The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
RIP RBG
|
^^ actually, not to take sides, abortion would be on the line for the first time in a long time.
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! (09-20-2020, 04:00 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:(09-19-2020, 08:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: So what can we do? They're voters, and we're voters. All we have to do is persuade or discourage until people who think like us outnumber people who think like them.. I didn't say it wouldn't be hard. I do think changing the rules of elections would help a lot. Going to approval voting, or ranked choice voting, would help a lot, so we don't have voters feeling like they're stuck voting for the least of two evils.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote. If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have. He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue.
Look at it this way: Republican senators want to confirm a new justice before the election because they are worried that Trump might be defeated in the election and they would lose the opportunity. So why would Trump cooperate with them and have that issue off the table? He might want to keep that issue alive.
^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents.
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
(09-20-2020, 07:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote. If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have. He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue. I don't think that theory is off the wall. It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races.
(09-20-2020, 08:24 AM)Jag88 Wrote: ^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents. It's not about personal feelings regarding abortion though. It's about how it applies to the law. You can theoretically be morally opposed to abortion and still find it lawful. That is what Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do. They are required to put their personal feelings aside and judge the issues solely on how they apply to the law and the constitution. (09-20-2020, 09:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:Probably start the process and vote after the election if they do that.(09-20-2020, 07:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote. If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have. He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue. Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
(09-20-2020, 09:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:(09-20-2020, 07:42 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: There's an interesting theory making the rounds that Trump might delay naming a new Supreme Court justice until after the election, in order to motivate his supporters to get out and vote. If he gets one confirmed before the election, that might take away some of the motivation his supporters might have. He makes "If I win you will get a conservative justice, if I lose you will get a liberal justice" a campaign issue. Of course, the other side of that theory is that there are a lot of Republicans who have said they are voting for Trump because of the possibility that Supreme Court seats may open up, and if he holds the pick until after the election, he is transparently "sacrificing the good of the country" or "gambling unnecessarily with a Supreme Court seat" for his own personal purposes. So it's not about what's good for the country, it's about what's good for him. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
(09-20-2020, 09:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:(09-20-2020, 09:27 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: I don't think that theory is off the wall. It is a gamble. It also doesn't put any additional pressure on Senate races. Then IMO, he is better off nominating someone and letting the country see the Democrats demonize themselves again like Kavanaugh, right? Personally, I like the idea of him picking someone this week and forcing Joe's backers to come up with their short list. (09-19-2020, 12:54 PM)TJBender Wrote: Popped back in to say RIP Justice Ginsburg, and thank you for all you've done for women and for all Americans. Some justices were confirmed without a hearing. (09-19-2020, 04:44 PM)mikesez Wrote: The smartest move for the Republicans is for Trump to name his appointee, and for Mitch to put hearings on the schedule that will begin right after the election, during the lame duck period. random act of sanity And packing the court.... we think its a given but its going to take a decisive win for them to take the senate and 2022 would be a blood bath.
The concept of Dems even mentioning packing the court is disturbing. How can anyone vote for these people?
We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!
(09-20-2020, 10:38 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:(09-20-2020, 12:08 AM)MojoKing Wrote: Well hope you are all ready to fight for a women’s right to do whatever the hell they want with their bodies. Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create.
(09-20-2020, 11:09 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:(09-20-2020, 10:38 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies. Well, as long as you can create an economic justification for murder then we should get to work on old people who cost way more than kids. “An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato
(09-20-2020, 11:09 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:(09-20-2020, 10:38 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies. Let's cure third world poverty with an h-bomb. (09-20-2020, 11:46 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:(09-20-2020, 11:09 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create. in other news, 7 key democratic governors had a interesting solution to the problem of hospital utilization, involving nursing homes. We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today! (09-20-2020, 11:09 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:(09-20-2020, 10:38 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: I have no doubt abortion is on the table, but let’s not equate ruling against baby murder as being akin to doing whatever they want with their bodies. I hear all of that, and this is why I usually find myself on the fence on this issue. We have one party that recognizes that killing healthy babies in the wombs of healthy mothers is murder. And we have another party that recognizes that we need to do more to provide for young mothers and help parents in general stay sane, so that children are well provided for and grow up without abuse. I wish there was one party I could vote for that knew both of these things...
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
(09-20-2020, 12:52 PM)mikesez Wrote:(09-20-2020, 11:09 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: Really? Are you willing to adopt any of the unwanted children that will be put into foster care if Roe vs. Wade is overturned? There will be a ton of them. We'll see a spike in child murder, child abuse, crime (as some of the kids growing up in foster care will feel unwanted and have no role models to teach them right from wrong.) Then you have to factor in the added cost of all these new people and the strain it will have on the already overcrowded foster care system. Taxpayers are gonna have to build new group homes to house these children, because there is already not enough foster families to take in the kids that there is now. There will also be more children born with handicaps and birth defects and that will put a bigger strain on the healthcare system, so prepare for your premiums and co-pay to go up. It's so hypocritical of people to just want something gone without coming up with solutions to the dire ramifications that action will create. It’s a shame that most of these dudes are dudes. What right do you have to tell to another human being what they can and can’t do with their bodies? Not to mention the costs as one poster mentioned. Republicans are masterminds at getting the public behind them. Pro choice? How about Pro life BLM? How about all lives matter Free Medicare? How about that’s a death panel It’s like nuance doesn’t exist for them, it’s just black and white
(09-20-2020, 08:24 AM)Jag88 Wrote: ^^^ so you think that 6 potential people who all are against abortion vs 3 will not overturn things just because? Not in these times. No. Crucial issues such as this are amongst the most important reasons they get selected on both sides by presidents. No that's just y'all's scare tactics.. they already ruled on it. (09-20-2020, 01:02 PM)MojoKing Wrote:(09-20-2020, 12:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: I hear all of that, and this is why I usually find myself on the fence on this issue. Whaa, cry me a river |
Users browsing this thread: |
5 Guest(s) |
The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.