ChrisWeigant.com

How Valuable Will Trump's Endorsements Prove To Be?

[ Posted Monday, May 2nd, 2022 – 16:31 UTC ]

Primary season is about to get underway across the country, and this year all eyes are on the various Republican contests, as seen through a single lens: Donald Trump's endorsements. This is horserace political commentary at its best or worst (depending on your outlook on horserace reporting in general). Tomorrow night will kick off this frenzy, with one of the most-watched races around -- the Senate primary in Ohio. But while much ink will be spilled dissecting the outcome of this race and many others (in the weeks to come), when considering Trump's endorsement record and the relative value of such endorsements, it's important to consider a few factors which might get lost in the fray. So let's take a look at the biggest of these.

 

How red a state is it?

A Republican primary in a ruby-red state is a different beast than one in a purple state. In a solidly red state, the Republican primary essentially is the election -- whoever wins is going to be elected in November, in other words. In a purple state, there is also the consideration of how strong the candidate will be in the general election against the Democratic nominee.

This is why Pennsylvania's Senate GOP primary is different than, say, Idaho's. Voters in a state that is unquestionably going to elect a Republican know full well that the GOP primary is the whole shebang. Voters in purple states (or even "just slightly red" states) also have to be aware of what the chances of any particular GOP candidate will be against the Democrat running. The word "electability" pops up in a way it simply does not in a deep-red state.

So if a Trump-backed candidate wins in a purple state, the jury will still be out on whether it was a valuable thing to the Republican Party or not until after November's contest. If a Trump-endorsed candidate is seen as too loony and loses the seat (where a more mainstream GOP candidate might have done better) then it is impossible to conclude anything but that Trump's endorsement actually hurt the Republican Party, instead of helping it.

This problem doesn't really exist in red states, of course, since no matter who wins the primary enough Republicans will vote for them to put them over the finish line in November. This avoids any second evaluation of the relative value of a Trump endorsement later on.

 

Will there be a strong third-party candidate in November?

In several places, embattled Republicans are eyeing the route of running as an independent third-party candidate against the Republican Party's official nominee. These are usually the GOP politicians who have been excoriated by Trump for various perceived sins against him but who also have a very strong base in their home state or district. If a politician has a solid enough following to have a good chance in a three-way race, then that politician losing the Republican primary (or opting not even to run in it and going independent from the start) is also not going to be the last word on the subject.

There is even one race (for Mike Lee's Senate seat in Utah) where the Democrats have even refused to endorse one of their own and instead have thrown the party's support behind the third-party Evan McMullin, in an effort to defeat a very MAGA senator in November. So even in a very red state, if there is a strong third-party bid just winning the GOP primary isn't the automatic ticket to office you might think it is.

 

MAGA v. MAGA, or MAGA v. Establishment?

This one is perhaps the most obvious one. Take the Ohio Senate race that will be big news tomorrow night (or perhaps Wednesday morning). Right now, there are multiple candidates with a chance of winning, and the two in front of the pack are both devotees of the whole Make America Great Again credo. They both scraped and bowed in an effort to get Trump's endorsement. One won out over the other. But if these two wind up in first and second place, it really won't say much of anything about any sort of schism or factionalism within the Republican Party at all, since either one of them will likely behave just about the same if they get to the Senate.

Of course, in a MAGA-v.-MAGA race, the value of a Trump endorsement might be put to its purest test. If Trump could reasonably claim that his endorsement put one of them over the top (even when ideology wasn't a major factor), then it would probably up the relative value of a Trump endorsement for candidates in similar races. Conversely, if Trump's candidate loses, it would be a big blow to Trump's endorsement value, but not a crippling one (since a Trump-loving MAGA candidate won anyway).

In a more ideological race -- one where one candidate was strongly pro-Trump while another one was more establishment or refused to push Trump's Big Lie -- the race will be seen much more as a factionalist fight within the GOP. The prime example of this so far is the Georgia governor's race, where Trump has been enraged by the current Republican governor's refusal to steal Georgia's election for him and has been strongly pushing his favorite candidate for months. If the incumbent cruises to victory (as the polls seem to now indicate), this will be a crushing blow to the value of a Trump endorsement elsewhere. If a guy Trump was all-in on loses, it means this could be possible elsewhere. Those Republicans who are sincerely hoping for their party to "move on" from Trump will be heartened by such wins, obviously.

 

How many viable candidates are there?

This is a factor that is almost certain to be lost in a lot of the post-primary analysis. A candidate (Trump-backed or not) who wins in a pretty evenly-split race between four or five Republicans is one thing, but a candidate who wins what is essentially a two-man race is something else indeed.

When the field is split up among three or more contenders, it is going to take a much lower percentage of the vote to win (obviously). If there are enough viable candidates, the winner might have as little as, say, 21 percent of the vote. In a two-person race, this would mean losing to a candidate who got over three-fourths of the votes, however.

Some states have vote percentage thresholds, which force a runoff election if no candidate clears whatever bar is set (sometimes 50 percent of the vote, sometimes less). In these states, there can be both types of election -- a multi-candidate free-for-all followed by a binary choice.

But any victory with a smaller percent of the overall vote has got to be discounted from victories in races with fewer candidates. This, as I said, is a subtlety which many will miss when looking back at "what the results mean."

 

How late in the race did Trump jump in?

Donald Trump likes to track his endorsement stats, and he has been known to try to boost his winning percentage by jumping into a race very late (sometimes in the final days of the campaign). He almost always does so to get behind candidates who are already obviously going to win. If one candidate is polling at 60-plus percent, then Trump has nothing to lose by a late endorsement. This should be seen much differently than races where Trump jumps in at least a month before the primary is held. Trump has already made a few early endorsements that have led to disappointment (one Trump-backed candidate in Pennsylvania has already dropped out, and Trump had to "unendorse" another who was doing poorly in the polls).

The main difference between an early endorsement and a late one, though, might be in the way Trump talks about it afterwards. It's going to be harder for him to explain away a candidate he backed for months and months who then goes on to lose than it would be for Trump to pin the blame elsewhere for an endorsement which came later.

 

What boost did Trump's endorsement actually provide?

This is the real measurement of value for a Trump endorsement, but it can be impossible to really quantify. In a textbook case, you would take a look at how the candidate was polling before Trump endorsed her or him, and then compare that to what happened to the polling afterwards -- did it spike wildly up, rise modestly, or not change at all?

