A challenge for people who refused to vote for trump OR Hillary

Since Roe v. Wade the Republicans have held the presidency and/or Congress for several years. When did they once attempt to do anything about abortion (propose and amendment)? The same applies to same sex marriage. The battles on abortion are merely rhetoric since there is never any action/vote on the issue.

Third parties can step up and become relevant when Americans are willing to vote for them. It is not hard for them to get on the ballot IF they have even a minimal level of support.

I don't think parties are the problem. We operated as a two-party system most of our history fairly successfully. The complaint was that they were too similar. Now that Americans have become more divided, more consistent in their liberal/conservative views, their ideology more often matches their party affiliation, politics defined as who they hate, and a "sorting" has resulted with more voters living among like-minded people creating congressional districts heavily one-party, members of Congress represent the voters whose divisiveness prevents them from working together. The color of the jersey is more important than the name on the back. The parties are just representing the public.

Actually, they have but you're barking up the wrong tree. There have been plenty of actions and votes on those issues. If you understood the Constitution and the concept of federalism, that would make perfect sense.

The parties represent themselves not the public.
 
I'll list ten things trump is doing Hillary clearly wouldn't have that are harmful.

You list the worst ten things you can reliably say Hillary would have done if elected - be specific - and say how harmful they would have been. Compare which is worse.

1. Removed the DACA Dreamer protections for people who were brought to the US as children and have long lived here, for protection from deportation to a country they don't know.

2. Fought against the climate, slavishly serving fossil fuel companies. The US is the only country in the world not in the Paris accords. Witch hunts were done in the government to find any scientists who had worked on climate change to get rid of them. The government has taken down any scientific information that shows the problem.

3. Appointed the worst cabinet and officials in history. People like Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy *he campaigned on wanting to abolish* that controls all the nuclear weapons. People like Betsy De Voss to run the Department of Education, when she is the nation's leading enemy of public education, fighting a fundamentalist religious desire to replace public education with for-profit and as much as possible religious education, brother to Blackwater founder Eric Prince.

4. Appointing radical right-wing judges to all the open seats, from names provided by the Federalist Society, including Neil Gorsuch, with an agenda to let the wealthy have unlimited power to control the political system, and to take power away from the people and weaken democracy, paving the way to destroying it.

5. Ordered that transgender members of the military not be allowed to serve.

6. Hugely escalated the deportations that were already high under Obama, to deport many people who have year often for decades, law-abiding other than immigration status, to the point of people avoiding courts, medical treatments, or shelters in natural disasters because of the threat of arrest.

7. Fought for the repeal of the ACA, which would take healthcare from 25 million Americans; remove the requirement to insure people with pre-existing conditions; allow 'junk insurance' and remove many requirements for quality care.

8. Fought for the worst bill in decades, the tax scam bill, which would even further increase inequality already at record levels by shifting trillions of dollars from Medicaid, Medicare, education and more for the public to tax cuts for the rich and big corporations.

9. Bolstered anti-democratic authoritarianism domestically and globally. He can't say enough good about every dictator in the world who isn't his enemy (and he can't even help himself then, saying recently he and the North Korean dictator could be friends), such as the Philippines dictator who has killed thousands of people, some personally, and the dictator of Turkey, whose security forces beat American protesters in Washington, D. C. And, the pardon of racist abuser Joe Arpaio.

This has led to the US hitting new lows in how it is viewed globally. For example, a survey of global expatriates found that the US has drooped in their ranking where they'd like to live from #5 in 2014 to #43 in 2017.

10. Tried to undo the deal with Iran to prevent their obtaining nuclear weapons, slavishly supporting the Saudi and Israeli policies against Shiite Muslim countries like Iran.

This is just from what he's already done in less than a year - such as killing more civilians with relaxed rules on drone use in less than a years than Obama killed in 8 years.

