It's official - the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

[Keith Wilson]

I could agree with you if not for the fact that I have answered that question on at least two occasions and I know others have as well.

You have indeed, and several others. Bobbys and woodpile have never even come close to a response, and that needs to be made very, very obvious; I think we need to know if we have enemies of American democracy among us here. I'm going to keep asking him until he answers, or goes away, or gets banned, or until Scot asks me to stop.

[Tom Montgomery]

^
The point is Bobby’s refuses to do so. Despite appearing here all the time to talk smack.And he’s not shy about quizzing others.

[Boatbum]

You have indeed, and several others. Bobbys and woodpile have never even come close to a response, and that needs to be made very, very obvious; I think we need to know if we have enemies of American democracy among us here. I'm going to keep asking him until he answers, or goes away, or gets banned, or until Scot asks me to stop.

They are fair questions to ask, I just get tired of seeing it here.

[TomF]

They are fair questions to ask, I just get tired of seeing it here.

The hope is that the people who refuse to answer them get tired of seeing it too. And tired of not really being engaged 'till they do.

So far, no great strides towards seeking that positive reinforcement.

[George Jung]

And of course...... even if/though YOU have answered - the others* have steadfastly refused. And when you step up to defend them, the result is an addition to 'the group'.

* you know who.

[Joe (SoCal)]

I could agree with you if not for the fact that I have answered that question on at least two occasions and I know others have as well.

Others EXCEPT Bobbys, hence he continues to be asked

[RichW]

We've heard a lot of commentary in the press regarding the SCOTUS precedence breaking decision. And how the right wing super majority was flexing its muscles. Seems to me this is just an example of:
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

There are no checks and balances on the SCOTUS and the super majority knows it. They KNOW that they can do whatever they want, so they will do it. There is nothing to stop them.

[Keith Wilson]

They are fair questions to ask, I just get tired of seeing it here.

So do I. I would prefer Bobbys would answer them honestly. My suspicion is that if he were to do that, he'd get more criticism than he's willing to put up with.

[JimD]

Who likes poutine?

[David G]

[Too Little Time]

Hey Bobbys! Show us that 'Clown Boy' isn't accurate; answer the questions!
1. Did Mr Biden legitimately win the 2020 presidential election? If not, why not?
2. What do you think of the attempt to interfere by force with the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021?

Not being Bobbys, I will answer for myself.

Your questions are of the "Do you still beat your wife?" category.

You are personally unable to show that the 2020 election was legitimate. In fact, for decades there have been voting rights issues. The Democrats have been vocal about that, perhaps you will admit that the election was not legitimate. But then your party won.

Considering the economic inequality in the US, I would not have opposed the poor rising up and starting a revolution on that date. Regardless of who started the revolution, perhaps a side representing the interests of the poor would have prevailed. But there is always next time.

I expect there will be more divisions in the US. I hope something good comes from it.

[David G]

Meanwhile --


Dozens of elected prosecutors say they will refuse to prosecute abortion care


Dozens of elected prosecutors said Friday they would refuse to prosecute those seeking, assisting or providing abortions after the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion.

Prosecutors from 29 states, territories and Washington, D.C., signed a joint statement that included signatories from states like Mississippi, Missouri and Wisconsin that have banned or are poised to ban abortion services following the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

“Not all of us agree on a personal or moral level on the issue of abortion,” said the statement signed by 84 prosecutors, a group that included district attorneys and state attorneys general. “But we stand together in our firm belief that prosecutors have a responsibility to refrain from using limited criminal legal system resources to criminalize personal medical decisions. As such, we decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalize reproductive health decisions and commit to exercise our well-settled discretion and refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide, or support abortions.”

The prosecutors said enforcing abortion bans would also "hinder our ability to hold perpetrators accountable, take resources away from the enforcement of serious crime, and inevitably lead to the retraumatization and criminalization of victims of sexual violence."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...care-rcna35305

[David G]

The hope is that the people who refuse to answer them get tired of seeing it too. And tired of not really being engaged 'till they do.