It can be impossible to accurately tell this, however, mostly because state races just aren't polled anywhere near as often as nationwide races, and the data can be all over the map (and not match up to the results on Election Day very well, either). Also, other events (not connected with Trump's endorsement) could be the deciding factors as well, which would be extremely hard (if not impossible) to separate out in polling data. But even with all the drawbacks and caveats, polling pre-endorsement and post-endorsement is just about the only quantitative measurement you can put on a Trump endorsement.

Trump, of course, will be spinning the numbers madly, in an effort to prove that his endorsement is valuable beyond price for any Republican running in any race, anywhere.

 

Conclusion

You'll notice that I haven't actually commented here (well, very much) on any individual races. There will be plenty of time for that as we navigate the primary season. There will be a dozen races this month and even more next month, so this is going to be a big topic for a while now.

But I just wanted to caution everyone who is following the Republican primaries to measure any punditry written about Trump's influence with a critical eye. Sweeping statements about "what it all means" from only one race's results are probably not going to hold up over time -- that'd be my main message, in a nutshell. Look to the nuances of each race when weighing what people have to say about it, in other words.

Trump himself, of course, doesn't do nuance at all. He is always going to lie about his endorsement record, to give the impression that every single candidate he endorses always goes on to win, period. This isn't even remotely true, but Trump says a whole lot of things that fall into that category, so what's one more?

Trump will also be very quick to assign blame elsewhere if one of his candidates does lose in spectacular fashion. It'll be the candidate's fault for running a lousy campaign, or the fault of the media, or the fault of the "Deep State" Republicans, or the fault of Antifa, or the fault of George Soros... or whatever. He may even come out and add some Little Lies to his Big Lie, by claiming "this election was stolen" from his anointed candidate. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, at this point.

Before any of the results are even in, I would have to sum up the value of a Trump endorsement within the Republican Party as being important, but not as important as Trump wants you to think. Trump is still by far the weightiest voice within the party, and his endorsement is worth a lot more than any other Republican's backing. That much is indisputably true. But it is also no guarantee of victory. If a Republican candidate (or, more likely, current officeholder) comes under relentless attack from Trump and the MAGA candidate, what may determine the election is how the voters see that person independently of Trump. If, like the current Republican governor of Georgia, you have a solid backing of the party's base and remain well-respected and well-liked even after the full-on attack from Trump, then you may well survive. He isn't the only one who may prove this theory correct either.

Donald Trump seems like he is going to post a rather mixed record of endorsement victories and losses this primary season. Because it will be mixed, it will be open to interpretation "what it all means" for the party. Trying to decode this correctly, however, requires taking a lot of variables into consideration.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

106 Comments on “How Valuable Will Trump's Endorsements Prove To Be?”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Trump's endorsement will be extremely valuable.

    It provides the opportunity for all sorts of speculation before and what does it all mean articles after that fool people into thinking it is not just part of the show.

    It is the lifeblood of the part of the Big Lie that Republikillers are so scary you have to vote for the Deathocrats that will hurt you less.

    The question isn't when did Trump jump in but when will you jump out of spewing the Big Lie as a porter on the gravy train and jump into being a REporter?

    TAKE THE VACCINE1!

  2. [2] 
    andygaus wrote:

    It's particularly easy for Trump to claim victory if he endorses a mixture of two candidates' names, as he just did, endorsing "J.D. Mandel" in Ohio.

  3. [3] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I've been listening to Obama's audiobook, which i think was published in 2020. I wonder if he keeps score on his endorsements too...

  4. [4] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    But enough, Michale -- let there be mirth!

    Fast forward to exactly 19:15 of John Oliver's latest and tell me the following half a minute doesn't crack you up!

  5. [5] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Its like the hysteria over the Dems losing the Virginia Governorship and just scraping by in Jersey when Saint Ronnie was the last incumbent President to not lose both.

    Or when pundits write [fill in the blank] could cost the [fill in a Party] for a generation!

    Which lasts maybe two election cycles at best.

  6. [6] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    He may even come out and add some Little Lies to his Big Lie, by claiming "this election was stolen" from his anointed candidate. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, at this point.

    Naw, the election was stolen is getting stale and besides, that only applies to Trump's election. Wouldn't want to overdo it before 2024.

  7. [7] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [2]

    It's particularly easy for Trump to claim victory if he endorses a mixture of two candidates' names, as he just did, endorsing "J.D. Mandel" in Ohio.

    Hmmm. Maybe they're right about that Trump plays eight-dimentional chess notion! :D

  8. [8] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [3]

    If only one could look up Obama's endorsement record.

  9. [9] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    A MIXED bag of wins and losses, it appears. Alas it doesn't list Democratic primary endorsements.

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    WOOT!!! :D

    Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

    "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

    I will be FEASTING on Democrat tears today!!! :D

    Democrats will be SOOOOO upset they can't kill any more babies.. :^/

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    One things clear about today's commentary..

    PTDS is still alive and well.. :^/

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.
    -Justice Samuel Alito

    Take THAT baby killers!!!

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's Not Just Hispanics. The Democrats Are Losing the Black Vote

    The Democratic Party has a huge problem. For decades now, they have been hemorrhaging white rural and working class voters to the Republicans, a trend they have managed to offset with super majorities of voters of color. This was the basis of the "Emerging Majority" theory popular in Democratic circles just a few years ago, which posited that as America became less and less white, it would become more and more firmly attached to the Democratic Party.

    The problem with this theory is that it relied the premise that minorities were going to remain solid Democrats. And that premise is turning out to be false. What we're seeing today is that working class Hispanic voters and conservative Black voters are a lot more like their white counterparts than anyone in the Democratic Party had bargained for. And that spells serious trouble for the Left.

    Much has been made of the Republican shift among Hispanic voters. And to be sure, it has been significant; between the 2018 to 2020 elections, Hispanic voters without a college degree swung to the GOP by a whopping 30 points.

    This was even more pronounced in Texas border counties, where local communities are experiencing the crisis at the border first hand. The county with the highest percentage of Hispanic voters once backed Hillary Clinton by 60 points; but they only backed then-candidate Joe Biden by five.
    https://www.newsweek.com/its-not-just-hispanics-democrats-are-losing-black-vote-opinion-1702581

    And the news keeps getting worser and worser for Democrats.. :D

    According to Pew Research Center, fully 25 percent of Black Democrats identify as "conservative" (around 40 percent identify as "moderate"). And with these voters, like their Hispanic counterparts, there was also a massive shift between 2016 and 2020.

