Real question, pornstars, and Playboy models, do you believe Trump never had an aborted baby?

[AndroidRage]

It's l legal so it's actually not murder. It's a legal killing of a baby. Its a non issue for me. I don't think Trump should legaliuze cocaine although he's probably done that at some point.

So you are pro choice?

 

[Trotsky]

Yea it's not ok for Dems AT ALL!

Bush starts a war WAR MONGER!!

Obama and Hillary start Arab Spring toppling stable governments all over the middle east paving the way for ISIS and the muslim brotherhood to take over. Lets not forget who created ISIS, that's right Obama and Hillary.

But it's TRUMP THAT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT STARTING A WAR!!! LOL!!

Hillary sold uranium to Russia in a massive deal with major implications, and Trump is in a conspiracy with Russia because he had some beauty competitions of there lol.

Liberals censoring speech everywhere and targeting people in their personal lives for having different opinions, but conservatives are fascist!!!


Get a grip man.

Holy shit

We are now openly saying that failing to provide material support to authoritarian regimes (Arab Spring) is the same as invading, overthrowing the government, and killing 200k people (Iraq); that standard dealings between countries are the same as coordinating with hostile countries to influence our country's democratic process; and that college students protesting is "censoring free speech," when in reality it is an exercise of free speech codified in the very foundation of free speech jurisprudence and when also in reality literally all actual governmental/legal/constitutional attacks on free speech have come from Republicans and conservative Supreme Court Justices, while free speech has been continuously protected and was in fact first established by liberals.


Shame is something clearly do not have.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Are you stupid? It has nothing to do with him. It’s a SC decision.

 

[TheComebackKid]

They'd still be a murderer though, right?

Not if abortion was legal. Then they would just be a killer.

 

[Trotsky]

These are the same folks that thought it was hypocritical for Obama to suggest background checks on assault rifles, but then be seen skeet shooting with a shotgun lol

 

[10mm]

No its not.

He could be the man responsible for overturning roe v Wade, I think questioning whether he has ever had a baby of his aborted is a very important question.

No one is overturning R vs W. Just stirring the shit pot attempting to make people lose their minds and increase turnout.

 

[bufetadanacara]

Really?

So abortion should be an issue between a government, a jack booted thug, and a women, but this is none of my business huh?

Correct, you shouldn't be concerned with other people's abortions.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Correct, you shouldn't be concerned with other people's abortions.

That's fine then.

 

[Squarechoke]

Who Cares. Weird question.

So you've changed your views from thinking that pro-choice people should be killed?

 

[tkotom]

These are the same folks that thought it was hypocritical for Obama to suggest background checks on assault rifles, but then be seen skeet shooting with a shotgun lol

You’re a self proclaimed communist who loves living and earning money in a capitalist society.

You’d be one iq point away from forced sterilisation in your ideal homeland.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

"Literal authoritarian desires" You mean to say he has said mean words. Show me where Trump has used the power of government to go after his political opponents. Once again you don't understand the difference between a twitter post and actually using government power to go after people.

Obama used the IRS to suppress conservative activists and to go after businesses.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...vative-groups-over-irs-scrutiny-idUSKBN1CV1TY

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/5603...or-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/breitbart-news-says-irs-targeting-company/

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/irs-suspicion-widens-gop-donors-question-audits/story?id=19184358

He also used Obamacare mandates to go after Catholic charities.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/30/poli...or-contraception-mandate-obamacare/index.html

Hillary also made it clear that anyone who supports the RFA just wants an "excuse to discriminate", and I must presume she will use the power of government to go after them. In other words if you don't want to bow your knee to the gay agenda you will pay a price. At the very least you can expect left wing activists to get you fired or shut down your business and bankrupt you. At the very most you should expect any government agency possible to make your life impossible.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.0e0d0ee9e70f

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/hillary-clinton-opposes-religious-liberty/

So I must presume that she is a threat that must be stopped.

They're coming for us!

Spoiler

 

[VivaRevolution]

No one is overturning R vs W. Just stirring the shit pot attempting to make people lose their minds and increase turnout.

Maybe, but it sure as hell isn't an absurd idea. The Republican party has certainly been promising to do this very thing for decades now.

 

[Trotsky]

You’re a self proclaimed communist who loves living and earning money in a capitalist society.

You’d be one iq point away from forced sterilisation in your ideal homeland.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I honestly don't understand why you post here. Is it just to spout off ignorantly and insult people? I mean...I get the fun of insulting people, but the Sports Bar is great for that too. Probably much better in fact.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Because I know you care about clarity and careful use of language, I would remind you that "Evangelicals" is a really, really spurious term, and its popular meaning has changed pretty drastically over time.

Sure, but in this case, it's self-applied, and I'd say what I said about people who self-apply the term.

 

[tkotom]

You don't know what you're talking about.

I honestly don't understand why you post here. Is it just to spout off ignorantly and insult people? I mean...I get the fun of insulting people, but the Sports Bar is great for that too. Probably much better in fact.

Not sure if you’re deranged but you insulted me first. And for no reason because I was right. It isn’t a contentious issue. SC decisions have nothing to do with Trump.

 

[Trotsky]

No one is overturning R vs W. Just stirring the shit pot attempting to make people lose their minds and increase turnout.

Why do people say this? Do you really think Republicans running on this issue have been so brazenly lying?

I would urge you to review the holding in Roe and the history of the Justices. If Roe v. Wade appears before the Supreme Court, presuming Kavanaugh is approved, there will unquestionably be 2 votes to overturn (Thomas, Alito), 2 votes that are very likely (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh), and 1 vote that is at best more likely than not (Roberts).

 

[Trotsky]

Not sure if you’re deranged but you insulted me first. And for no reason because I was right. It isn’t a contentious issue. SC decisions have nothing to do with Trump.

The president appoints Justices. His policy preferences dictate the Justices he picks. He has publicly touted how his picks will be pro-2nd and pro-life.

For a president to appoint a Justice on the express basis (or even with the express understanding) that the Justice will make abortion unavailable on moral bases, when that president has himself been party to an abortion - that would be scandalous, and I'm not sure how you would argue otherwise. It would be the president politicizing the court to revoke a right that he has taken advantage of.

 

[tkotom]

The president appoints Justices. His policy preferences dictate the Justices he picks. He has publicly touted how his picks will be pro-2nd and pro-life.

For a president to appoint a Justice on the express basis (or even with the express understanding) that the Justice will make abortion unavailable on moral bases, when that president has himself been party to an abortion - that would be scandalous, and I'm not sure how you would argue otherwise. It would be the president politicizing the court to revoke a right that he has taken advantage of.

You cannot ever prove that. It’s just complete nonsense.

You could make the exact same argument about Obama. Garbage.

 

[Trotsky]

Sure, but in this case, it's self-applied, and I'd say what I said about people who self-apply the term.

It wasn't so long ago that Evangelicals was largely meant to refer to activist sects that didn't belong to major denominations. Now it's basically synonymous with Protestants.

Not sure why Baptists weren't explicitly alienated for analysis rather than all Protestants. The distance between a Methodist and a Baptist is considerable.

 

[Trotsky]

You cannot ever prove that. It’s just complete nonsense.

What? I can't prove what?

You could make the exact same argument about Obama. Garbage.

....Yeah, if Obama had a felony record and a history of mental health problems, yet owned a rocket launcher, that would be a basis on which to criticize him.

Otherwise, I don't know what "exact same argument about Obama" you could be talking about? What rights did his jurists affect and did he campaign on that made him hypocritical?