Tuberville

[jpl458]

Can someone explain why Tommy Tuberville is such a dork?

 

[Steve R.]

The finger of blame needs to be pointed at the Biden administration for not changing its policy concerning abortion care. It is quite unfortunate that the Republicans don't rally around Tuberville to demand that the Biden administration change its policies. Biden, in theory, is not a dictator. Congress has a right to set policies that the Executive Branch has to follow. Unfortunately, the Executive Branch is giving Congress the finger. It is also unfortunate that Tuberville is being disparaged for standing-up for what he believes in.

After having stated all the stuff above; the political reality, both Tuberville and the Biden administration need to talk to each other to reach a consensus concerning federal support for abortion so that the promotions can be voted on.

 

[jpl458]

The finger of blame needs to be pointed at the Biden administration for not changing its policy concerning abortion care. It is quite unfortunate that the Republicans don't rally around Tuberville to demand that the Biden administration change its policies. Biden, in theory, is not a dictator. Congress has a right to set policies that the Executive Branch has to follow. Unfortunately, the Executive Branch is giving Congress the finger. It is also unfortunate that Tuberville is being disparaged for standing-up for what he believes in.

After having stated all the stuff above; the political reality, both Tuberville and the Biden administration need to talk to each other to reach a consensus concerning federal support for abortion so that the promotions can be voted on.

The majority of people in the country will disagree. I just hope the Republicans keep trying to outlaw abortion. That is not a winning hand. But the right wants government by the minority.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Recent votes in various states suggest that on the average, the people do not want to totally outlaw abortion. Things such as ra**, incest, and diseases that make pregnancy unusually dangerous are outside of the extreme "no abortions, not now, not ever, ... never" stand of the religious right. I have to say that any absolute ban on any subject will draw strong opinions from SOME folks who disagree. And if we are to avoid the tyranny of the majority, even the minority opinions have to be considered.

Congress has a right to set policies that the Executive Branch has to follow.

Such as DOJ and ATF making up rules as they go, trying to disarm the law-abiding side of the population. Yeah, got a great picture of how the Executive Branch complies with Congress.

 

[Steve R.]

The majority of people in the country will disagree.

This is a question of "legislation", not of "agreement" or "disagreement". The Executive Branch cannot unilaterally make policy (legislation), that is the job of Congress. If the Congress passes law that says that the federal government cannot fund abortions, then the Executive Branch is bound by that legal mandate. As a parallel topic, the Supreme Court made a decision that the Biden administration's action to "forgive" student loans was illegal, yet the Biden administration is still trying to circumvent that decision. (I'm sure that the majority of students would disagree since they don't want to pay for the loans, but the issue is compliance with the law, not disagreement.) The Biden administration is attempting to (illegally) evade laws that have been passed by Congress. For that reason, the finger of blame needs to be pointed at the Biden administration. The Biden administration does not have dictatorial powers.

 

[jpl458]

And if we are to avoid the tyranny of the majority, even the minority opinions have to be considered.

I agree that minority opinions should be considered. But if the minority takes steps to overrule the majority, like limiting ballot access, and claiming that elections were stolen, then I take issue with that approach. I also feel that the Republican party has devolved in it's approach to governing.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I just hope the Republicans keep trying to outlaw abortion.

While there is a segment of the population that does want to totally outlaw abortion, it is actually pretty small. Most people would be content with a law that protects the fetus once it becomes viable. The problem is that viability changes with technology. The neonatal technology of today is very far advanced from what it was when Roe v. Wade was enacted more than 50 years ago.

Roe v. Wade was bad law and illogically passed. However, it was middle ground at the time so most people were OK with it. But the left wasn't happy with some limits on abortion, they want the ability to abort a baby during natural labor. To most, that would be outright murder. That is the extreme which is being reacted against now. The left kept weakening Roe v. Wade to the point where it was ineffective so killing it was no great loss and inevitable when you think about it. Now we are experiencing whiplash. The more religious states are going to one extreme and the less religious states are pushing for the other. The extremes are never going to see eye to eye which was why Roe v Wade was originally a decent idea, however it came to pass. But the left couldn't accept any limits so it is your own fault. You eventually reap what you sow. Just be happy that your mother didn't elect to abort you on a whim.

Most Christians believe life begins at conception which is why the ultra religious also are against certain types of birth control. I think the Jews believe life begins at birth. But even my Jewish friends think it is wrong to abort late term fetus'. If only the left felt the same way, we could actually come to a compromise.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree that minority opinions should be considered. But if the minority takes steps to overrule the majority, like limiting ballot access, and claiming that elections were stolen, then I take issue with that approach. I also feel that the Republican party has devolved in it's approach to governing.