    In 2016, Hillary Clinton won Black conservative voters by 58 points. But in 2020, now-President Joe Biden won them by just 20 points, a 38 point drop. And the trend is holding; since taking office, Biden went from an 87 percent approval rating among Black voters overall to 67 percent, a 20 point drop.

    "There's just no recent historical analogy for what happened with conservative Black voters in 2020," writes Harry Enten at CNN. "It really broke the mold."

    And it looks like things are just as bad for Democrats with the black American vote, eh?? :D

    November is going to be a shock to the Democrat Party system.. :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rachel Maddow on SCOTUS draft: If a Republican wins in 2024, we'll have 'a nationwide abortion ban in America'

    'Both the radicalism and the practicality are speeding toward the same cliff,' the MSNBC star warned
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-rachel-maddow-scotus-abortion

    MadCow tears are especially satisfying so early in the morning.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, what morning could be complete without Occasional Cortex telling the world how much she needs a brain...

    AOC botches facts in viral tweet attacking Texas abortion law

    Factually inaccurate Ocasio-Cortez tweet goes viral among progressives
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-botches-facts-viral-tweet-attacking-texas-abortion-law

    It's like Democrats trying to talk intelligently about the Florida Parental Rights Anti Groomer law.. They just can't speak to the FACTS because they have no facts to speak of.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    A federal court dismissed all challenges Tuesday to a provision in the Texas abortion law.

    The U.S. 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent the legal challenge against the six-week abortion ban back to the state Supreme Court with orders to dismiss all challenges.

    In March, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that state medical licensing clinics don't have the authority to enforce the law. Weeks earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the matter, leaving abortion providers with a narrow path to victory and an uphill battle.

    Since taking effect, abortions have plummeted in Texas, one of several states dominated by conservatives that have passed similar restrictions on abortions.

    Say what ya'all want about the Texas law.. But it sure is novel.. AND EFFECTIVE!!! :D

    Must... have.... more.... Democrat.... tears..... :D

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yunno, there's a decent Trek novel TEARS OF THE SINGERS...

    I think I'll write a sequel... TEARS OF THE DEMOCRATS...

    :D

    I have a feeling that today is going to be a GRAND day!!! :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now let me put on my TINFOIL hat..

    I have to wonder if this "leak" was engineered by Chief Justice Roberts as a way of softening the blow for the country..

    Let the Democrats get all the hysteria and tears out of their system before the actual decision is released in a month or two..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic governors, attorneys general 'horrified' by Supreme Court draft, vow to defend abortion

    Many Democratic governors have signed laws protecting abortion rights if the Court strikes down Roe v. Wade
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democratic-governors-attorneys-general-horrified-by-supreme-court-draft-vow-to-defend-abortion

    Of course, Democrat Governors rush to make their states a safe haven for baby killers and those that want to indulge in infanticide.. :^/

    No wonder Democrats are going to be thrown out of office en masse in November...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.

    Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation – all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.

    Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW," Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., an Independent who caucuses with Democrats and who twice finished as a runner-up in a Democratic presidential primary, tweeted. "And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes."
    -Democrat so-called "Leadership"

    Ahhhhhhhh The warm salty taste of Democrat tears.. So good in the morning with a Diet Coke chaser.. :D

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    And what makes this all so much fun is that it's DEMOCRATS themselves who are to blame..

    If they would have just been satisfied with SAFE, LEGAL and RARE, then ROE would still be the law of the land.

    But NOOOOOOOO

    Democrats wanted to #SHOUT OUT their infanticide... Democrats wanted to #CELEBRATE their baby killing...

    And, NOW, by doing so Democrats have pushed it to where over 80% of Americans support a baby's right to life and are against abortion...

    Democrats have only themselves to blame.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is it a coincidence that the top 2 states for Business are GOP States??

    NOT... :D

    So, Democrats can take their Big Corp Disney love and shove it.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    DeSantis says he would ban medical gender transitions for children in Florida

    The governor told Lisa Boothe, 'You can't get a tattoo if you're 12 years old'
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/ron-desantis-ban-medical-gender-transitions-for-children-florida

    Once again, Governor DeSantis proves why he is the #1 Governor in all 50 states!! :D

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I would ban the... Yeah, I would ban the sex-change... the operations. I think that it's something that you can't get a tattoo if you're 12 years old. When they say gender-affirming care, what they mean a lot of times is you are really- you're castrating a young boy, you're sterilizing a young girl, you're doing mastectomies for these very young girls. And here's the thing, what our guidance pointed to, and the Surgeon General did a great job, for these young kids, 80% of the cases resolve themselves as they grow up. And so you're doing things that are permanently altering them, and then they're not gonna be able to reverse that."
    Governor Ron DeSantis

    Democrats want to castrate young boys..

    Democrats want to sterilize young girls..

    Straight out of the Nazi playbook... :^/

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:
  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    I've been listening to Obama's audiobook, which i think was published in 2020. I wonder if he keeps score on his endorsements too...

    I doubt it.. Odumbo's track record on endorsements was perfect..

    Everything he endorsed turned to shit and everyone he endorsed or "helped" lost.. :D

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.instagram.com/reel/CdCr3WZjHFV/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=69b672f8-fe67-4adc-9e01-3333d1f024e3

    This is what Democrat Party governance has gotten us..

    Democrats DESERVE to be thrown out of office...

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting speculation..

    Who Leaked Samuel Alito’s Draft Opinion Striking Down Roe v. Wade—and Why?
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/supreme-court-alito-abortion-opinion-leaker-identity-theory.html

    I am betting it was a SCOTUS Justice who leaked or authorized the leak..

    While I can see some hysterical progressive clerk being the leaker, so driven mad by the the fact that Democrats had utterly lost that they weren't thinking straight...

