LordReed:


Huh? Here's a direct quote:

"It's just a basic fact — you look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC — the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” Vance continued. “And how does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?"

Point out the lie/mischaraterisation I made.

Let's stick with the topic, continue to provide examples of Democrats using personal attacks to say a person is not fit for office.

These examples are people who can't relate to struggles of families

Examples of personal attacks? Are you watching the DNC convention at all? Is that not all they've been doing about Trump's personality rarely about policy

How Trump is a divorced man, a philanderer, etc to promote Kamala a former sidechic currently married to a divorced man

LordReed:


Mirrored and shared by quite a number of Republicans.

When I showed you a number of Republican women who are leaders and governors all over the country

So whi are those who share it

budaatum:


I can not only "immigrate to another country". As I said, I can also stay in the country and break the law!

Your "Collection of States" is not the Federal Government"! And that's just not what the current (corrupt, my opinion) Scotus has decided should be done. And to be honest, I get to laugh at their stupidity, since no state so far has decided "my body state choice". And if/when any state does say "my body state choice", I'd be delighted to see what they'd do to the woman who says fuq the state and aborts.

What is better?


Voters in each state decide on what to do on abortion

Or 1 president decide base on his opinion

budaatum:


I can not only "immigrate to another country". As I said, I can also stay in the country and break the law!

Your "Collection of States" is not the Federal Government"! And that's just not what the current (corrupt, my opinion) Scotus has decided should be done. And to be honest, I get to laugh at their stupidity, since no state so far has decided "my body state choice". And if/when any state does say "my body state choice", I'd be delighted to see what they'd do to the woman who says fuq the state and aborts.

The United States is a collection of states run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government's laws hold Supremacy over the State laws.

Scotus's decision is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing why you and Raumdeuter believe that Democracy through majority of people in a state dictating what people can do with their bodies is Ok. Yet Democracy though the majority of people in a Country dictating what people can do with their bodies is not actually Democracy and not OK.

IjeBos:


The United States is a collection of states run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government's laws hold Supremacy over the State laws.

Scotus's decision is not what we are discussing.

We are discussing why you and Raumdeuter believe that Democracy through majority of people in a state dictating what people can do with their bodies is Ok. Yet Democracy though the majority of people in a Country dictating what people can do with their bodies is not actually Democracy and not OK.

The United state understands that different states have different views on issues and left it to them to decide based on what their voters want

The standard for Massachusetts should not be for Alabama

raumdeuter:


That is his opinion

Thanks raum. All he’s done there’s to laugh. I don’t sugarcoat things. Yes, I know I can land in trouble when I share my opinions. I don’t care. People pretend a lot these days. Say what you think and believe - and stand by it!

IjeBos:


The United States is a collection of states run by the Federal Government. The Federal Government's laws hold Supremacy over the State laws.

The right to an abortion is not a federal law, yet, unfortunately, so States can make their own laws regarding abortions, Scotus has devided. States can't however make slavery laws because there are Federal laws (Constitution) against slavery.

IjeBos:


Yet Democracy though the majority of people in a Country dictating what people can do with their bodies is not actually Democracy and not OK.

But the majority of people have not dictated what people can do with their bodies.

Now, if they do dictate what people can do with their bodies by electing legislators who legislate, that would be democracy. The majority did after all dictate that no one shall be slaves, and that was democracy too, despite needing to be enforced by war.

raumdeuter:


The United state understands that different states have different views on issues and left it to them to decide based on what their voters want

The standard for Massachusetts should not be for Alabama

You don't really have a real understanding of this topic. So most of what are writing stems from that.
The Constitution decides what issues are Federal issues, leaving the rest to the state. The states just don't get to decide things because they want to.

The only reason it is back at the state is because the current far right Supreme Court decided in all it's nuttery that the 14 Amendment which says, No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. didn't include the right to Reproductive Health.

budaatum:


But the majority of people have not dictated what people can do with their bodies.