So far, no great strides towards seeking that positive reinforcement.

So, those who have answered might want to encourage their allies who have so far refused to to be forthright in their positions and to defend their positions honestly.

[Canoeyawl]

You are personally unable to show that the 2020 election was legitimate.

Key-riced...

We only have to note who is the president

[David G]

Others EXCEPT Bobbys, hence he continues to be asked

BECAUSE ------

[George Jung]

Not being Bobbys, I will answer for myself.

Your questions are of the "Do you still beat your wife?" category.

You are personally unable to show that the 2020 election was legitimate. In fact, for decades there have been voting rights issues. The Democrats have been vocal about that, perhaps you will admit that the election was not legitimate. But then your party won.

Considering the economic inequality in the US, I would not have opposed the poor rising up and starting a revolution on that date. Regardless of who started the revolution, perhaps a side representing the interests of the poor would have prevailed. But there is always next time.

I expect there will be more divisions in the US. I hope something good comes from it.

Wow. Those are some remarkably deficient reasoning skills, Too.

[David G]

Wow. Those are some remarkably deficient reasoning skills, Too.

Such has always been the case. And the reason he's on my Ignore List. More noise than signal. On the occasions he gets something right... his methodology is still of the 'blind squirrel' variety.

[Too Little Time]

Wow. Those are some remarkably deficient reasoning skills, Too.

I thought the gerrymandering that both parties do, and the legal hurdles - put in place by the 2 parties, of a third party candidate, were well known and supported my position of illegitimate elections. But your comments do nothing to show the legitimacy of elections. Why don't you try to show what is asked: provide proof that the elections were legitimate.

Just so you don't feel I am moving the goal later: I would further argue that those who are not members of political party's have essentially no choice in who they vote for. And thus have no representation. I would also argue that most government is by and for rich white men - like me.

So, support a claim that we should believe that elections are legitimate. I am sure you can do better than your previous attempt.

[TomF]

The Jan6 committee has had witness after witness, Trump appointees or aides to people up to the Vice Presidential level, including Bill Barr, Trump's Attorney General during the period when the search for election fraud was peaking, give sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury, that there was no evidence whatsoever of fraud at a level to change the results of the 2020 Presidential election, in any of the states in question.

Trump's people said that. After looking for fraud, and in Barr's case, defying the decades old protocols of the Department of Justice to do so, in the hope of finding something to support Trump's claims.

THEY swore that the election was sound. THEY swore that they heard theory after theory from Trump's advisors or Trump himself, and frankly ran them to ground in the interest of finding evidence to support the claims. Trump's last acting Attorney General testified to that last Thursday. Alongside one of his deputies, and a ranking member in the Office of Legal Counsel.

All of these people are rock-ribbed Republicans. The Arizona Speaker of the House, who was asked to lie and claim that there was massive fraud in Arizona refused, yet later confirmed that despite this, he'd vote again for Trump next time if Trump's the candidate. The Georgia Sec of State essentially testified to the same, and has similarly said that he's so deep in Team Red that he'd also vote Trump again next time, even knowing that Trump's lies have led to his family receiving death threats, and his widowed daughter-in-law having her house broken into, in retribution for Raffensberger himself testifying that there was no massive fraud in Georgia.

TLT, what the hell else do you want? When people who are so loyal to Trump that they'll vote for him again, despite death threats to themselves and their families for testifying that in their professional view, and to their personal deep regret, Trump lost.

No. In the circumstances, the burden of proof is on the other side. Prove that all these people, these fervently partisan Republicans, are wilfully and inexplicably lying. To achieve a political result they detest, and worked very hard to try to prevent.

It's not up to Dems to prove the 2020 election was sound anymore. When 60+ lawsuits have dismissed the best claims the Trumpists could bring. Courts in nany cases, presided over by judges Trump nominated.

And when all these high-ranking Republican witnesses who had served Trump's administration in both political and Senate confirmed roles have testified that the claimed fraud is bogus.