    But assuming a more tactical approach, it's clear that a Justice leaking is the OCCAMS RAZOR answer...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    And for some MORE good news today.. :D

    More Polls Point to Complete Obliteration of Dems in November

    As Spencer highlighted over the weekend, the latest national survey from NPR, PBS and Marist points to a brutal midterm election cycle for the ruling party. The data points are piling up. In this poll, Republicans lead on the generic ballot – a metric that historically favors Democrats, even in fairly red-tinted years – by three percentage points. If accurate, a three-point GOP "popular vote" victory would almost certainly sweep the party into power in both congressional chambers. Some of the poll's internal numbers are especially intriguing:

    New NPR/Marist poll is remarkable

    Republicans lead Democrats on generic Congressional ballot among these groups:

    ???? Parents with children under 18: 60% choose GOP; 39% Democrats

    ???? Latino voters: 52% GOP; 39% Dems

    Let's face it: If Republicans even come close to winning Hispanics, it'll be a very strong cycle for them. If they somehow win Latino voters outright, let alone by double-digits, it'll be a blowout – and Democrats' dreams of a permanent, demographic-driven majority will be reduced to smoldering rubble. The +13 number among Hispanics seems a little too good to be true, but we shall see. The GOP's advantage among parents of school-aged children is massive, and it reflects a phenomenon that helped Virginia Republicans win sweeping victories last November. The backlash is real, and progressives telling parents that they're weird conspiracy theorists, bigots, or even potential terrorists for simply noticing reality around them does not appear to be a successful strategy.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2022/05/02/more-polls-point-to-dempocalypse-in-november-n2606565

    No matter where ya turn today... It's ALL BAD NEWS ALL THE TIME for Democrats.. :D

    I bet ya'all can see how good of a mood I am in, eh? :D

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRHVCYqXIAEN3XZ?format=jpg&name=medium

    "The hits just keep on coming.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

    Color me a happy camper today, eh?? :D

    Ya'all are lucky.. Ya'all get to share the happy news with me... :D

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apparently, Republicans aren't above twisting the knife a little, eh?? :D

    Imagine how desperate things must be in Democratland when they're reduced to whining that their Democratic allies in the news media aren't sufficiently face-first in the tank against the opposition. Dark days.

    And I'd guess that quite a few Republicans would pay good money to fly Biden into their states and districts to campaign against them. A blathering, "frustrated" man with an approval rating in the 30s in many swing areas isn't exactly the face of political intimidation.

    If Democrats weren't so frakin' arrogant and put on such a snooty display on how they are soooo elitist and know what's best, one might almost feel sorry for them.. :D

    Me??? Arrogant??

    "Of course I'm arrogant!! I've EARNED it!!!"
    -Q

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    And Elon is STILL putting Democrats in their place!! :D

    Elon Musk goes scorched-earth on NBC after Peacock host's attack, notes network's worst scandals

    Musk slammed the liberal network over Matt Lauer's #MeToo scandal, allegations it buried Harvey Weinstein story
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/elon-musk-scorched-earth-nbc-peacock-host-insults-notes-networks-worst-scandals

    Elon is my hero!! :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    "NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazis … Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early & killed it & built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely people."
    -Elon Musk

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Protesters gather outside Supreme Court building following leaked draft opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade

    'Abortion is health care,' the crowd repeatedly chanted
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/protesters-supreme-court-leaked-opinion

    Democrats gather to shed tears.. :D

    LOVE IT!! :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    In case ya'all are just joining us, let's revisit exactly how the SCOTUS is going to rule.. :D

    “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.“
    -Justice Samuel Alito

    Well, that about sums it up... Roe v Wade is going to be thrown on the trash heap of history..

    Where it BELONGS!! :D

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stacey Abrams got special treatment in office and even got wealthy on the taxpayer dime
    In 2018 Abrams' net worth was reported to be just $109,000.

    Just three years after it was reported that taxpayers bailed out bad loans made by Stacy Abrams’ financial technology company NOW Corp.(previously NOWaccount), the company that Abrams helped start managed to secure $29 million in new financing from a private equity firm in late 2021.

    Interestingly, in 2018 Abrams' net worth was reported to be just $109,000. However, just as NOW Corp.’s fortunes changed in three years, Abrams reported her net worth increased to $3.17 million during the same period.
    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/stacey-abrams-special-treatment-office-wealthy-jason-chaffetz

    Stacey BIG LIE Abrams got rich in office..

    Typical Democrat... Pays lip service to being one of the people but then gets into office and makes millions..

    It's AMAZING that Democrats buy into this BIG LIE all the time..

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    I actually read the commentary but made a bet with myself that every time it mentioned President Trump, I had to chug a beer..

    Feeling pretty tipsy now.. :D

    PTDS is alive and well in Weigantia... :D

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's amazing how big a part of Weigantian lives President Trump still plays.. : D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    "What is clear is that what occurred with this leak was an unspeakably unethical act, and it is unfortunately a sign of our times. We're living in an age of rage where nothing seems inviolate anymore, no principles seems sacred, and it makes some of us feel almost naive. Even though this is a city that floats on a rolling sea of leaks, the court was always an island of integrity, and most of us didn't think this day would come. And I'm not too sure why. Maybe it's because we let hope triumph over experience.

    But the court has a long tradition that it would not yield to politics. It would not yield to dirty tricks. Somebody shattered that tradition, and the investigation that will now ensue is going to shatter the culture of the court. It's going to take a lot to get to the bottom of this. Yes, it's a small institution. It's a small number of people that are likely involved. But whoever did this likely took steps to hide their tracks."
    -Jonathan Turley

    this leak was an unspeakably unethical act

    That clinches it..

    It was definitely a Democrat who leaked this...

    Democrats LIVE for "unspeakably unethical acts"... :^/

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is just so outrageous that this draft opinion was leaked. It's clearly an attempt to influence the outcome. But be prepared for the scorched-earth tactics of the left on this issue. They truly believe the ends justify the means, no matter what laws or what norms they have to break and be prepared for a Kavanaugh-like approach to the Supreme Court on this one. And they are going to burn it down, as you're hearing the activists say, in order to try to stop this. And what such a shame is that many pro-life activists, many people who believe in the sanctity of life, abided by the law for nearly 50 years, even though they believe that child life was being unjustly taken. But I would not expect that same courtesy from the other side for our nation's system and for its rule of law.
    -FL Rep. Michael Walz

    Yep.. Democrats are going to go all crazy hysterical scorched earth..

    Just like they did in the Kavanaugh hearings..

    Democrats only believe in the rule of law when the laws support their Hate America agenda...

  41. [41] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (13)-
    The Deathocrats lost this black voter years ago.

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    The best thing for the SCOTUS to do now is to render their decision immediately and throw ROE v WADE on the trash heap of history where it belongs..