Now, if they do dictate what people can do with their bodies by electing legislators who legislate, that would be democracy. The majority did after all dictate that no one shall be slaves, and that was democracy too, despite needing to be enforced by war.

The discussion which you jumped in was Raumdateur arguing that it should be left to Sates to decide because only if States decide is it Democracy and not being dictated to people.
I asked why States deciding was Democracy yet the Federal government deciding was not Democracy.
Explain the difference in the two.

Please stick to that. I'm not arguing more than that.
I'm not arguing the Supreme Court
I'm not arguing what happens if someone gets an abortion.

Every ex president, ex vice president and ex presidential candidate of the democratic party has endorsed Harris.
Even Jimmy Carter, on his sick bed, sent his grandson to go and endorse on his behalf.

But on the other side - Trump's side.

The only surviving ex president of his party, George W Bush is not talking to him.

His Vice president, Dick Cheney is not in talking terms with Trump.

The only surviving ex presidential candidate of his party now, Mit Romney, is not talking to him let alone endorsing him. He said Trump will be a danger to democracy.

The other presidential candidate of his party, who died few years ago while Trump was president even banned him from attending his funeral while he was alive.

His Vice president of four years, Mike Pence, is not supporting him.

More than twelve cabinet members who worked for him have all come out to warn people about him.

This is the first time such is happening in the 248 years of America democratic history.

Trump ogene boys of Nigeria no send sha 😁😁😁😁

Eric Uchenna

happney65:
Every ex president, ex vice president and ex presidential candidate of the democratic party has endorsed Harris.
Even Jimmy Carter, on his sick bed, sent his grandson to go and endorse on his behalf.

But on the other side - Trump's side.

The only surviving ex president of his party, George W Bush is not talking to him.

His Vice president, Dick Cheney is not in talking terms with Trump.

The only surviving ex presidential candidate of his party now, Mit Romney, is not talking to him let alone endorsing him. He said Trump will be a danger to democracy.

The other presidential candidate of his party, who died few years ago while Trump was president even banned him from attending his funeral while he was alive.

His Vice president of four years, Mike Pence, is not supporting him.

More than twelve cabinet members who worked for him have all come out to warn people about him.

This is the first time such is happening in the 248 years of America democratic history.

Trump ogene boys of Nigeria no send sha 😁😁😁😁

Eric Uchenna

Trump is not a politician. Doesn’t do polished speeches politicians are known for. He’s been there as president for 4 years. The world did not stop working. The US remains as is.

IjeBos:


The discussion which you jumped in was Raumdateur arguing that it should be left to Sates to decide because only if States decide is it Democracy and not being dictated to people.
I asked why States deciding was Democracy yet the Federal government deciding was not Democracy.
Explain the difference in the two.

Please stick to that. I'm not arguing more than that.
I'm not arguing the Supreme Court
I'm not arguing what happens if someone gets an abortion.

How do states decide? Do they just flip coins to decide? Is it not the voters in individual states who make these decisions like it should be in a democracy

raumdeuter:


How do states decide? Do they just flip coins to decide? Is it not the voters in individual states who make these decisions like it should be in a democracy

Harvard genius 😂😂😂

raumdeuter:


How do states decide? Do they just flip coins to decide? Is it not the voters in individual states who make these decisions like it should be in a democracy

For the last time, the states decide the same way the Federal government decides. Voters elect leaders who pass laws. Unless, it's a case of a new State Constitutional amendment. Only then is it a direct vote.

And I'm done going back and forth with you on this.

IjeBos:


The discussion which you jumped in was Raumdateur arguing that it should be left to Sates to decide because only if States decide is it Democracy and not being dictated to people.

The discussion was here in public, and "only if States decide is it Democracy" is not what I understood from reading the argument.

Point however is that the (corrupt) Scotus, and not Raumdateur, has decided that states must decide, and states decide by the majority in the state electing legislators to pass legislations the majority vote for.