It's your turn, TLT. If you think there's any reason to believe there's evidence of massive fraud which deprived Trump of a fair win, bring it. And explain why all these Trumpists who testified are lying. Give us their motivation for not simply remaining silent, as they actually have for 18 months.

[Tom Montgomery]

So, support a claim that we should believe that elections are legitimate. I am sure you can do better than your previous attempt.

You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know…

[Too Little Time]

TLT, what the hell else do you want?

It's not up to Dems to prove the 2020 election was sound anymore. When 60+ lawsuits have dismissed the best claims the Trumpists could bring. Courts in nany cases, presided over by judges Trump nominated.

And when all these high-ranking Republican witnesses who had served Trump's administration in both political and Senate confirmed roles have testified that the claimed fraud is bogus.

It's your turn, TLT. If you think there's any reason to believe there's evidence of massive fraud which deprived Trump of a fair win, bring it. And explain why all these Trumpists who testified are lying. Give us their motivation for not simply remaining silent, as they actually have for 18 months.

You are concentrating on the ballot box. I think you are correct. There was no fraud there.

I am looking well before the ballot box. For the most part, have 2 political parties that together fail to serve the majority of the population. That was intentional on the part of both parties.

The concentration on the actual election is an attempt to distract from the actual fraud. As I wrote gerrymandering by both parties made the election as well as previous elections illegitimate.

[Osborne Russell]

You are concentrating on the ballot box. I think you are correct. There was no fraud there.

I am looking well before the ballot box. For the most part, have 2 political parties that together fail to serve the majority of the population.

A politician can be elected in a perfect election and nevertheless fail to serve, and the other way around. Fraudulent election, perfect service. Because the service, good or bad, comes after the election. Binary. There is no connection.

[Tom Montgomery]

The concentration on the actual election is an attempt to distract from the actual fraud. As I wrote gerrymandering by both parties made the election as well as previous elections illegitimate.

Congressman Jim Jordan feels your pain.

[Garret]

Gerrymandering is a very real problem. Yes both parties have done it, but modern day Reps have taken it to an art form - with the support of Rep judges.

However, it is normally considered a separate topic from voter fraud - though it certainly shapes who can get elected.

[David W Pratt]

While I agree that Gerymandering is popular in both parties, I am puzzled by the makeup of the House and Senate. Since there are more Democrats, one would expect the Senate to be majority Democrat. The House, whose districts are susceptible to Gerrymandering, one would expect to be majority Republican.

[skuthorp]

I thought the gerrymandering that both parties do, and the legal hurdles - put in place by the 2 parties, of a third party candidate, were well known and supported my position of illegitimate elections. But your comments do nothing to show the legitimacy of elections. Why don't you try to show what is asked: provide proof that the elections were legitimate.

Just so you don't feel I am moving the goal later: I would further argue that those who are not members of political party's have essentially no choice in who they vote for. And thus have no representation. I would also argue that most government is by and for rich white men - like me.

So, support a claim that we should believe that elections are legitimate. I am sure you can do better than your previous attempt.

I'm afraid, given what I know about gerrymandered districts, voting restrictions, just the matter of voting being on a working day restricts opportunity, I have to support TLT on this though it goes against my instincts. Then there's homelessness, poverty, registration if you do not have an address, lack of incentive and the fact that different states have different rules, changeable at will for a Federal election? A system designed to be gamed, to be corrupted whatever it's historical reasons.

[TomF]

Gerrymandering is a serious issue in races with districts ... but doesn't affect Senate races, nor the Presidential race. While I agree that there's what I'd consider criminal acts of voter suppression which affect those races, too often those practices are codified into law by (yes, gerrymandered) state legislatures.

[WI-Tom]

While I agree that Gerymandering is popular in both parties, I am puzzled by the makeup of the House and Senate. Since there are more Democrats, one would expect the Senate to be majority Democrat. The House, whose districts are susceptible to Gerrymandering, one would expect to be majority Republican.