    Show the American people that the SCOTUS will not kow-tow to Left Wing hysterical anti-America numb nuts...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Seriously, shout out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said ‘fuck it! Let’s burn this place down!!!'...”
    -Democrat Celebrating SCOTUS Leak

    Yep, there's ya'all's Democrat Party.. :^/

  44. [44] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale (41)-
    You should be with me on this as it will put the Deathocrat supporters here in quite a bind.

    As I have decided to identify as black the Deathocrat supporters now have to defend my trans-racial status and any trolling, lying or dodging that goes on here will now be an attack on a trans-racial person making those attacks trans-racial attacks by trans-racists! :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roe v. Wade will be overturned. But before the abortion debate returns to the American people, insurrection attempts against the Supreme Court must be quashed.

    Word...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I have stated time and time again..

    Democrats LOVE insurrections..

    When they work in the favor of their Hate America agenda...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If walking through a door at the Capitol held open by police is sedition, what happened tonight is treason that could lead to violent attacks on justices themselves. Everyone involved—esp. those calling to ‘burn this place down’—needs to be investigated, tried, and convicted."

    WORD.....

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    When things go bad for Democrats..

    Weigantia becomes a ghost town.. :D

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Cancelling roe would be lousy for most people, but would actually be great for democrats. Nothing motivates an unmotivated base like taking away their rights.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nothing motivates an unmotivated base like taking away their rights.

    Except no rights have been taken away.. The original ruling was trash..

  51. [51] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    Spend twelve hours each day in a tanning booth and be true to yourself.

  52. [52] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    What particular legal aspect of the roe decision do you find objectionable?

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no Constitutional Right to killing your baby...

    This is fact..

  54. [54] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    true, there's no enumerated constitutional right to flush your goldfish. but the 9th and 14th amendments do say that the government can't intrude on the decisions you make about what goes on inside your own private space, which includes the inside of your body.

  55. [55] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    There is no Constitutional Right to killing your baby...

    This is fact..

    But the dividing line between cell division and when that blob of stuff becomes a baby is based on belief and varies quite a bit per culture. That should be covered by the first amendment. The supreme court is about to establish religion for the US and that is highly unconstitutional.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    But it's not the woman's body.. It's a separate and distinct body that the woman chose to have grow inside her..

    It's a moot point trying to argue that killing the baby inside a woman is a constitutional right..

    The SCOTUS will rule that it's not. So arguing about it is pointless..

    The SCOTUS has spoken... Democrats lose..

  57. [57] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It's a moot point trying to argue that killing the baby inside a woman is a constitutional right..

    Removing a bunch of dividing cells is not killing a baby no matter how much you want it too be.

    The SCOTUS will rule that it's not. So arguing about it is pointless..

    It's a blatant first amendment violation. The court shifts, this gets reversed. Also Roe vs Wade covers a lot more than abortion. They could be taking medical and personal privacy away across the board. Gay marriage, contraception, hell even your past swinging lifestyle could be outlawed.

    The SCOTUS has spoken... Democrats lose..

    For now...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Removing a bunch of dividing cells is not killing a baby no matter how much you want it too be.

    The first rule that those who want to kill innocents is to dehumanize the innocents..

    It's a blatant first amendment violation. The court shifts, this gets reversed. Also Roe vs Wade covers a lot more than abortion. They could be taking medical and personal privacy away across the board. Gay marriage, contraception, hell even your past swinging lifestyle could be outlawed.

    Yea, that's what Democrats WANT everyone to believe.. But this is solely about abortion..

    "... and any attempt to prove otherwise is futile because it just isn't true."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    For now...

    That's what I like about you Bashi.. Yer eternal AGAINST THE ODDS hope.. :D

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    But since yer here, was hoping for some Oculus advice...

    FPC..

    What's the easiest way to quit out of an app in OCULUS.. I have found the only sure way is to simply turn off the Oculus which is annoying if I want to continue playing with it and just want to get out of the current app I am in..
    Since yer the only other Oculus aficionado here in Weigantia, I have some questions..

    I have to admit I am somewhat disappointed in my Oculus... I am hoping such disappointment is borne of ignorance and high expectations rather than the anything on the part of the Oculus..

    For one, I was hoping for some more PC integration.. I have a nearly top of the line gamer PC but there doesn't seem to be much I can do with the PC in Oculus...

    Especially in the sense of being able to create accounts and such on new apps.. I load up an app on the Oculus that looks promising but then it prompts me to create an account for the new app, but there is no way to do that THRU Oculus.. And I don't want to have to go back and forth from PC to Oculus signing up for an account..

    One thing I might be limited by is I don't really want to pay for anything yet.. Times are tight and I can't afford a bunch of purchases and such...

    What's your PC integration like with your Oculus?

    Any help would be most appreciated..

  60. [60] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The first rule that those who want to kill innocents is to dehumanize the innocents..

    The first rule to establishing religion is dehumanizing all other beliefs...

    Yea, that's what Democrats WANT everyone to believe.. But this is solely about abortion..

    Is it? Unwinding all the case law behind Roe vs Wade will bring up many challenges to many laws at least at the state level...

  61. [61] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I have PSVR so I quit games and apps like normal for a game console. I messed with my cousins Oculus for maybe 20 minutes. I tried a few games and I don't remember it hard to quit and start up a different one, but I also don't remember how I specifically did it as it was back around Christmas...

  62. [62] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I would look for sales. Steam should have really good sales at the end of June when they run their summer sale. Playstation runs on a different schedule but I have gotten most of my VR games at 50-80% off list...

  63. [63] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Nypoet (51)-
    That's a trans-racist statement.

    It shows a complete lack of understanding of the trans-racial community as we are not concerned with our appearance it is how we feel about ourselves that determines how we see ourselves.

    You are not properly woke on this issue.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    The first rule to establishing religion is dehumanizing all other beliefs...

    WHich has nothing to do with the SCOTUS ruling..

    Is it? Unwinding all the case law behind Roe vs Wade will bring up many challenges to many laws at least at the state level...

    Except, not.. This is solely about abortion.. If the only way Democrats can win is to try and tie this to other rights.. Democrats have already lost..

  65. [65] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale, you started at 0100 and posted for how many hours straight?

    IS IT SAFE to assume you don't post in such, er, volume anywhere else? I'm not complaining, mind you.

