Biden--Too Senile to Stand Trial (SC)--But NOT Too Senile to be President?

a reply to: Dandandat3

The RNC haven't been able to do the same thing.

Are you kidding? The RNC is all about persecution. The RNC, proudly, was able to successfully persecute women's reproductive rights to the point of revoking a constitutional right, for the first time in US history. Of course, persecution must be reinforced by prosecution.

Now, the RNC's persecution power is aimed at threatening to revoke marriage equality and demonizing LGBTQ people and their supporters, deporting dreamers, slashing Social Security and Medicare, because cruelty is the point of persecution.

a reply to: Dandandat3

You're onto the start of a good point here.

As a libertarian, both the Democrat and Republican parties piss me off at times. But the Republicans don't have the DOJ, Big Tech, Big Education, 90% of the media, Hollywood, and pretty much every other major institution in the country helping them push their agenda, so they're not nearly the threat to our individual freedoms that the Democrat party is. We're spiraling towards de facto one-party rule.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dandandat3

The RNC haven't been able to do the same thing.

Are you kidding? The RNC is all about persecution. The RNC, proudly, was able to successfully persecute women's reproductive rights to the point of revoking a constitutional right, for the first time in US history.

This, factually, did not happen. There was never a constitutional right to an abortion. You guys really should stop lying about this. It's embarrassing at this point.

I know you will keep lying though. It's all you can do when the facts aren't on your side.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Typical leftist source. "Here's our biased conclusions that coincidentally look very rosy for Democrats. No, you can't see how we arrived at these conclusions, you will just accept it on faith."

LOL

So, you're upset that Georgia didn't make the list, after you tried to use Georgia as an example of how states aren't gerrymandering districts?

Maybe you can find a right-wing source that lists highly rated gerrymandering states, that better meets your needs. Me, I just Googled, "Most gerrymandered states" and link the first link with clear results.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

There was never a constitutional right to an abortion. You guys really should stop lying about this.

Stop gaslighting. It's embarrassing for you. You can't change history.

The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Me, I just Googled, "Most gerrymandered states" and link the first link with clear results.

*with the results you wanted.

Yes, I know, that's exactly what I said. You don't know how to or care to vet information. You just believe anything that makes your cult look good. If it sounds good, to you, it's fact. No proof needed. Cult mentality.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Okay

Maybe you can find a better list, one that doesn't conflict with your bias. Go ahead.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

There was never a constitutional right to an abortion. You guys really should stop lying about this.

Stop gaslighting. It's embarrassing for you. You can't change history.

The Supreme Court on Friday eliminated the constitutional right to obtain an abortion

The extremeness of your simplemindedness is hilarious. "I found a blog post that says what I like so it's fact!"

Meanwhile:

By a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the Mississippi law, and a five-Justice majority more broadly overruled the Court’s prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, determining that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion

.gov source rather than a Democrat blogger

Your source is a blogger. My source is the Supreme Court.

You are factually wrong. There is no constitutional right to an abortion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Okay

Maybe you can find a better list, one that doesn't conflict with your bias. Go ahead.

Conceding your source is trash? They hide their methodology. Yeah, it's trash.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Dude. In 1973 SCOTUS said that there is a constitutional right to abortion. In 2022 SCOTUS revoked that right. You can't change history, or pretend the right never existed, when it did and it was enforced as a protected constitutional right across the nation for 50 years.

But, abortion isn't the point. The point is that the RNC has had and continues to have the power to rule and the power to persecute and prosecute its enemies. They aren't outnumbered by Hollywood, big tech, the DOJ, big education.

Such silliness!
LOL

originally posted by: YourFaceAgain

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Okay

Maybe you can find a better list, one that doesn't conflict with your bias. Go ahead.

Conceding your source is trash? They hide their methodology. Yeah, it's trash.

No. I'm challenging you to find a source that refutes my source.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Dude. In 1973 SCOTUS said that there is a constitutional right to abortion. In 2022 SCOTUS revoked that right.

Nope. The problem here stems from you not knowing how the SCOTUS works.

In 1973, the SCOTUS made an extremely flawed ruling (extremely flawed according to many Democrat, pro-abortion legal analysts over the course of several generations) that tried to concoct a non-existent right out of thin air which was not defined by the Constitution.

