Waiting for 'BoTh sIdEs! GeNoCiDe jOe!' shitheads to show up
They're in the next story about sending weapons to Israel. š¤·
Yes, yes US-Israel relations are solely because of Joe Biden. Not like there's history between those two countries that goes back decades or anything.
You are very intelligent.
I didn't say that. At all. I don't like Joe's handling of the crisis, but I'm not a Biden hater. I'm a keep Trump out of office at any fucking cost voter.
I think a fair few of these people don't see the very fine line that Biden is stuck walking. He really doesn't want to see that lobby money head to Trump's campaign. And the people pissed at Biden not doing more for the people in Gaza seem to ignore that the alternative is Trump, who will likely just not care.
There's also a significant contingent of pro-Israel Democrats whose votes he needs. He's walking a tightrope walk. I don't know that he's doing it well either, unfortunately.
He has been a very enthusiastic supporter of Israel for a long time. He believes in zionist colonialism.
Not that he doesn't have to consider voters whatsoever, just saying that he's certainly not reluctant to support Israel out of any ideological disagreement with Zionism.
I'm not really talking about his personal feelings on the matter, which aren't really as relevant right now as what he thinks will get him re-elected. So far, he seems to think lip service toward the Palestinian cause plus the maritime-based food distribution while militarily supporting Israel is enough for people supporting Palestine to support him and not going too far to upset the pro-Israel people. Like I said, I don't think he's doing the balancing act well.
If, say, people had a different candidate to vote for ... like Bernie Sanders ... then no one would have to bring up the concessions Biden is making to the center-right wingnut crowd ... because (1) there wouldn't be any, and (2) every voter in America would be engaged.
If, say, Hillary had let someone younger than 30 run her campaign and we didn't have such a problem with people not understanding what we got because they voted third party, we wouldn't have had Trump and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Remember that Hillary won the popular vote. The electoral college needs to go away. We also need to do our best to educate people on how to work with what we have and simultaneously work towards making things better while also not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I would bet a years earnings that some of these people would starve if left on a deserted island with a lifetime supply of their most hated food.
Lol, you're so ready to fight you are taking swings at people who agree with you.
You ok?
No
Yeah there goes verdantbanana, right on schedule.
Death for abortions and IVF.
The latter surprises me since it's generally affluent white people doing it, and this group definitely wants more of those babies.
Up next, death for miscarriage.
Coworkers who don't have daughters mock me when I say I don't want my adult daughter living here because it's dangerous. They think I'm overblowing it. They're taking the standard, "if it didn't affect me personally, it's not real or important," stance.
One fucked up thing a fertility doctor mentioned to me for embryo disposal seemed to be targeted toward forced birth states wherein the embryo would be transferred to someone who did not have a womb that could carry the embryo to term and would almost certainly miscarry called a compassionate transfer.
That has to be the most fucked up thing I've read in awhile.
I won't mock you. I have daughters as well. We live in a solid blue state but out an abundance of caution me and my wife are working on getting them dual citizenship in my wife's homeland. Still have some more paperwork to go through but it is happening.
You should always have a backup plan.
There was a time when people tried to get US citizenship as a backup plan.
Must have been nice when shamans tended to their gullible instead of running for office.
There was a time when people tried to get US citizenship as a backup plan.
How do they tell the difference between an abortion and a natural miscarriage?
I'm joking, they don't care and are willing to kill the woman either way just to be sure.
Tell them that the Taliban just brought back stoning. And mandatory full-body coverings for women. Then watch them somehow actively justify their views to void out the cognitive dissonance.
It's okay when Christians do it.
Texas, youāre really wanting to find out, huh
you mean the citizens there that did not want this too right?
the disenfranchised voters, the voters whose information on the news and elsewhere is corporate owned
blaming the citizens for the wrongs of the elites who keep the populace suppressed is how we got here to begin with
what about the fact that many of the adults who did vote in favor of all this were indoctrinated from birth to be this way
huge multifaceted issue that voting a religious catholic or a pussy grabber in will not solve
Let's preserve life by killing people
Well, we could always kill nazis for that
The American Taliban
Truly pro life
Protecting life uh, protecting life my ass. A virus has better chances at respecting life than these things...