    I read what I can

    Of the the #FloridaMan

    I like my morning Spews

    With Coffee, Weed and News

    I'd be interested seeing how you comment in right-wing spaces.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would look for sales. Steam should have really good sales at the end of June when they run their summer sale. Playstation runs on a different schedule but I have gotten most of my VR games at 50-80% off list...

    Thanx.. I'll check that out.. Can I run steam solely thru Oculus???

    I have found that STEAM and BATTLENET on PC don't play well together.. Literally..

  67. [67] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [54]

    true, there's no enumerated constitutional right to flush your goldfish. but the 9th and 14th amendments do say that the government can't intrude on the decisions you make about what goes on inside your own private space, which includes the inside of your body.

    Amazing how Repugs hate Big Government right up to the point where it let's them take away women's right to control their own body. Gotta keep them barefoot and pregnant! ...

  68. [68] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Think about this Democrats- the first party to nominate a trans-racial for president!

    Of course, you have to take the good with the bad like you do with the big money Deathocrats, but in this case the bad would be a small donor candidate which would only be bad for the big money Deathocrats, Republikillers and big money interests.

    If nominated I WILL run. :D

  69. [69] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Come on, Weigantia. You must speak up for the LGBTTR community!

  70. [70] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    BUT...

    Let's see if this proves a pyrhic victory, indeed. Trumps election immediately spawned the million woman March January 22, 2017 and I'm thinking a Republican packed SCOTUS may have just cursed their own Party.

    Crow all you like, Michale, as you do so enjoy it. It doesn't bother me because why should it?

  71. [71] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [70]

    Just promise me you won't pull another disappearing act when shit doesn't go your way.

  72. [72] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Thanx.. I'll check that out.. Can I run steam solely thru Oculus???

    I believe so. I think Steam is just a launcher. Anything compatible with Oculus should hook up just like you launched from the desktop. Steam has a listing for each game as to what VR headsets it supports. I would start cheap just to make sure...

    I haven't had Battlenet installed in a long time as I was a Diablo player way back when but Blizzard/Activision have gone downhill as they became a megacorp. I'm not surprised, but I would assume this is a solved problem as I would think the crossover of having both services installed must be huge...

  73. [73] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    ICYMI, Elizabeth,

    K, Elizabeth Miller,

    Here are my condensed Ukraine points:

    1- Russia is long and flat and has been invaded, like, forever. The Mongols were an especially memorable low light.

    2- Russians understandably hate being invaded and the Romanovs were installed to stabilize Russia to protect Europe's eastern flank.

    3- Starting with Catherine the Great, Russia has sought to establish compliant buffer states (think Warsaw Pact) all around it to give it strategic depth. This is a big deal in geopolitics.

    4- This certainly worked vis a vis Napoleon, Hitler and from the Soviet/Russian view, NATO.

    5- Russian demography and future economic prospects (read: Green energy) are dismal. Putin is old, has his billions and has always lamented the fall of the USSR so this was his last chance to do something about it.

    6- This had nothing to do with Biden. Obama was a pussy and Trump acted like #PutinsBitch so Putin was getting most of what he wanted out of those two clowns. But old hand Joe wasn't going to do likewise, so Putin rolled the dice.

    Trouble is that the Warsaw Pact weapons showed up without the Warsaw Pact military dominance. Whoda thunk? I didn't think Ukraine would last, either.

    7- But let's say Putin conquered ALL of Ukraine back in 2014. That was probably his last opportunity, it now seems…

    8- Putin would now be fighting in Poland and Moldova (having presumably conquered the Baltic states.) He has to nestle up against the Carpathians and wester Poland to shorten Russia's front against NATO.

    9- Putin has already lost no matter what happens in Ukraine, to wit:

    A- Ukraine has essentially fought Russia to a standstill. Western arms will preserve the Ukrainian war effort and Ukraine’s political will to completely liberate all (read: Crimea and Donbass) Ukraine is effing indomitable.

    Please trust me on this, I'm Ukrainian-Murican. I recall accompanying my grandfather Ivan Wasyl Diachun to Ukrainian Nationalists meeting in Detroit in the late 60s.

    I could understand a damned Ukrainian word (exclusively spoken at these events) but there was no mistaking the sentiment in that auditorium.

    B- War sucks but better we fight them over there than over HERE, right, Conservatives? Al Queda and ISIS were not existential threats to America… but Putin is!

    C- NATO is more united than mid-Cold War. Even the Germans, kinda sort of.

    D- The West gets to test out all kinds of latest generation military toys, killing the bad guys and ultimately killing Vladimir. Payback for 22 years of doesn't work and play well with others. What's not to like?

    E- Even if every last sanction against against the Rooskies was lifted today their economy will suffer for years.

    So, it's too bad Putin fucked up. All we gotta do is keep financing Ukraine and IMO its just a matter of time before somebody puts a bullet in Putin's brain.

    It's a Rooskie thang, you wouldn't understand.

    Anyways, Elizabeth, I fully grok your antiwar sentiment. You are Canadian, after all. But Putin screwed the pooch and it makes no sense to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Which is what you advocate in the name of peace.

    Besides, in 1991 6 of 7 Ukrainians showed up to their Independence Referendum and voted 10 to 1 for Independence. You wouldn't want to deny 81 million, er, 44 million votes just to keep Vladimir happy, would you?

    I rest my case, Darling, and look forward to your reply below.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know what you call a group of flamingos??

    A flamboyance....

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, you started at 0100 and posted for how many hours straight?

    IS IT SAFE to assume you don't post in such, er, volume anywhere else? I'm not complaining, mind you.

    Thank you for your interest in Weigantians most prolific and most factually accurate commenter.. :D

    I usually begin posting at 0400hrs Eastern Time...

    That's 4am for all you civilians out there..

    For Democrats?? Mickey's big hand is on the 12 and his little hand is on the 4... :D

    Sometimes I'll start later, sometimes I'll start earlier.. Just depends on when I wake up..

    From 0400-0700 I am posting and playing WARZONE.. I usually get to work around 0730 and can usually post til my boss shows up.. Then my postings are sporadic as work will crop up here and there..

    I usually get home around 1530hrs and will post until approx 1700hrs-1800hrs at which time my time becomes my wife.. :D

    During my hiatus from Weigantia, I posted a lot on the RCP message boards.. One of my more prolific subject matters on there was the 6 Jan shooting of Ashli Babbit..

    You can read the gist of my comments in this thread..