Note I didn't include everything from his history of sexual assault to thousands of lies to the Russian and other organized crime issue and so much more that is less

Clearly a "consensus" creates a FACT.:good4u: There once was a consensus by all the SMART ASS PEOPLE of the world (professing to be men of science) that said, The earth is flat and the center of the Universe with the Sun revolving around the earth. It was a BELIEF that was so firmly implanted into the ID of the smart asses that today...there is still a SUNSET and SUNRISE.

Today...because there is a Consensus of all the worlds SMART ASS socialists (self professed...that are clearly superior to the knuckle dragging constitutional conservatives).....the United States must open its boarders and lose its constitutional rule of law and sovereignty in order to placate that (wink,wink) LEFT WING CONSENSUS? Really? This is what happens when one bases their decision making processing on EMOTION and tear jerking instead of the reality that surrounds them.

That reality: 90% of all the new immigration comes from those who have family already in the US....so with all those tear jerking infants that are given US CITIZEN SHIP because their parents entered the US as criminals....all their extended families will demand to come into the US and be granted citizenship...the majority of which are unskilled and uneducated...making millions more WELFARE citizens. What the hell...its difficult to have a WELFARE STATE without welfare citizens...no?
 
Last edited:
Actually, they have but you're barking up the wrong tree. There have been plenty of actions and votes on those issues. If you understood the Constitution and the concept of federalism, that would make perfect sense.

The parties represent themselves not the public.

The only action that matters is proposing a constitutional amendment since that is the only thing that could change Roe. The other actions have been fairly minor, like funding planned parenthood or clinic abroad that perform abortion. None of those changes abortion laws in the U. S. Federalism is no longer relevant here since the Constitution prohibits states from outlawing abortion the first six months. My point is that Republicans have done nothing of significance to change anything so the debate on abortion is just that--debate. The tax cut and health care bills were actually voted upon.


Parties represent themselves but the voters decide who is making those decisions.
 
The only action that matters is proposing a constitutional amendment since that is the only thing that could change Roe. The other actions have been fairly minor, like funding planned parenthood or clinic abroad that perform abortion. None of those changes abortion laws in the U. S.

Parties represent themselves but the voters decide who is making those decisions.

That's not the only thing that could change Roe. Brown (1954) wasn't an amendment but it changed Plessy (1896).

I see my reference to you barking up the wrong tree didn't register. Plenty of actions have been taken at the appropriate level.
 
That's not the only thing that could change Roe. Brown (1954) wasn't an amendment but it changed Plessy (1896).

I see my reference to you barking up the wrong tree didn't register. Plenty of actions have been taken at the appropriate level.

Except one. The science of DNA establishes beyond doubt that LIFE...once conceived contains a personal and unique life defining signature of DNA...separate from either of its parents. If the right case becomes before SCOTUS Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the same right as defined in the Declaration of Independence will be applied to ALL HUMAN LIFE to include life inside the womb. THE RIGHT TO LIFE. To "opine" otherwise is nothing short of FASCISM....the act of defining one human life superior to other human lives.

DNA is established precedent in defining "parenthood" in the court system. The same precedent can be used to DEFINE the life in question. No right is superior to the right to live.

Strange is the documented fact that such precedence is already used to establish the scientific fact that unborn life is counted as "life within that species". Just look at the Endangered Species Act....that makes it a crime to kill the UNBORN LIFE within certain unique species. If human life is not unique (as there are no other human lives with the same DNA as each individual subject)....what is UNIQUE LIFE? What is any more endangered in this nation than UNBORN CHILDREN with no rights to life according to social liberalism?

Its simply a shame that ANIMALS have more rights in this nation than do human children. You can kill certain animals and get prison...yet in certain states in this union you can kill innocent women and receive no sentence for killing that life. Just ask the parents of Kate Steinle.
 
Last edited:
That's not the only thing that could change Roe. Brown (1954) wasn't an amendment but it changed Plessy (1896).

I see my reference to you barking up the wrong tree didn't register. Plenty of actions have been taken at the appropriate level.