š
2024
Party Against Women's Rights versus Party Against Women's Rights
regardless of which camp you are in both parties are on record saying they are against abortion
even in one of the comments below a person commented that Biden would not say abortion
in plain speak on both Wikipedia pages for Biden and the Catholic Church and we all know the Republican's stance on this
but both parties are not the same clearly
one candidate is named Donald and the other's name is Joe
Roe v. Wade fell during Biden's presidency and the most he did was an executive order for women's health research
The Catholic Church condemned the ruling by the Supreme Court.[141] Blackmun wrote in his diary, "Abortion flakā3 CardinalsāVaticanāRochester wires!"[141]
John Cardinal Krol, the archbishop of Philadelphia who was also the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Terence Cardinal Cooke, the archbishop of New York, both issued statements condemning the ruling.[175] Krol called the ruling "an unspeakable tragedy for this nation" that "sets in motion developments which are terrifying to contemplate."[175] Cooke called the decision a "horrifying action" and added:[175]
How many millions of children prior to their birth will never live to see the light of today because of the shocking action of the majority of the United States Supreme Court today?[175]
Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.
how do the Republicans differ on abortion again?
Roe V Wade was overturned by Supreme Court packed by GOP and Donald Trump. Fuck off with your bullshit.
Don't apologize for Biden. He could have tried to pack the court, he could be given weekly speeches denouncing their decision, he has the IRS and FBI could have made Thomas' and Alito's life a living hell with daily announcements of fresh bribery charges, he could pick a fight with the Catholic Church pointing out that it is a foreign power influencing the US government. Instead he went gently into that good night.
Now will I vote for him? Yes because the alternative is worse. Can I support him? Not for a second.
Wikipedia is now bullshit?
Trumpism was bad but so is Bidenism
Biden is clearly on record saying he agrees with the abortion ban
Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.
right there him agreeing with the abortion ban plain as day
During Thursdayās speech, Biden deviated from his prepared remarks, skipping over the word āabortionā and instead using the phrases āreproductive freedomā or āfreedom to choose.ā
Yes, he is catholic. Yes, most Catholics disagree with abortion. No, Biden doesnāt think his religious beliefs should dictate how women live their lives. He literally says it plain as day for even the very stupid among us to understand. Good luck!
This seems extremely deceptive, possibly deliberately so. Being influenced by catholic teachings does not mean you agree with everything they believe. Even someone who rejects every single moral teaching of the church could still be influenced by them in some ways.
In this case, we donāt need to speculate from some vague statement about the church because Biden has explicitly stated he supported roe v wade, has appointed judges that have pursued this pro-choice ideology, and has even stated that he would sign a bill to reinstate the previous protections for women. Such a bill was put forth in congress but was blocked in the senate. He does not have any direct control over this issue, so itās hard for me to see what else he even could have done.
It comes off as very intellectually dishonest to ignore all that and claim heās āclearly on the record saying he supports the abortion banā then point to something he didnāt even say and is only tangentially related.
PS: There are tons of legitimate criticisms of Biden so itās especially strange to invent ones that are so far from the truth.
Biden being for women's rights would have been a drastic out of common place executive order restoring women's rights instead of one advancing research into a field that requires Roe versus Wade
Executive orders can only interpret and change the execution of federal law. They canāt invent new ones. If there were a federal abortion ban in place, Biden could decline to enforce it, though this would not change the actual law and would likely be challenged in court.
The abortion bans are all by state governments which Biden has no authority over. Read up on federalism and the way the US government works. It sounds like some of your frustration stems from a lack of political knowledge. The presidency is not a dictatorship and we do not want it to be. If Biden could restore reproductive rights unilaterally then a republican could also remove them unilaterally, which would be even worse than the current situation.
Please tell me precisely how many justices Biden has appointed vs. the number of justices on the court.
he could have started nominating to expand the court
The president is not a dictator. It doesn't work like that.
Also, do you really think presidents should just be able to change the size of SCOTUS whenever they want to? What if Trump gets in and decides to shrink it to only the conservatives?
he can nominate 100 people today and make the Senate turn down every one
Which they would. So what would that accomplish?
you don't know that
I know enough about our legislature to know that they would not approve 100 SCOTUS justices. I'm not sure why you think they would allow any president to do that unless they were a rubber stamp legislature, which they are not.
they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible
Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?
You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.
of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few
Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.
Waiting for 'BoTh sIdEs! GeNoCiDe jOe!' shitheads to show up
They're in the next story about sending weapons to Israel. š¤·
Yes, yes US-Israel relations are solely because of Joe Biden. Not like there's history between those two countries that goes back decades or anything.
You are very intelligent.
I didn't say that. At all. I don't like Joe's handling of the crisis, but I'm not a Biden hater. I'm a keep Trump out of office at any fucking cost voter.
I think a fair few of these people don't see the very fine line that Biden is stuck walking. He really doesn't want to see that lobby money head to Trump's campaign. And the people pissed at Biden not doing more for the people in Gaza seem to ignore that the alternative is Trump, who will likely just not care.