    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/07/07/naming_the_capitol_cop_who_killed_jan_6_rioter_ashli_babbitt_779601.html?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=E-mail&utm_content=liked-message&spot_im_redirect_source=email&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true&spot_im_reply_id=sp_fGGCea9F_rci200779601_c_1v7uSJQcHxHqAGaAbBRZoRVRzI9_r_1v8ciYQzleTCjTVOjOgOpdGttXS&spot_im_content_id=sp_fGGCea9F_rci200779601&spot_im_content_type=conversation&utm_spot=sp_fGGCea9F

    But these days, I devote all my energies to Weigantia...

    "Did you WANT to talk about my posting habits?? Or were you just making chitchat??"

    :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    Cancelling roe would be lousy for most people, but would actually be great for democrats.

    Will it??? Will it really??

    80% of Americans support abortion restrictions..

    The only thing this issue will do is push the Democrat Party further and further to the LEFT... Further and further away from every day Americans..

    So, will that REALLY be better for Democrats??? Moving further and further to the Left???

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whoopi Goldberg says abortion is between 'my doctor, myself and my child'

    So, apparently Whoopi's unborn child has a say in whether Whoopi kills said child or not..

    I am sure ANY child who knows they will have Whoopi for a mother WOULD want to be killed.. :^/

  78. [78] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:
  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no 80% there in your link, Bashi..

    But 80% of Americans support abortion restrictions at some point during the pregnancy..

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:
  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    80 Percent of Americans Think Abortion Should Be Illegal in Third Trimester: Poll
    https://www.newsweek.com/80-percent-americans-think-abortion-should-illegal-third-trimester-poll-1604282

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Polls: Most Americans support the right to abortion, but many are also OK with 15-week limit
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-11-17/americans-support-the-right-to-abortion

    Shall I go on???

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Let's brass some tacks here.."
    -Metatron, SUPERNATURAL

    Is there ANYONE who supports abortion on the day before a baby is delivered??

    No???

    Congrats.. Ya'all support abortion restrictions..

  84. [84] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [74]

    Stop it -- you're killing me!

    [75]

    I was sincerely curious, thanks.

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, let's hear from Democrats, shall we??

    "Maybe it's not as simple as saying Fuck Susan Collins but for the record, FUCK SUSAN COLLINS."
    -Democrat Billie Eichner

    "A special fuck you to Susan Collins today."
    -Democrat Brian Tyler Cohen

    "I fucking hate Susan Collins"
    -Democrat Tony Posnanski

    "FUCK YOU AND YOUR LEARNED LESSONS, SUSAN COLLINS."
    -Democrat BrooklynDad_Defiant!

    "Fuck you Susan Collins"
    -Democrat Judy Gold

    Amazing how Democrat HERO Susan Collins is treated like this when she votes her own way, eh?? :^/

    Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.

  86. [86] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    But it's not the woman's body.. It's a separate and distinct body that the woman chose to have grow inside her..

    I agree completely with your definition… IF the woman chose to have it grow inside her, then it is a baby once she gives birth. But I never expected you to present the argument so perfectly, in all honesty. It is about whether the woman CHOOSES to allow the baby to come to term in her body!

    And Josh is spot on in his belief [49] that canceling Roe will be a huge shot of adrenaline into the bodies of voters to give Democrats the victories needed to remove Republicans from office. Ya’ll picked the wrong time to take away the woman’s right to medical care as she sees fit.

    You can say that this ruling is only about abortion, which I have no doubt Alito will say in his decision — but whatever legal justification that is being used to strip away the right previously granted can be used to justify stripping other rights. The Second Amendment comes to mind. I realize that the right to bear arms won’t be stricken, but that does not mean that SCOTUS couldn’t reinstate the opening lines of the Amendment so that it’s stated purpose once again matters —
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“

  87. [87] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [76]

    JL,

    Cancelling roe would be lousy for most people, but would actually be great for Democrats.

    ***

    Will it??? Will it really??

    The only thing this issue will do is push the Democrat Party further and further to the LEFT... Further and further away from every day Americans..

    So, will that REALLY be better for Democrats??? Moving further and further to the Left???

    As Beau points out, The Republicans are like the dog that finally catches the car, and now they have to figure out what to do with it.

    Trouble for the GQP is that 80% of "everyday Americans" support access to abortion. Over two thirds don't want Roe overruled. Only 20% favor banning abortion outright.

    Repugs have played to their Christofacist base since Reagan, getting them to support tax cuts for the rich and endless wars just so they can someday impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. Or poor women in red states, at best.

    It would have been far better for Repugs if SCOTUS didn't give them what they campaigned on because now the Christofacists may start paying attention to Jesus's message vis a vis, say, yet another tax cut for the rich. Or maybe a Dubya-style invasion of some country that pissed him off.

    You call us Lefties. Sounds convincing to those in the right-wing alternative universe but Americans support access to abortion, taxing the rich fairly, dealing with climate change and addressing the racial (and other) barriers to forming a more perfect union. If that makes America a Leftist country, good!

    So we may find ourselves dwelling in the unintended consequences zone.

    For example, your Republican SCOTUS just solved the Democrat's low midterms turnout issue. Maybe for a generation. Thank you, SCOTUS!

  88. [88] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [83]

    Yeah, Collins is crying because the last two nominees lied to her about respecting precedent. She is shocked, shocked I tell you!

    But I'd still trade Manchin and Sinema to the Repugs for Collins and Murkowski. With a Senator to be named later.

  89. [89] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [75]

    Whatever our disagreements there no question that this is a labor of love for you. Gotta respect that.

    We're going to be chewing over Roe for the immediate future but now that I've recovered from setting Elizabeth straight on Ukraine I'm going to want to take up policing reform with you. Set your ass straight -- er, learn from your experience first... and then maybe you'll set my as straight! ;D

  90. [90] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Betcha we get a column out of CW this evening!

    ____________________00__________________
    ___________________0000_________________
    __________________000000________________
    _______00_________000000__________00____
    ________0000______000000______00000_____
    ________000000____0000000___0000000_____
    _________000000___0000000_0000000_______
    __________0000000_000000_0000000________
    ____________000000_00000_000000_________
    ____0000_____000000_000_0000__000000000_
    _____000000000__0000_0_000_000000000____
    ________000000000__0_0_0_000000000______
    ____________0000000000000000____________
    _________________000_0_0000_____________
    _______________00000_0__00000___________
    ______________00_____0______00__________
    ________________________________________

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    I agree completely with your definition… IF the woman chose to have it grow inside her, then it is a baby once she gives birth.