It registered, I just don't think any of those actions are significant since they had no chance of changing policy; on the other hand, the only thing that will change policy has been largely ignored. Brown changed law without an amendment, but they had to wait 50+ years and neither party was instrumental in (purposely) bringing about that change. Roe is less likely to be reversed--Roe and Brown both led to greater individual freedom. If the Republicans care about abortion they wouldn't just sit around waiting for a court reversal and propose an amendment. It couldn't pass but they would at least appear to be trying to make changes. They voted 60+ times to repeal the ACA when it could not pass but not once when they actually have the power to repeal it.
 
Except one. The science of DNA establishes beyond doubt that LIFE...once conceived contains a personal and unique life defining signature of DNA...separate from either of its parents. If the right case becomes before SCOTUS Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the same right as defined in the Declaration of Independence will be applied to ALL HUMAN LIFE to include life inside the womb. THE RIGHT TO LIFE. To "opine" otherwise is nothing short of FASCISM....the act of defining one human life superior to other human lives.

DNA is established precedent in defining "parenthood" in the court system. The same precedent can be used to DEFINE the life in question. No right is superior to the right to live.

Strange is the documented fact that such precedence is already used to establish the scientific fact that unborn life is counted as "life within that species". Just look at the Endangered Species Act....that makes it a crime to kill the UNBORN LIFE within certain unique species. If human life is not unique (as there are no other human lives with the same DNA as each individual subject)....what is UNIQUE LIFE? What is any more endangered in this nation than UNBORN CHILDREN with no rights to life according to social liberalism?

Its simply a shame that ANIMALS have more rights in this nation than do human children. You can kill certain animals and get prison...yet in certain states in this union you can kill innocent women and receive no sentence for killing that life. Just ask the parents of Kate Steinle.

Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.
 
You'd have to be a real Limey to hide from the words of the Declaration - our statement of purpose.

Nobody is hiding from the words or disagreeing with them, but nobody has ever won any rights by using the Declaration. A person could also claim "liberty" allows a person to get an abortion; or that "pursuit of happiness" allows them to use drugs.
 
Except one. The science of DNA establishes beyond doubt that LIFE...once conceived contains a personal and unique life defining signature of DNA...separate from either of its parents. If the right case becomes before SCOTUS Roe v. Wade will be overturned and the same right as defined in the Declaration of Independence will be applied to ALL HUMAN LIFE to include life inside the womb. THE RIGHT TO LIFE. To "opine" otherwise is nothing short of FASCISM....the act of defining one human life superior to other human lives.

DNA is established precedent in defining "parenthood" in the court system. The same precedent can be used to DEFINE the life in question. No right is superior to the right to live.

Strange is the documented fact that such precedence is already used to establish the scientific fact that unborn life is counted as "life within that species". Just look at the Endangered Species Act....that makes it a crime to kill the UNBORN LIFE within certain unique species. If human life is not unique (as there are no other human lives with the same DNA as each individual subject)....what is UNIQUE LIFE? What is any more endangered in this nation than UNBORN CHILDREN with no rights to life according to social liberalism?

Its simply a shame that ANIMALS have more rights in this nation than do human children. You can kill certain animals and get prison...yet in certain states in this union you can kill innocent women and receive no sentence for killing that life. Just ask the parents of Kate Steinle.

A subsequent Supreme Court decision is also a method by which Roe could be changed. I used Plessy/Brown as an example to rebut Flash's claim that "the only thing that could change Roe" is a constitutional amendment. My example showed how nothing changed in the Constitution with those two cases except how the concept of equal was interpreted.
 
It registered, I just don't think any of those actions are significant since they had no chance of changing policy; on the other hand, the only thing that will change policy has been largely ignored. Brown changed law without an amendment, but they had to wait 50+ years and neither party was instrumental in (purposely) bringing about that change. Roe is less likely to be reversed--Roe and Brown both led to greater individual freedom. If the Republicans care about abortion they wouldn't just sit around waiting for a court reversal and propose an amendment. It couldn't pass but they would at least appear to be trying to make changes. They voted 60+ times to repeal the ACA when it could not pass but not once when they actually have the power to repeal it.