There's also a significant contingent of pro-Israel Democrats whose votes he needs. He's walking a tightrope walk. I don't know that he's doing it well either, unfortunately.
He has been a very enthusiastic supporter of Israel for a long time. He believes in zionist colonialism.
Not that he doesn't have to consider voters whatsoever, just saying that he's certainly not reluctant to support Israel out of any ideological disagreement with Zionism.
I'm not really talking about his personal feelings on the matter, which aren't really as relevant right now as what he thinks will get him re-elected. So far, he seems to think lip service toward the Palestinian cause plus the maritime-based food distribution while militarily supporting Israel is enough for people supporting Palestine to support him and not going too far to upset the pro-Israel people. Like I said, I don't think he's doing the balancing act well.
If, say, people had a different candidate to vote for ... like Bernie Sanders ... then no one would have to bring up the concessions Biden is making to the center-right wingnut crowd ... because (1) there wouldn't be any, and (2) every voter in America would be engaged.
If, say, Hillary had let someone younger than 30 run her campaign and we didn't have such a problem with people not understanding what we got because they voted third party, we wouldn't have had Trump and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Remember that Hillary won the popular vote. The electoral college needs to go away. We also need to do our best to educate people on how to work with what we have and simultaneously work towards making things better while also not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
I would bet a years earnings that some of these people would starve if left on a deserted island with a lifetime supply of their most hated food.
Lol, you're so ready to fight you are taking swings at people who agree with you.
You ok?
No
Yeah there goes verdantbanana, right on schedule.
Death for abortions and IVF.
The latter surprises me since it's generally affluent white people doing it, and this group definitely wants more of those babies.
Up next, death for miscarriage.
Coworkers who don't have daughters mock me when I say I don't want my adult daughter living here because it's dangerous. They think I'm overblowing it. They're taking the standard, "if it didn't affect me personally, it's not real or important," stance.
One fucked up thing a fertility doctor mentioned to me for embryo disposal seemed to be targeted toward forced birth states wherein the embryo would be transferred to someone who did not have a womb that could carry the embryo to term and would almost certainly miscarry called a compassionate transfer.
That has to be the most fucked up thing I've read in awhile.
I won't mock you. I have daughters as well. We live in a solid blue state but out an abundance of caution me and my wife are working on getting them dual citizenship in my wife's homeland. Still have some more paperwork to go through but it is happening.
You should always have a backup plan.
There was a time when people tried to get US citizenship as a backup plan.
Must have been nice when shamans tended to their gullible instead of running for office.
There was a time when people tried to get US citizenship as a backup plan.
So pro-life they kill you.
How do they tell the difference between an abortion and a natural miscarriage?
I'm joking, they don't care and are willing to kill the woman either way just to be sure.
Tell them that the Taliban just brought back stoning. And mandatory full-body coverings for women. Then watch them somehow actively justify their views to void out the cognitive dissonance.
It's okay when Christians do it.
Texas, youāre really wanting to find out, huh
you mean the citizens there that did not want this too right?
the disenfranchised voters, the voters whose information on the news and elsewhere is corporate owned
blaming the citizens for the wrongs of the elites who keep the populace suppressed is how we got here to begin with
what about the fact that many of the adults who did vote in favor of all this were indoctrinated from birth to be this way
huge multifaceted issue that voting a religious catholic or a pussy grabber in will not solve
Let's preserve life by killing people
Well, we could always kill nazis for that
The American Taliban
Truly pro life
Protecting life uh, protecting life my ass. A virus has better chances at respecting life than these things...
š
2024
Party Against Women's Rights versus Party Against Women's Rights
regardless of which camp you are in both parties are on record saying they are against abortion
even in one of the comments below a person commented that Biden would not say abortion
in plain speak on both Wikipedia pages for Biden and the Catholic Church and we all know the Republican's stance on this
but both parties are not the same clearly
one candidate is named Donald and the other's name is Joe
Roe v. Wade fell during Biden's presidency and the most he did was an executive order for women's health research
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-executive-order-and-announces-new-actions-to-advance-womens-health-research-and-innovation/
how are you going to advance something that is now not here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
The Catholic Church condemned the ruling by the Supreme Court.[141] Blackmun wrote in his diary, "Abortion flakā3 CardinalsāVaticanāRochester wires!"[141]
John Cardinal Krol, the archbishop of Philadelphia who was also the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Terence Cardinal Cooke, the archbishop of New York, both issued statements condemning the ruling.[175] Krol called the ruling "an unspeakable tragedy for this nation" that "sets in motion developments which are terrifying to contemplate."[175] Cooke called the decision a "horrifying action" and added:[175]
How many millions of children prior to their birth will never live to see the light of today because of the shocking action of the majority of the United States Supreme Court today?[175]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#
how do the Republicans differ on abortion again?