    Not factually accurate..

    At conception, the baby has it's own distinct DNA.

    At 6 weeks, the baby has it's own distinct heartbeat.

    At 17 weeks, the baby has it's own distinct fingerprints..

    By ANY definition, it's a human being LONG before birth..

    And Josh is spot on in his belief [49] that canceling Roe will be a huge shot of adrenaline into the bodies of voters to give Democrats the victories needed to remove Republicans from office. Ya’ll picked the wrong time to take away the woman’s right to medical care as she sees fit.

    Great.. Push the Democrat Party even FURTHER Left.. I am all for that.. :D

    The Second Amendment comes to mind. I realize that the right to bear arms won’t be stricken, but that does not mean that SCOTUS couldn’t reinstate the opening lines of the Amendment so that it’s stated purpose once again matters —

    But a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS will never do that... :D

    Look, you people need to face reality..

    Ya'all LOST.... Elections have CONSEQUENCES...

    Lick your wounds and accept the inevitable.. :D

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, will that REALLY be better for Democrats??? Moving further and further to the Left???

    Considering how BAD things are for Democrats with the left ward jaunt they have already taken..

    You tell me??

    Will moving even FURTHER Left be bad for Democrats??

    I'de say that it's a given that YES.. It will be SOO MUCH WORSE for Democrats to move even FURTHER Left.. :D

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    I dunno.. Maybe Democrats LIKE being on par with Iran, China and North Korea when it comes to abortion.. :^/

    Is there ANYONE here who supports killing a baby in the moments before birth??

    No???

    Congrats.. Ya'all support Abortion restrictions.. :D

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Caddy!

    I do trust and hope that you're not too angry with me. Guess I misinterpreted your comment on the previous column and didn't see the Ha Ha Ha until just now. Should have known better.

    It's been kinda busy and I needed a bit of a break from all of the news and analyses Re. Ukraine. But, I really appreciate all the research and time you put in to your responses here - you remind me of me! :) - and I will get to them!

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Abortion restrictions are one thing. A complete ban on abortions, even under the circumstances of rape, incest and mother's health is quite another.

    Do you support a complete and total ban on abortions, regardless of the circumstances?

  96. [96] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    From a WaPo opinion piece:

    A lot of politicians, especially in the South, have made careers lambasting Roe. That was easy when their words, and even their votes, did not matter — because if they swung at abortion too hard, the Supreme Court could be counted on to rely on Roe and strike it down. Now, they have no cover. They have to put their futures where their mouths are. They can vote to criminalize abortion, and they will then see whether the voters are with them. There is federal legislation that would codify the protections of Roe into law. That, too, now lies with voters.

    Be careful what you ask for-- whoops, too late!

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Abortion restrictions are one thing. A complete ban on abortions, even under the circumstances of rape, incest and mother's health is quite another.

    No one is advocating for NO ABORTION if the mother's health is in danger.. NO ONE..

    Do you support a complete and total ban on abortions, regardless of the circumstances?

    I didn't.. Until Democrats started wanting to SHOUT OUT their baby killing... CELEBRATE their baby killing..

    Further, NO ONE is advocating a universal ban on abortion regardless of ALL circumstances..

    Now that I have answered your question, would you be so kind as to answer mine??

    Do you support abortion minutes before a baby is born??

  98. [98] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [94]

    Thanks, Em. I had a blast researching this stuff ...trudging 'cross the tundra...mile after mile...JK!

    You take your sweet time. It is depressing but it's my DNA getting killed over there, my unknown family tree that didn't immigrate. So I get pretty amped sometimes. Nothing but live for ya, Miss Vancouver Someday.

  99. [99] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Is there ANYONE here who supports killing a baby in the moments before birth??

    No???

    If it's between saving the baby or saving the mother, then I would chose the mother.

    Are you going to support services for mothers that can't take care of the baby? Support services and care centers for severe developmental disorders? Or is this worship the unborn, and the post born can just piss off?

  100. [100] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [98]

    Do you support abortion minutes before a baby is born??

    That's not what's at issue and I've never actually heard any Democrats say that last minute abortion okay. No doubt right-wing media claims that, but these same folks think the election was stolen from Trump and that "trickle down" works, so there's that credibility issue.

  101. [101] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    GTG, Sports Fans! See y'all tonight.

  102. [102] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    No one is advocating for NO ABORTION if the mother's health is in danger.. NO ONE..

    So you do support "killing a baby in the moments before birth" under certain circumstances?

    You can't have it both ways...

  103. [103] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Michale I'm gonna kinda borrow this thing you posted...

    No one is advocating for LAST MINUTE ABORTIONS if the mother's health is NOT in danger.. NO ONE...

    Ooo, that looks good! Let's do it again, Mommy!

    No one is advocating for GENDER SELECTION ABORTIONS (CCP-style) if the mother's health is NOT in danger.. NO ONE...

    The Fourth Amendment protects women from Big Government searching (and then supervising) their uteruses.

    You got a problem with our Forth Amendment? You got a problem with freedom?

    YOU Repugs claim to hate Big Government for Libertarian reasons and such.

    YET you want the State -- not the individual -- to control their family planning.

    Keeping it Real:

    You Repugs CAN and WILL have it both ways...in your right-wing alternative universe. The Rubes, Racists and Christofacists will buy in, just like they bought trickle down.

    BUT out here in the real world, maybe not so much. We'll see...

  104. [104] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    Pattern recognition exercise:


    Trump

    Gave Democrats the House, the Senate (including two winable races in Georgia) and motivated 81 million people to elect #JoeFuckingBiden.


    Putin

    Gave the free world the chance to defeat the paper tiger Russian military, to unite NATO to an unimaginable degree and to crush their economy until Putin is dead or has been handed over to The Hague.

    Republicans

    Shamelessly packed the court and got Roe overturned, instantly solving the Democrat's turnout issue in November and beyond. Remember the Women's March the day after Cheetogod was Inaugurated? You ain't seen nothing yet, a-yup.

    Twenty-two is starting to look up.

  105. [105] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I support choice until the fetus can survive without being connected to it's host.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, THAT is what I'd call a pretty reasonable statement.

Comments for this article are closed.