The SCOTUS has no such powers. They cannot create rights. (The Constitution doesn't even create rights, but that discussion is miles over your head.) So they did not grant anyone a right that was later taken away. It was as legitimate as me walking up to you and telling you out of thin air that you now owe $1000 fine to your local county courthouse. "as legitimate" in this case means not legitimate at all. If the courthouse later told you had owed no such fine, they didn't remove the fine, the fine never existed because I had no authority to give it to you.

The later SCOTUS ruling merely reversed the unconstitutional (this means illegal) 1973 ruling. No rights were taken away, since no right ever existed.

Now, I know this is not what a few Democrat bloggers and Democrat media personalities have told you to think, but those are the facts of the matter. But you are incapable of believing them because you haven't been told to think this by an authorized Democrat source. So you are welcome to keep up your nonstop partisan lying and feel like you "won" because I have better things to do than debunk the same lies over and over.

No. I'm challenging you to find a source that refutes my source.

I already took down your source. Even calling it a "source" is a misnomer. They made a list up out of thin air. What's it based on? You have no idea. You just believed it because it was the conclusion you wanted. But you don't even realize why that's bad.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

No rights were taken away, since no right ever existed.

LOL
That's like saying that Black slaves always had constitutional rights before the Civil War, because the US Constitution was flawed and was amended to correct the fact that slaves were only 3/5th of a person and couldn't vote.

The constitutional right to an abortion did exist and it was federally protected for 50 years, until that right was revoked.
The 2022 SCOTUS court disagreed with the 1973 SCOTUS court, and it revoked a constitutional right. it didn't change history.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I already took down your source. Even calling it a "source" is a misnomer. They made a list up out of thin air.

Okay. So we're back to where we started, with the same possibility of gerrymandering states affecting who is elected POTUS, just like Colorada exercising its rights over 14th Amendment disqualifications over its own electoral votes.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

No rights were taken away, since no right ever existed.

LOL
That's like saying that Black slaves always had constitutional rights before the Civil War, because the US Constitution was flawed and was amended to correct the fact that slaves were only 3/5th of a person and couldn't vote.

It's not like saying that at all. Omg you don't even know basic history. That issue involved Amendments to the Constitution, because that is the only legal way it can be changed.

The '73 SCOTUS tried to illegally change the constitution without an Amendment. It is not even remotely similar.

This conversation is way too complex for you. You don't even know the most basic facts of history, government, or anything else to even start to logically discuss this.

I support your right to vote but Jesus is it scary that people this ill-informed vote.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Court Ruling restores Fetal Rights!! 😃

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: YourFaceAgain

I already took down your source. Even calling it a "source" is a misnomer. They made a list up out of thin air.

Okay. So we're back to where we started, with the same possibility of gerrymandering states affecting who is elected POTUS, just like Colorada exercising its rights over 14th Amendment disqualifications over its own electoral votes.

No, we're not back to that. You made a claim based on a source that, by its own admission, hides its methodology and cannot be verified.

That's right up your alley, though, apparently.

Now, I know you're gonna continue with your grossly uninformed ramblings about the SCOTUS stealing rights that didn't exist and "challenging" me to find sources for things I never even claimed, but I've got # to do.

Toodles. Keep posting those lies. They will never be true.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👆

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Look, SCOTUS ruled in 1973 that the Constitution guarantees women the right to access reproductive health, and abortion up to fetal viability. in 2022 SCOTUS reversed that decision, thereby revoking a constitutional right that was retained by the people for 50 years.

Trump still brags about doing this, about picking the right judges that would overturn Roe V Wade. So, don't go telling me that the poor RNC is a victim of big Hollywood, Big Tech, Big Education. They're wielding their persecution and prosecution power just fine. Just ask Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney.

a reply to: YourFaceAgain



Did you know that between 1876 and 1937 United States v. Cruikshank was held as precedent?

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) both party overruled it, legally speaking.

But for 61 years the Supreme Court ruled:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments [sic] means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

They ruled the constitution prevented the federal from infringing, but did not actually guarentee the right to bear. Luckily that type of semantic rhetorical interpretation hasn't ever been used to make or overrule any other long held court rulings.

Rulings, and interpretations are what they are. But Abortion stood as a right upheld for almost as many years as right to bear arms was not guaranteed by the Constitution. Historically and constitutionally speaking.