As for the Federal Government deciding, that is on November's ballot where the people get to decide if they want pro choice or state choice legislators. And I am delighted it is on the ballot because it is more a Blue win and a loss for those Repugs.

budaatum:


The discussion was here in public, and "only if States decide is it Democracy" is not what I understood from reading the argument.

This was the genesis of this discussion. It's a public discussion but you jumped into it without understanding the discussion.
Again, this discussion isn't about the the Supreme Court or what will happen in November.

IjeBos:

You are against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her' but are for Governors and State houses who enforce their personal beliefs on people and places who 'don't share the same culture' as them.

You don't see the contradiction there? Why limit it to the states? Why do you think anyone should be forcing their personal beliefs on anyone else?

Do you see that you've provided your own response and claimed it was what Raum said?

I have posted your full response below.

IjeBos:


You typed this and probably didn't even realize the contradiction.

You are against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her' but are for Governors and State houses who enforce their personal beliefs on people and places who 'don't share the same culture' as them.

You don't see the contradiction there? Why limit it to the states? Why do you think anyone should be forcing their personal beliefs on anyone else?

He did not say he was "against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her'". He actually asked a question, and you've taken it as a statement.

But explain please how elected Oprah and elected Congress and elected Governors and elected State houses get elected by those who 'don't share the same culture' as the majority who elect them.

Would that not be like the majority voting for those they don't share beliefs or culture or policies with?

Below was also you.

IjeBos:


So, you are in fact comfortable with people enforcing their personal views on others as long as they are in the majority. Got it
But when the majority votes a PResident and a Congress who runs on Reproductive RIghts, it is wrong for them in that situation to enforce their personal views?

Gotta admit, you ain't making much sense.

Whether one is comfortable or not, "people enforcing their personal views on others as long as they are in the majority", is precisely what democracy does.

If the majority vote for a congress that runs on reproductive rights, then reproductive rights is what everyone gets. And its not anyone's "personal views", but the views of the majority.

budaatum:
Do you see that you've provided your own response and claimed it was what Raum said?
He did not say he was "against Oprah and Congress who would be elected nationally enforcing their personal beliefs on places 'who don't share the same culture as her'". He actually asked a question, and you've taken it as a statement.

He in fact did say that.

raumdeuter:

States put it on ballots and the majority win, We have seen in deep red Kansas where the abortion bill was put on ballot and lost
That is what democracy is about, No one should enforce their personal belief be you Oprah, Trump you or me.
Its your personal belief

Because the only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if the Legislature passes a law on it. So again, the Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it's not Democratic? And because they pass it it affects everyone even those that don't share the same views or "culture".

budaatum:

But explain please how elected Oprah and elected Congress and elected Governors and elected State houses get elected by those who 'don't share the same culture' as the majority who elect them.

This makes no sense. And is nothing I have argued.

You jumped into an argument without understanding it and are now determined to forge ahead. If you want to defend his position, try understanding it first. Well that is tough, because he doesn't understand it either. Well try understanding what he has written at least.

budaatum:
Do you see that you've provided your own response and claimed it was what Raum said?

In fact let's take it further. The discussion was about individual states deciding vs. everyone having access to abortion.

IjeBos:


Yes, and that is one of the reasons they didn't support him.
People like Oprah do not believe individual states should decide, they believe that people no matter where they live should have access to reproductive rights. So, he changed his position.

Again, you have gone far upfield of your original point.
Let it go. You were wrong.

IjeBos:


He in fact did say that.
Because the only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if the Legislature passes a law on it. So again, the Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it's not Democratic? And because they pass it it affects everyone even those that don't share the same views or "culture".

The bold is wrong

There is also this option below

If you want abortion rights, put it on the ballot in the respective states and let the voters choose what they want

IjeBos:


Yes, and that is one of the reasons they didn't support him.
People like Oprah do not believe individual states should decide, they believe that people no matter where they live should have access to reproductive rights. So, he changed his position.

Again, you have gone far upfield of your original point.
Let it go. You were wrong.