You're ignoring the Senate's tendency to over-represent low population red states--Wyoming has just as many senators as California or New York, for example. So it makes perfect sense. It's not "x # of people get a senator" but "every state gets 2."

Tom

[WI-Tom]

I'm afraid, given what I know about gerrymandered districts, voting restrictions, just the matter of voting being on a working day restricts opportunity, I have to support TLT on this though it goes against my instincts. Then there's homelessness, poverty, registration if you do not have an address, lack of incentive and the fact that different states have different rules, changeable at will for a Federal election? A system designed to be gamed, to be corrupted whatever it's historical reasons.

Our election laws and systems may be bad, and could certainly be made more democratic with reforms--ranked choice voting, perhaps, and public funding, and a federal holiday for election day--but that's different from fraud, which is a flouting of the law as it exists.

Tom

[Boatbum]

Not being Bobbys, I will answer for myself.

Your questions are of the "Do you still beat your wife?" category.

You are personally unable to show that the 2020 election was legitimate. In fact, for decades there have been voting rights issues. The Democrats have been vocal about that, perhaps you will admit that the election was not legitimate. But then your party won.

Considering the economic inequality in the US, I would not have opposed the poor rising up and starting a revolution on that date. Regardless of who started the revolution, perhaps a side representing the interests of the poor would have prevailed. But there is always next time.

I expect there will be more divisions in the US. I hope something good comes from it.

Hi TLT.

Not a Biden or a Trump fan. Neither represents their party very well. But before the election it was obvious to me that Biden would have difficulty being a competent and mentally sound leader. Trump is a big blowhard and I cringe every time he speaks. I had to vote for one of them so I chose Trump. However, it is not helpful to persist with the "Biden stole the election" mantra. There is no clear smoking gun that points to a stolen election. For sure there were some voting irregularities in a few districts, but not nearly enough that it could hand the election to Biden even if all the irregularities worked in Biden's favor, and some of them actually favored Trump. Please, for your sake and for the sake of actual conversation, move on from it. I know it stings for you, but dwelling in the past is unproductive.

Yours,
Mr. Bum

[WI-Tom]

Hi TLT.

Not a Biden or a Trump fan. Neither represents their party very well. But before the election it was obvious to me that Biden would have difficulty being a competent and mentally sound leader. Trump is a big blowhard and I cringe every time he speaks. I had to vote for one of them so I chose Trump.

Are you seriously making the case that Trump is demonstrably more mentally sound, and/or more competent, than Biden? Not much credibility to that claim, I'm afraid. Not at all. And I'm no Biden fan either.

Tom

[David G]

Are you seriously making the case that Trump is demonstrably more mentally sound, and/or more competent, than Biden? Not much credibility to that claim, I'm afraid. Not at all. And I'm no Biden fan either.

Tom

Boatbum is quite susceptible to Motivated Reasoning, while trying always to appear 'reasonable'. It makes for some odd results...

[George Jung]

The far RWW's have been promoting the meme that President Biden is demented, hoping that by repetition it will gain traction. And among their truth believers, it is - just encountered a (now former) pt ranting about just that. Made a referral to a like-minded practitioner.

Life is too short to listen to that drivel.

[Boatbum]

Are you seriously making the case that Trump is demonstrably more mentally sound, and/or more competent, than Biden? Not much credibility to that claim, I'm afraid. Not at all. And I'm no Biden fan either.

Tom

What I am saying is that of the two, recognizing that neither was very good, Trump was the better choice.

[Boatbum]

Boatbum is quite susceptible to Motivated Reasoning, while trying always to appear 'reasonable'. It makes for some odd results...

Yup Motivated reasoning. Me and 56% of the population!

An increasing number of Americans are saying President Joe Biden is not “mentally sharp”, according to a new poll by the US-based Pew Research Centre.

The survey also found Biden’s poll ratings plummeting, showing that 56 percent of respondents said that President Biden’s mental faculties are “not at all well” or “not too well.”

In contrast, just 43 percent of respondents believed that the phrase “mentally sharp” described him either “very well” or “fairly well.”