Roe V Wade was overturned by Supreme Court packed by GOP and Donald Trump. Fuck off with your bullshit.
Don't apologize for Biden. He could have tried to pack the court, he could be given weekly speeches denouncing their decision, he has the IRS and FBI could have made Thomas' and Alito's life a living hell with daily announcements of fresh bribery charges, he could pick a fight with the Catholic Church pointing out that it is a foreign power influencing the US government. Instead he went gently into that good night.
Now will I vote for him? Yes because the alternative is worse. Can I support him? Not for a second.
Wikipedia is now bullshit?
Trumpism was bad but so is Bidenism
Biden is clearly on record saying he agrees with the abortion ban
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
Which is... Where exactly?
Your shitty edit does not say that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#
Biden is a moderate Democrat[549] who says his positions are deeply influenced by Catholic social teaching.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_abortion
right there him agreeing with the abortion ban plain as day
Yes, he is catholic. Yes, most Catholics disagree with abortion. No, Biden doesnāt think his religious beliefs should dictate how women live their lives. He literally says it plain as day for even the very stupid among us to understand. Good luck!
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-2024-reproductive-rights-harris-494af752992ba88fa6e3d53fbd54f716
This seems extremely deceptive, possibly deliberately so. Being influenced by catholic teachings does not mean you agree with everything they believe. Even someone who rejects every single moral teaching of the church could still be influenced by them in some ways.
In this case, we donāt need to speculate from some vague statement about the church because Biden has explicitly stated he supported roe v wade, has appointed judges that have pursued this pro-choice ideology, and has even stated that he would sign a bill to reinstate the previous protections for women. Such a bill was put forth in congress but was blocked in the senate. He does not have any direct control over this issue, so itās hard for me to see what else he even could have done.
It comes off as very intellectually dishonest to ignore all that and claim heās āclearly on the record saying he supports the abortion banā then point to something he didnāt even say and is only tangentially related.
PS: There are tons of legitimate criticisms of Biden so itās especially strange to invent ones that are so far from the truth.
Biden being for women's rights would have been a drastic out of common place executive order restoring women's rights instead of one advancing research into a field that requires Roe versus Wade
Executive orders can only interpret and change the execution of federal law. They canāt invent new ones. If there were a federal abortion ban in place, Biden could decline to enforce it, though this would not change the actual law and would likely be challenged in court.
The abortion bans are all by state governments which Biden has no authority over. Read up on federalism and the way the US government works. It sounds like some of your frustration stems from a lack of political knowledge. The presidency is not a dictatorship and we do not want it to be. If Biden could restore reproductive rights unilaterally then a republican could also remove them unilaterally, which would be even worse than the current situation.
Please tell me precisely how many justices Biden has appointed vs. the number of justices on the court.
he could have started nominating to expand the court
The president is not a dictator. It doesn't work like that.
Also, do you really think presidents should just be able to change the size of SCOTUS whenever they want to? What if Trump gets in and decides to shrink it to only the conservatives?
he can nominate 100 people today and make the Senate turn down every one
Which they would. So what would that accomplish?
you don't know that
I know enough about our legislature to know that they would not approve 100 SCOTUS justices. I'm not sure why you think they would allow any president to do that unless they were a rubber stamp legislature, which they are not.
they don't need to approve 100 but letting 6 or 7 through is possible
Why would the Senate even let one extra justice through?
You would need 51% of them to do that. Which would necessarily either include Manchin and Sinema or two Republicans. If you honestly believe either of those scenarios would result in even increasing the size of SCOTUS to 10 justices, you really don't understand the U.S. government.
of 100 candidates having to go through all the consent hearings, I think they would come to an agreement about a few
Why would they come to an agreement on any of them? What would compel Sinema and Manchin to agree to expand the court by a single justice? And if not them, name the two Republicans who would please.
This is a prime example of misinformation and propaganda! I'm saving this. This is good.
Wikipedia is now a prime example of misinformation and propaganda?
of course he would skip over saying that
he said he is deeply devoted to Catholicism on record right there on his and the Catholic's Wikipedia page
how else could one look at those facts?
These aren't facts. You're laundering a broken dog whistle through a couple Wikipedia links. Crawl back into your cave you troglodyte.