Oprahs opinion should not supercede the opinion of majority of voters in State X or State Y. Oprah can want all she wants, If the voters in state A don't then it wont pass unless she decides to use the Executive order

raumdeuter:


The bold is wrong

There is also this option below

If you want abortion rights, put it on the ballot in the respective states and let the voters choose what they want

Wrong!!!!
You may want to read the article and not just the headline next time.
An executive order will not provide abortion rights to states that have laws against it. Period!

IjeBos:


He in fact did say that.


Because the only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if the Legislature passes a law on it. So again, the Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it's not Democratic? And because they pass it it affects everyone even those that don't share the same views or "culture".

Sorry, but you are not even clear on what you are saying.

The Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it is not Democratic!

And "The only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if" the majority of people first democratically elect that person as president! And the majority of people will only elect that person as president because they the majority share the same belief. Unless they are turkeys voting for Christmas, in which case their stupidity deserves to be roasted.

And yes, the minority who don't share that belief will get it imposed on them by the democratic majority and it will affect them, somehow.

For instance, if a minority are antiabortion and the majority elect my preferred proabortion president, we will impose proabortion on that minority, whether they like it or not, though they can decide not to personally abort and we wouldn't make them.

raumdeuter:


Oprahs opinion should not supercede the opinion of majority of voters in State X or State Y. Oprah can want all she wants, If the voters in state A don't then it wont pass unless she decides to use the Executive order

Here Budaatum, he said it again.

budaatum:


Sorry, but you are not even clear on what you are saying.

The Democratic elected President and the Democratically elected Congress passing a law means it is not Democratic!

And "The only way a President can enforce their Personal beliefs on abortion is if" the majority of people first democratically elect that person as president! And the majority of people will only elect that person as president because they the majority share the same belief. Unless they are turkeys voting for Christmas, in which case their stupidity deserves to be roasted.

And yes, the minority who don't share that belief will get it imposed on them by the democratic majority and it will affect them, somehow.

For instance, if a minority are antiabortion and the majority elect my preferred proabortion president, we will impose proabortion on that minority, whether they like it or not, though they can decide not to personally abort and we wouldn't make them.

You literally rewrote what I've said this whole conversation.
Congrats.
But Raumdeuter believes it is only Democratic if it happens in the states or only states should be allowed to force the majorities views on people.
Maybe because he doesn't understand how laws are passed Federally or in States or how an Abortion law would need to be passed.
Next time read the conversation before jumping in.

GUYS, FELON trump WANTS TO HOST AN AWARD NIGHT FOR JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTIONISTS WHO BEAT COPS AND WERE ON THE LOOKOUT TO MURDER HIS VP. MANY ALREADY CONVICTED AND SERVING DECADES IN JAIL.

I think rapist trump knows he has lost this race. What a disgrace.

EnlightenedUFO:
GUYS, FELON trump WANTS TO HOST AN AWARD NIGHT FOR JANUARY 6TH INSURRECTIONISTS WHO BEAT COPS AND WERE ON THE LOOKOUT TO MURDER HIS VP. MANY ALREADY CONVICTED AND SERVING DECADES IN JAIL.

I think rapist trump knows he has lost this race. What a disgrace.

I hope you are making that up.

IjeBos:


I hope you are making that up.

Not at all. It's trending news on twitter

EnlightenedUFO:


Not at all. It's trending news on twitter

Bwaahhahahha.
Please oh, where can I donate (anonymously) to make sure it happens?

IjeBos:


Wrong!!!!
You may want to read the article and not just the headline next time.
An executive order will not provide abortion rights to states that have laws against it. Period!

You might as well claim an An executive order will not enforce anti segregation laws in states that have laws against it. Period!

For that to happen, a lot of history will need to be forgotten, and not everyone forgets so easily.

Besides, an executive order is not the only tool that could be used. The majority People may themselves democratically elect proabortion Reps and Senators and governors and president!

IjeBos:


I hope you are making that up.

Lol, its dump! Stupid slowpoke dump!