So no explanation on your stupid accusation and no answer to the actual question.

Got it.

Everything you say is a huge cry session.. Go have some hot chocolate and pet your therapy dog..

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, pal. 

Sorry you're having a tough time with a tiny dose of reality.

---

Everything you say is a huge cry session.. Go have some hot chocolate and pet your therapy dog..

Whatever you gotta tell yourself, pal. 

Sorry you're having a tough time with a tiny dose of reality.

---

Couldn't the Republican candidate, whomever it winds up being, just point to the current regime's corruption and bad policies or if they wind up successfully replacing Biden with Gavin, couldn't the Republican candidate just point to the state of affairs in California?

Trump has to get and stay on message if it's him for sure, but this should be a layup for the Republican candidate. I don't put much stock in polls, especially this far out. They're meaningless right now. A lot will change between now and election day and the economy will likely be in the tank at that time, so good luck with drumming up interest in voting for more of the same.

---

I've said this before and I'll say this again.  It's been 6 years since Trump won.  Since then, a lot of the old Archie Bunker conservatives have died off while the 7th-12th graders are now part of the voting population.

The youth definitely sides with Democrats, especially when talking about pro-choice rights.  Back in the day, 20-30 years ago, there was a definite division in which a lot of people growing up were pro-life based on religious beliefs but I just don't see that division with todays youth.  It's all about My Body My Right positions so I think that will continue to dominate their vote.

Of course, one could make a list of 20 different voting topics but everyone has the single topic, whether it be abortion, race economy, environment, etc. in which they will base their voting decision.

The only real hope the GOP has in 2024 is to turn the swing voters (left center) to vote republican.  By this I'd say this really includes the population between the ages of 40-65.  I'm in that group and I also speak for a lot of us when I say that I will never vote for Trump and will always vote for his opponent.  That said, I think the GOP would benefit by sending a candidate, other than Trump, to the general election to run against Biden.

---

I've said this before and I'll say this again.  It's been 6 years since Trump won.  Since then, a lot of the old Archie Bunker conservatives have died off while the 7th-12th graders are now part of the voting population.

The youth definitely sides with Democrats, especially when talking about pro-choice rights.  Back in the day, 20-30 years ago, there was a definite division in which a lot of people growing up were pro-life based on religious beliefs but I just don't see that division with todays youth.  It's all about My Body My Right positions so I think that will continue to dominate their vote.

Of course, one could make a list of 20 different voting topics but everyone has the single topic, whether it be abortion, race economy, environment, etc. in which they will base their voting decision.

The only real hope the GOP has in 2024 is to turn the swing voters (left center) to vote republican.  By this I'd say this really includes the population between the ages of 40-65.  I'm in that group and I also speak for a lot of us when I say that I will never vote for Trump and will always vote for his opponent.  That said, I think the GOP would benefit by sending a candidate, other than Trump, to the general election to run against Biden.

These swing voters are going to be hard to swing to the right if Trump or another candidate takes a hard line on abortion. They'll lose at least half of the potential female voters on that alone. Not to mention a percentage of staunch republican female voters who will quietly betray the party vote on that same issue. The Rep. candidate will need to go full "RINO" on the issue of abortion rights to have a chance IMO.

---

I've said this before and I'll say this again.  It's been 6 years since Trump won.  Since then, a lot of the old Archie Bunker conservatives have died off while the 7th-12th graders are now part of the voting population.

The youth definitely sides with Democrats, especially when talking about pro-choice rights.  Back in the day, 20-30 years ago, there was a definite division in which a lot of people growing up were pro-life based on religious beliefs but I just don't see that division with todays youth.  It's all about My Body My Right positions so I think that will continue to dominate their vote.

Of course, one could make a list of 20 different voting topics but everyone has the single topic, whether it be abortion, race economy, environment, etc. in which they will base their voting decision.

The only real hope the GOP has in 2024 is to turn the swing voters (left center) to vote republican.  By this I'd say this really includes the population between the ages of 40-65.  I'm in that group and I also speak for a lot of us when I say that I will never vote for Trump and will always vote for his opponent.  That said, I think the GOP would benefit by sending a candidate, other than Trump, to the general election to run against Biden.

These swing voters are going to be hard to swing to the right if Trump or another candidate takes a hard line on abortion. They'll lose at least half of the potential female voters on that alone. Not to mention a percentage of staunch republican female voters who will quietly betray the party vote on that same issue. The Rep. candidate will need to go full "RINO" on the issue of abortion rights to have a chance IMO.

Personally, I'm quite surprised to see the pendulum swing so much with regard to females overwhelmingly supporting pro-choice rights.  Back in the day I know pro-life was a big thing for Catholics and Baptists, and it still is with the Baby Boomers and Gen X (to an extent), but I think the Millennials and Gen Z are strictly pro-choice.  Trump knows this and tries to avoid disclosing his opinion on the subject matter.

Personally, I think someone like Nikki Haley handles this topic about as good as any candidate supporting pro-life.

---

We draw the line at cheating, though. That type of corruption doesn't exist.

Yes, that's really been proven in the Court of Law, where numerous judges have thrown out such cases that have been brought before them.   Heck, even Tucker Carlson stated there is no case in texts but would take a difference stand on-air when he knew his ratings were at stake.

---

SCOTUS should have left Roe v Wade alone.

---

SCOTUS should have left Roe v Wade alone.

Overturning Roe just gives the states and feds more leeway to ban abortion.  And it properly takes the courts out of the legislating role.
No state was obligated to try to go from "all abortions are allowed" to "all abortions are banned" in a day.  That so many did, is an unforced error.
Smarter Republicans would have tightened regulations slowly over time and seen what the consequences were.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

SCOTUS should have left Roe v Wade alone.

Which one?  The one that enacted it or overturned it?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

SCOTUS should have left Roe v Wade alone.

Overturning Roe just gives the states and feds more leeway to ban abortion.  And it properly takes the courts out of the legislating role.
No state was obligated to try to go from "all abortions are allowed" to "all abortions are banned" in a day.  That so many did, is an unforced error.
Smarter Republicans would have tightened regulations slowly over time and seen what the consequences were.

Yeah, but we live in a time when every "policy" enacted or proposed is a political stunt from an overwhelming number of politicians. 

 "slowly over time" doesn't suit the childish "own the libs" mentality.

---

Overturning Roe just gives the states and feds more leeway to ban abortion.  And it properly takes the courts out of the legislating role.
No state was obligated to try to go from "all abortions are allowed" to "all abortions are banned" in a day.  That so many did, is an unforced error.
Smarter Republicans would have tightened regulations slowly over time and seen what the consequences were.

Yeah, but we live in a time when every "policy" enacted or proposed is a political stunt from an overwhelming number of politicians. 

 "slowly over time" doesn't suit the childish "own the libs" mentality.

Careful, people who suggest there might be more to politics than "owning the libs" tend to get dog piled in these parts.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.