Since actions as the level to which I was referring are what brought about the misinterpretation of the Constitution on the federal level that let to Roe, don't think actions as the same level that brought the decision about couldn't bring a decisions overturning Roe.

That you think Roe is less likely to be overturned and your statement of the only way it can happen is a constitutional amendment are two different things.

Again, barking up the wrong level tree where it can start.
 
Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.

An interesting things about those that support Roe is that many of them support abortion by choice at a time long after viability has been reached.
 
Nobody is hiding from the words or disagreeing with them, but nobody has ever won any rights by using the Declaration. A person could also claim "liberty" allows a person to get an abortion; or that "pursuit of happiness" allows them to use drugs.

Could? People already have.
 
Nobody is hiding from the words or disagreeing with them, but nobody has ever won any rights by using the Declaration. A person could also claim "liberty" allows a person to get an abortion; or that "pursuit of happiness" allows them to use drugs.

Well, it is the pursuit, rather than the acquisition, of happiness. Obviously, the right to life precludes certain debased acts, and the right to liberty precludes certain forms of ownership and control.
 
A subsequent Supreme Court decision is also a method by which Roe could be changed. I used Plessy/Brown as an example to rebut Flash's claim that "the only thing that could change Roe" is a constitutional amendment. My example showed how nothing changed in the Constitution with those two cases except how the concept of equal was interpreted.

I did not include changed court interpretation because my point was that abortion is largely a symbolic issue because Republicans have made no real effort to change Roe which they could do by proposing an amendment. There is nothing they can do to bring about a new court interpretation. The court chooses which cases it will hear and that is only about 10% of those appealed to it each year.
 
Well, it is the pursuit, rather than the acquisition, of happiness. Obviously, the right to life precludes certain debased acts, and the right to liberty precludes certain forms of ownership and control.

The unborn have never had rights under U. S. law--they can't inherit, enter into contracts, etc. The government cannot really guarantee somebody the right to life because any person could choose to take your life at any time. All they can do is punish the person who took your life. Still, the Declaration of Independence contains no legally enforceable rights and has never been used in that manner.
 
Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.

That is a "blatant" Lie. Have you ever read and comprehended the LAW legislated from the bench called the ROE v. Wade decision? The decision defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina. Science tells us that (Just like the endangered species act) Life, even in unborn state is representative of life within that species. An opinion made from the bench and made into LAW directly contracts an act of law made via representation when it comes to defining the point when LIFE BEGINS and is VIABLE as an example of life within that species. The endangered Species Act of 1973 Got it right....SCTOUS got it wrong and science can prove it via the established precedent of DNA evidence.

Any decision that comes from SCOTUS is subject to being overturned, under the right circumstance. 1st When the court is filled with more constitutionalists than radical leftists. 2nd when NEW EVIDENCE is introduced that proves that life begins at conception in the form of HUMANITY. Changing the wording does not change the scientific, demonstrable and repeatable via experimentation FACTS OF SCIENCE when it is applied to logic and reason instead of emotional idiocy.

"IF" it has "Nothing" to do with "life".....why attempt to define when LIFE BEGINS in the decision? Science proves that human life begins at conception when a viable, independent, and separate human DNA is present from that time until DEATH.

If it has nothing to do with life.....why attempt to determine when its (wink, wink) VIABLE, as if human life can be determined to be viable or non-viable....just like the Nazi's determined when they decided that all JEWS where a non viable form of human life not worthy of being protected by Government fiat.

This is priceless and most illogical and non-scientific. On one hand liberalism defines certain unborn animal life as a VIABLE representative of life within that species (The endangered species act, in an UNBORN state of gestation (in the egg). Just try to destroy a Bald Eagle nest of unborn bald eagle infants while in the egg (unborn).

