What, being selfish, and not considering all the implications as to voting for someone regarded as the worst president in US history - according to polled historians?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Puts Women Off Sex. Surprise
- Thread starter Secret Chief
- Start date
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Hey Jack, I'm alright.What, being selfish, and not considering all the implications as to voting for someone regarded as the worst president in US history - according to polled historians?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Money, it's a hit. I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off my stack.
I'm not familiar with the details (I live in France) but aren't those laws managed at state level?Abortion rights. Under a completely conservative government, family planning in general is now going to be at risk.
"Thomas, in a concurring opinion to the court’s precedent-breaking decision overturning Roe v. Wade and wiping out constitutional protections for abortion rights, said that he would do away with the doctrine of 'substantive due process' and explicitly called on the court to overrule the watershed civil rights rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges."
Thomas wants the Supreme Court to overturn landmark rulings that legalized contraception, same-sex marriage
In a concurring opinion to the Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the conservative jurist called on the court to overrule a trio of watershed civil rights rulings, writing, "We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents.”www.google.com
"Senate Republicans blocked legislation Wednesday that would enshrine a federal right to access contraception, sinking the Democratic-led measure.
The vote on the Right to Contraception Act was 51-39, falling short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a filibuster and move the bill forward. Republicans said it was unnecessary because the use of birth control is already protected under Supreme Court precedent."
Senate Republicans block bill to protect access to contraception
Democrats expected the GOP to filibuster the legislation and brought it up to make a point to voters ahead of the 2024 election, viewing reproductive rights as a winning issue.
?What, being selfish, and not considering all the implications as to voting for someone regarded as the worst president in US history - according to polled historians?
Purely as to how we see anything affecting our own interests and family perhaps - thus ignoring the many other reasons as to voting for a leader and/or party. Would you vote for example, for someone or party, that might add to the mess that future generations might have to endure, thus making life in the future far worse than at present? And it does seem common to ignore such warnings, even when the best minds we have are telling us this.
BrightShadow
Active Member
They are in mourning! They are not thinking with their brains.
No worries!
Soon the 'period' will be over! Just wait!
Get it?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
"If you compare key economic indicators from Barack Obama’s second term in office to the first three years of Trump’s time (that is, before the pandemic hit), the data show a continuation of trends, not a dramatic shift. It suggests Trump didn’t build something new; rather he inherited a pretty good situation."
Trump says he built a great economy. Numbers tell a different story.
The average quarterly economic growth under Trump, 2.5 percent, was almost exactly what it was under Obama in the second term, 2.4 percent.
www.nbcnews.com
I absolutely agree! Loss of environmental health is a loss of freedom. A completely conservative government concerns me here.
That's a fair assessment about free speech, and I do have some disagreements here, but will save that for other threads.
I saw it in the transfer of federally protected rights transferring to state legislation, particularly abortion. My fear is that other things, like contraception and gay and trans rights, are threatened with a completely conservative government.
Let me see if I get this right. Each state decides it's own abortion laws. Trump said it was going to stay that way. He got elected and people are throwing a tantrum because of laws that he's not going to change anyway? Is there a logic there?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I agree that likely this would not be a practical style of protest, but may be necessary for women concerned about their own bodies.
Conservative men generally appear to care less about a woman's bodily autonomy than liberal men. Many are now outrightly asserting their rights to a woman's body, like Nick Fuentas.
You yourself have stated outright you don't think women are equal to men.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
It's a rich man's world.
anna.
colors your eyes with what's not there
They are in mourning! They are not thinking with their brains.
No worries!
Soon the 'period' will be over! Just wait!
Get it?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Yes. In America, the federal government is there to protect rights. Leaving it up to the states means some states are going to restrict rights. This was seen during the civil war when Southern Democrats supported state rights for slavery. The federal government had a responsibility to ensure human rights were granted over "state's rights" to enslave people.
BrightShadow
Active Member
I think on these two points, we have some common ground.I absolutely agree! Loss of environmental health is a loss of freedom. A completely conservative government concerns me here.
That's a fair assessment about free speech, and I do have some disagreements here, but will save that for other threads.
This is actually an argument put forth by both sides to make their point. It's certainly a matter of perception.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
The logic is: The federal government has a responsibility towards protecting individual rights. Where states restrict these, the Federal government must step in.