Denying election results are not confined to Republicans. Using I'd is good for Covid-19 but is considered limiting ballot access if it's required by Republicans.

Makes sense.

 

[jpl458]

While there is a segment of the population that does want to totally outlaw abortion, it is actually pretty small. Most people would be content with a law that protects the fetus once it becomes viable. The problem is that viability changes with technology. The neonatal technology of today is very far advanced from what it was when Roe v. Wade was enacted more than 50 years ago.

Roe v. Wade was bad law and illogically passed. However, it was middle ground at the time so most people were OK with it. But the left wasn't happy with some limits on abortion, they want the ability to abort a baby during natural labor. To most, that would be outright murder. That is the extreme which is being reacted against now. The left kept weakening Roe v. Wade to the point where it was ineffective so killing it was no great loss and inevitable when you think about it. Now we are experiencing whiplash. The more religious states are going to one extreme and the less religious states are pushing for the other. The extremes are never going to see eye to eye which was why Roe v Wade was originally a decent idea, however it came to pass. But the left couldn't accept any limits so it is your own fault. You eventually reap what you sow. Just be happy that your mother didn't elect to abort you on a whim.

Most Christians believe life begins at conception which is why the ultra religious also are against certain types of birth control. I think the Jews believe life begins at birth. But even my Jewish friends think it is wrong to abort late term fetus'. If only the left felt the same way, we could actually come to a compromise.

What you write makes sense. I think there is a point where a woman shouldn't get an abortion, but prior to that point it should be easy to get..

 

[Pat Hartman]

like limiting ballot access

What are you talking about? It isn't the conservatives who are trying to supress your Constitutional rights, it is the left. Your ancestors, unless they are recent immigrants, somehow managed to travel miles on foot or horseback or by carriage to vote on election DAY. Not election MONTH, not election SEASON. Election DAY. If they could do it, you can do it too.

Making every vote count doesn't suppress the vote, it ensures that your vote has meaning. Blanketing a state with mail-in ballots doesn't increase voter turnout. It increases cheating. Ballots should have unique serial numbers the way that currency does, that's how important they are. They need to be tied to the individual they were sent to to ensure that, that person doesn't vote twice. Once by the mail-in and once again at the polls. When you send out only ballots that are requested, you can use that list to monitor the voting at the polls. If you requested a mail-in ballot, you don't get to vote in person or you have to cast a provisional ballot which isn't counted unless the race is close. Then the cross-checking has to take place, did your mail in ballot get returned? If so, your provisional ballot is an attempt to cheat and should be criminally prosecuted as well as being discarded.

and claiming that elections were stolen,

Seems to me that not more than a couple of months ago, Hillary was complaining again about 2016 being stolen from her and we won't even discus Stacey Abrams. Let us not forget that it was Hillary who commissioned and paid for the Steele Dossier as an attempt to discredit DJT and his campaign, which caused multiple multi-million dollar investigations (that YOU paid for, assuming you pay taxes) as well as an impeachment fiasco in collusion with the FBI who knew from the beginning that the Dossier was a fabrication that Hillary paid for. Both Hillary and her campaign were actually fined by the election ethics committee ( Hillary was fined ~ $6,000 and her campaign a little more than $100,000) because of what she did. However, no one at the FBI or DOJ has been prosecuted for using it to lie to the FISA judge!!! Talk about election interference and collusion. Hillary Clinton was colluding with the FBI and the DOJ and the Russians to discredit DJT

None of the lies perpetrated by the left have worked to take down DJT so far, so now they have devolved to being a banana republic where we attack our political enemies with lawsuits. This is MAJOR election interference.

 

[Pat Hartman]

What you write makes sense. I think there is a point where a woman shouldn't get an abortion, but prior to that point it should be easy to get..

Much as I hate the concept of abortion as a method of birth control, I do believe that there are valid reasons for early stage abortions but very rare reasons for late stage abortions. So, early stage abortions should be legal (the cut off is hotly contested but it has to coincide with current technology) but late stage abortions tightly regulated. If the abortion is a form of birth control, you should know very early that you don't want the baby. That allows the birth control women to get lumped in with the ra** and incest women). You shouldn't be waiting until the 7th month to decide. If you've waited that long, suck it up buttercup, give birth and give the baby up for adoption if there is no room in your life for it.

Birth control pills are very inexpensive if you don't have insurance that covers them and you can get them for free from charities. Morning after pills are easy to obtain also. I don't think they are OTC because they are dangerous. They are after all causing an abortion, but your doctor will prescribe. Other non-drug options are available for little or no cost also so abortion as a form of birth control is borderline evil but sometimes birth control fails so it needs to be allowed.