[Lazaran]

That's the end goal of a lot of the fundamentalist anti-abortionists, but SCOTUS already ruled it's a State by State decision and I can't see SCOTUS changing that one at this point. So whatever they try at the Federal level will just get turned down by SCOTUS, as they should. That was a constitutionally sounds decision, says the noted legal expert, Chloe. LOL. But whatever, SCOTUS decisions are not lightly overturned. They will never get a national abortion ban, and depending on what state you're in, you just move if that's what you want.

Which will only accelerate our split into hard red and hard blue states, so far far better to keep emphasizing State rights, and getting the Feds out of as much as possible, to reduce the possibility of fucking each other off enough for the shooting to start. We have to recognize that we have a population that is diametrically split down the middle and adapt. That means more State rights and responsibilities and less Federal intrusion. It also means separating off blue cities from the red hinterland. I mean we already have blue Oregon and Washington wanting to separate from Seattle and Portland, and Northern California (Jefferson) wanting nothing to do with Commiefornia. Best we agree to legitimize all of this and live and let live. Difficult for lefties, I know, but really, what do we need the Feds for?

Defense. Foreign Affairs. Regulating interstate agreements. Very little else.

So a patchwork of Fascist Theocracies by majority rule in certain state in the UNITED STATES should be tolerated???



Chloe “Chicongo” Tzang

 

[ll74]

But tweaking Adrina is such fun. And besides, who takes anything here seriously? Nothing said here will change a thing, altho one may accidentally learn a few things along the way, so why not have at it and have fun.

Aah yes, the whole "I wasn't serious" excuse.

Neat

 

[adrina]

But tweaking Adrina is such fun. And besides, who takes anything here seriously? Nothing said here will change a thing, altho one may accidentally learn a few things along the way, so why not have at it and have fun.

Lame.

I wasn't even in this exchange.

A juvenile approach to politics - yeah that'll get your perspective taken seriously. Fucksakes.

 

[ChloeTzang]

.... that'll get your perspective taken seriously. Fucksakes.

I do NOT expect to be taken seriously. I repeat.....

This board is light entertainment. If anyone here takes what is posted here seriously, they need a life. LOL. Here, have a nice cup of coffee and relax in preparation for the next diatribe. Apologies for derailing the last one. Please continue without me.....I was never here. Never said a word.

Notes to self. Cut down on vodka in coffee.

 

[Chernosoth]

While the armies of righteousness and liberty shout and pound keyboards, the solution that will probably happen is we wait a while as demographics, occupations, and priorities change. We have a somewhat inverted age pyramid. Urbanization will reach a peak and then decline as we return to a more agricultural economy, where kids are assets, not liabilities. Abortion may become as rare as it was before industrialization, maybe not done at all if environmental pollution knocks fertility down for centuries.

 

[ChloeTzang]

While the armies of righteousness and liberty shout and pound keyboards, the solution that will probably happen is we wait a while as demographics, occupations, and priorities change. We have a somewhat inverted age pyramid. Urbanization will reach a peak and then decline as we return to a more agricultural economy, where kids are assets, not liabilities. Abortion may become as rare as it was before industrialization, maybe not done at all if environmental pollution knocks fertility down for centuries.

Very likely, as liberal white women abort their genes from the gene pool.

 

[TrailerHitch]

I do not support a ban of abortion whether state or federal. We do not need a return to women dying from back alley abortions.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

But tweaking Adrina is such fun. And besides, who takes anything here seriously? Nothing said here will change a thing, altho one may accidentally learn a few things along the way, so why not have at it and have fun.

You terr 'em, Chroe!

 

[ChloeTzang]

I do not support a ban of abortion whether state or federal. We do not need a return to women dying from back alley abortions.

Neither do I, but personally I think it should be restricted to the 1st 8 weeks, life threatening health issues for the mother, and with exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking until 12 weeks of pregnancy - and in all those case it should be readily available with no delays. An outright ban is excessive, but on the other hand, allowing abortions into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters except for genuinely life threatening issues is plain baby-murder.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lame.

I wasn't even in this exchange.

A juvenile approach to politics - yeah that'll get your perspective taken seriously. Fucksakes.

"I'ma gonna build a wall....and have Mexico pay for it!" accelerated the trend toward idiocracy amongst the rabid right.

 

[Chernosoth]

allowing abortions into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters except for genuinely life threatening issues is plain baby-murder.

That is easy to say now. When the nation is much poorer, disability income will be a fading memory. The options will be work or die. Prenatal scanning such as ultrasounds will also be forgotten. Parents won't know what they're getting until birth. Babies born with defects so severe they will obviously never work and support themselves or their families may be routinely killed.

 

[YDB95]

Neither do I, but personally I think it should be restricted to the 1st 8 weeks, life threatening health issues for the mother, and with exceptions for rape, incest and human trafficking until 12 weeks of pregnancy - and in all those case it should be readily available with no delays. An outright ban is excessive, but on the other hand, allowing abortions into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters except for genuinely life threatening issues is plain baby-murder.

The first trimester would be 13 weeks, not 8. At eight weeks, some women don't even know for sure they're pregnant yet.
And elective abortions in the 3rd trimester are literally unheard of. They likely would be in the 2nd instead, if not for all the roadblocks anti-choicers have thrown up, like mandatory waiting periods and so forth.