Elections Project 2025 major right wing groups plan on creating a new super super pack

[Loiosh]

Have they passed legislation? What have they specifically done as an institution?

Self-correct? It’s up to the states to govern themselves. California can have different laws than Texas.

Their role isn't to pass legislation, it's to recommend it. Does Mandate for Leadership ring a bell? That was the prime driver for decades of wealth disparity in America.

OK, so you support the current abortion laws. Most people don't.

 

[Barteh]

I know nothing about Canada but I hate somethings about Canada. Literally contradict yourself within a sentence.

Only if you take everything he says literally would have have a problem with that statement.

 

[HereticBD]

No apology for implying I was lying without even checking? No acknowledgment that I was right? POS move, Loiosh.

Get a load of this psycho. LOL

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh. Passive aggressive again.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm looking for a good study because I'm wondering what are the facts because it's a great subject.

You're making a claim, you saw evidence that it was false, and you're insisting on standing behind it because it's what you want to believe.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Take your meds, Hack. Your true colors are showing.

You think it's OK to falsely accuse people of lying? You seem generally very supportive of false accusations as a propaganda tool.

 

[mkess101]

Get a load of this psycho. LOL

He's basically Howard Hughes surrounded by jars of piss at this point.

 

[Barteh]

Have they passed legislation? What have they specifically done as an institution?

Self-correct? It’s up to the states to govern themselves. California can have different laws than Texas.

It's up to the states to govern themselves in some capacity but there's still some federal laws. You could make a pretty good argument for regulation abortion on a federal level.

Not that it's realistic to expect either side to come together on it and make a bipartisan law though.

 

[koquerelle]

You're making a claim, you saw evidence that it was false, and you're insisting on standing behind it because it's what you want to believe.

I made one claim: the article doesn't provide much solid info. Why would you take this as an insult?

I didn't insist on anything. I'm still wondering what the facts are. You don't know where I stand, but you act like you do and I don't know why.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I made one claim: the article doesn't provide much solid info. Why would you take this as an insult?

You're standing behind the false claim that Nixon won among radio listeners even after seeing it refuted.

I didn't insist on anything. I'm still wondering what the facts are. You don't know where I stand, but you act like you do and I don't know why.

I can read. Stand behind your words, and admit when you make a mistake.

 

[koquerelle]

You think it's OK to falsely accuse people of lying? You seem generally very supportive of false accusations as a propaganda tool.

Provide receipts, liar.

 

[Loiosh]

No apology for implying I was lying without even checking? No acknowledgment that I was right? POS move, Loiosh.

I literally said I wasn't calling you a liar and just needed to see the context.

I have repeatedly begged you to just ignore these guys and just stick to the issues instead of letting them drag you down into the mud.

I looked at your links and yes, you were right. His support for the abortion ban agenda in this thread confirms how he feels about women. I didn't bother mentioning it because you told me to fuck off and it took me off guard.

 

[Barteh]

You're standing behind the false claim that Nixon won among radio listeners even after seeing it refuted.

I can read. Stand behind your words, and admit when you make a mistake.

Pretty rich coming from this guy lol. When you call him out on his obvious mistakes he just puts you on ignore so he can continue bullshitting about his fantasies.

 

[HereticBD]

OK, so you support the current abortion laws. Most people don't.

You should be happy that Roe was overturned, and that some Republicans have decided to go ham with it. If their laws are unpopular(which they seem to be), they'll be replaced. You'll likely get more Democrats, or at least moderate Republicans in places of power in the long run, over an issue that before Roe was overturned, Republicans really couldn't expose their extreme intentions because they literally couldn't do it. Now they can, and it doesn't seem like it's doing them any favors.

 

[koquerelle]

You're standing behind the false claim that Nixon won among radio listeners even after seeing it refuted.

I can read. Stand behind your words, and admit when you make a mistake.

Show me where I did that. Let's bet you can't because it never happened. You made that in your head and you're too prideful to admit so. Get a grip.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Provide receipts, liar.

You've done it with Biden and Clinton, among others. You're doing it now, defending Loiosh's false accusation. Provide a receipt of me ever lying.

I literally said I wasn't calling you a liar and just needed to see the context.

I have repeatedly begged you to just ignore these guys and just stick to the issues instead of letting them drag you down into the mud.

I looked at your links and yes, you were right. His support for the abortion ban agenda in this thread confirms how he feels about women. I didn't bother mentioning it because you told me to fuck off and it took me off guard.

You strongly implied it. You could have just looked it up (that's what I did to back up my claim--searched for his name plus suffrage). It's one thing to say, "damn, I didn't realize that." And of course, I welcome any fact-checking. But to just imply that I'd make something like that up is low.

 

[Barteh]

You should be happy that Roe was overturned, and that some Republicans have decided to go ham with it. If their laws are unpopular(which they seem to be), they'll be replaced. You'll likely get more Democrats, or at least moderate Republicans in places of power in the long run, over an issue that before Roe was overturned, Republicans really couldn't expose their extreme intentions because they literally couldn't do it. Now they can, and it doesn't seem like it's doing them any favors.

This is why if republicans would try to push a federal abortion law through congress that has somewhat reasonable limits (12-16 weeks or so) and reasonable exceptions (the mother's help, baby not viable etc.) then the democrats would just block it so they can keep abortion as a relevant issue during all of the upcoming election cycles.

 

[Loiosh]

You should be happy that Roe was overturned, and that some Republicans have decided to go ham with it. If their laws are unpopular(which they seem to be), they'll be replaced. You'll likely get more Democrats, or at least moderate Republicans in places of power in the long run, over an issue that before Roe was overturned, Republicans really couldn't expose their extreme intentions because they literally couldn't do it. Now they can, and it doesn't seem like it's doing them any favors.

I agree completely in the long term, and it was probably the wall that the "red wave" crashed into.

I also doubt that the majority of Republican lawmakers wanted these extreme laws.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Show me where I did that. Let's bet you can't because it never happened. You made that in your head and you're too prideful to admit so. Get a grip.

You alluded to the myth. I provided evidence that the myth was false. Your response was to brush it off with no reason given. I have no idea what you get out of this stuff. Just taking out your rage at the world, I guess.

 

[koquerelle]

You've done it with Biden and Clinton, among others. You're doing it now, defending Loiosh's false accusation. Provide a receipt of me ever lying.

You strongly implied it. You could have just looked it up (that's what I did to back up my claim--searched for his name plus suffrage). It's one thing to say, "damn, I didn't realize that." And of course, I welcome any fact-checking. But to just say imply that I'd make something like that up is low.

1- No receipts there. I didn't defend @Loiosh. I thought the exchange was funny. I honestly don't know who's right.

2- "You strongly implied it." Once again. Show me where. It should be easy.

3- Where did I imply you made something up. I only said the article wasn't giving me the best arguments. How do we go from that to me saying you made something up? Please explain it to me.

 

[Loiosh]

You strongly implied it. You could have just looked it up (that's what I did to back up my claim--searched for his name plus suffrage). It's one thing to say, "damn, I didn't realize that." And of course, I welcome any fact-checking. But to just imply that I'd make something like that up is low.

That's all in your mind. I've been an ardent supporter of yours for years, not that you ever asked for or needed my help.

Anyways, you told me to fuck off so I will. Please do the same.