Sad to say.....with HUMAN LIFE....there is no such protection of DNA established HUMAN LIFE before its born...its a personal choice to determine if that life is worthy of being protected by its Mother? Really? What mother, other than an evil mother, would offer up her children at the alter of human secularism?

Again....IF it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE....WHY ABORT: the ending/killing of a developing human life....that which has nothing to do with LIFE? If its non-viable at any stage of development.....JUST LEAVE IT ALONE and see what happens....you would not HAVE TO KILL IT.

No one has the authority to redefine SCIENCE. Either that unborn infant is alive or its dead.

Leftists have no logical or reasonable argument against SCIENCE or SOCIAL MORE'S when it comes to the attempt to defend the killing of unborn human children by CHOICE. Either you decide to KILL/ABORT that developing human life and profess that life has no RIGHT TO LIVE as determined by YOU void of any form of DUE PROCESS...in a free society that choice is called MURDER....as you do not get to decide what human life is viable and which one is not.
 
Last edited:
That is a "blatant" Lie. Have you ever read and comprehended the LAW legislated from the bench called the ROE v. Wade decision? The decision defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina. Science tells us that (Just like the endangered species act) Life, even in unborn state is representative of life within that species. An opinion made from the bench and made into LAW directly contracts an act of law made via representation when it comes to defining the point when LIFE BEGINS and is VIABLE as an example of life within that species. The endangered Species Act of 1973 Got it right....SCTOUS got it wrong and science can prove it via the established precedent of DNA evidence.

Any decision that comes from SCOTUS is subject to being overturned, under the right circumstance. 1st When the court is filled with more constitutionalists than radical leftists. 2nd when NEW EVIDENCE is introduced that proves that life begins at conception in the form of HUMANITY. Changing the wording does not change the scientific, demonstrable and repeatable via experimentation FACTS OF SCIENCE when it is applied to logic and reason instead of emotional idiocy.

"IF" it has "Nothing" to do with "life".....why attempt to define when LIFE BEGINS in the decision? Science proves that human life begins at conception when a viable, independent, and separate human DNA is present from that time until DEATH.

If it has nothing to do with life.....why attempt to determine when its (wink, wink) VIABLE, as if human life can be determined to be viable or non-viable....just like the Nazi's determined when they decided that all JEWS where a non viable form of human life not worthy of being protected by Government fiat.

This is priceless and most illogical and non-scientific. On one hand liberalism defines certain unborn animal life as a VIABLE representative of life within that species (The endangered species act, in an UNBORN state of gestation (in the egg). Just try to destroy a Bald Eagle nest of unborn bald eagle infants while in the egg (unborn).

Sad to say.....with HUMAN LIFE....there is no such protection of DNA established HUMAN LIFE before its born...its a personal choice to determine if that life is worthy of being protected by its Mother? Really? What mother, other than an evil mother, would offer up her children at the alter of human secularism?

Again....IF it has NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE....WHY ABORT: the ending/killing of a developing human life....that which has nothing to do with LIFE? If its non-viable at any stage of development.....JUST LEAVE IT ALONE and see what happens....you would not HAVE TO KILL IT.

No one has the authority to redefine SCIENCE. Either that unborn infant is alive or its dead.

Leftists have no logical or reasonable argument against SCIENCE or SOCIAL MORE'S when it comes to the attempt to defend the killing of unborn human children by CHOICE. Either you decide to KILL/ABORT that developing human life and profess that life has no RIGHT TO LIVE as determined by YOU void of any form of DUE PROCESS...in a free society that choice is called MURDER....as you do not get to decide what human life is viable and which one is not.

Then why did the Court allow states to prohibit abortion during the 3rd trimester which is 3 months before birth?

Before Roe each state determined abortion laws and many states already allowed it.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.
 
Back
Top