2024 Presidential Race

#35,052
#35,052
BigOrangeMojo said:
Im skeptical you will see a significant movement of AA vote to the Rs so 2024, like 2020, will come down to suburban voters. Especially suburban women.

If Trump performs as badly there as he did in 2020 with that group, he loses AGAIN.

They dont care about whether Walz is a E8 or E9 or is Kamala black enough. They will vote for you if you stay on the 3 i's. Deviate from that and you lose....
Click to expand...
I think you’re underestimating the yearning that exists among suburban white women to hear more about Abortion from the likes of JD Vance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython and BigOrangeMojo
#35,053
#35,053
85SugarVol said:
I think you’re underestimating the yearning that exists among suburban white women to hear more about Abortion from the likes of JD Vance.
Click to expand...
Yep. Having the right to rip kids limbs off with a pair of tongs with teeth on them, tearing their intestines out, crushing their skulls while the brain matter runs out of their would be mothers vagina is all some people care about. Second trimester abortions (and even beyond) are brutal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, InVOLuntary, Zues1 and 1 other person
#35,055
#35,055
norrislakevol said:
Yep. Having the right to rip kids limbs off with a pair of tongs with teeth on them, tearing their intestines out, crushing their skulls while the brain matter runs out of their would be mothers vagina is all some people care about. Second trimester abortions (and even beyond) are brutal.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are.

And these types of graphic portrayals come from the same place as those that “tell the truth” about what a 5.56 round does to the internal organs of a 5 year old.
 
#35,059
#35,059
VAVol85 said:
CBS’ “policy experts” should not have skipped math class. If a $3000 increase per child leads to a trillion expenditure, that would mean the country has 333 million children, which seems unlikely.
Click to expand...

Tax bills are scored over 10 years so 33.3 million kids, which makes more sense...
 
#35,060
#35,060
headhunter15 said:


If it was a Democrat plan, the media would be in love.
Click to expand...

JD Vance is trying to compensate for his vote against "The Right to IVF Act" in June, which would have protected accessibility and affordability to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services nationwide. That vote he made in June is unpopular with women and he knows it. He desperately wants to be seen as being "pro-pregnancy" and "pro-baby."

www.miragenews.com

J.D. Vance's 'worrisome' Anti-IVF Stance

Former president Donald Trump's vice president pick U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance in June voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would have protected
www.miragenews.com www.miragenews.com
 
#35,061
#35,061
BowlBrother85 said:
JD Vance is trying to compensate for his vote against "The Right to IVF Act" in June, which would have protected accessibility and affordability to in vitro fertilization (IVF) services nationwide. That vote he made in June is unpopular with women and he knows it. He desperately wants to be seen as being "pro-pregnancy" and "pro-baby."

www.miragenews.com

J.D. Vance's 'worrisome' Anti-IVF Stance

Former president Donald Trump's vice president pick U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance in June voted against the Right to IVF Act, which would have protected
www.miragenews.com www.miragenews.com
Click to expand...
IVF practices selective reduction post implant. In other words you can have 6 embryos implanted, if all 6 take you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don’t want 6 babies.
The article fails to mention that little fact.
 
#35,062
#35,062
NurseGoodVol said:
IVF practices selective reduction post implant. In other words you can have 6 embryos implanted, if all 6 take you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don’t want 6 babies.
The article fails to mention that little fact.
Click to expand...
Considering the circumstances normally associated with women who are seeking IVF treatment, and the fact that fetal reduction is often done to increase the chances of a healthy pregnancy, the author of the article probably didn't see the need to address it.

IVF services often provide infertile couples, or just single women (who may be infertile), the opportunity to have a baby, and within that pregnancy there can be a reduction in the number of fetuses to help ensure a healthy pregnancy for both the mother and the unborn child/children.

webmd.com

Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction

If you’re pregnant with three or more fetuses, your chances of complications go up. Here’s why, and what your doctor may advise.
webmd.com webmd.com

It sounds like you are drawing an equivalency between fetal reduction procedures performed during IVF services, with abortions performed only for the purpose of preventing any birth at all from occurring. You are only evaluating fetal reduction as being "you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don't want 6 babies." I find that to be a narrow perspective. The purpose behind fetal reduction can be much more complicated than that. The women who seek IVF treatment want to bring more life into the world. To equate that with abortion is ridiculous.
 
#35,063
#35,063
BowlBrother85 said:
Considering the circumstances normally associated with women who are seeking IVF treatment, and the fact that fetal reduction is often done to increase the chances of a healthy pregnancy, the author of the article probably didn't see the need to address it.

IVF services often provide infertile couples, or just single women (who may be infertile), the opportunity to have a baby, and within that pregnancy there can be a reduction in the number of fetuses to help ensure a healthy pregnancy for both the mother and the unborn child/children.

webmd.com

Multifetal Pregnancy Reduction

If you’re pregnant with three or more fetuses, your chances of complications go up. Here’s why, and what your doctor may advise.
webmd.com webmd.com

It sounds like you are drawing an equivalency between fetal reduction procedures performed during IVF services, with abortions performed only for the purpose of preventing any birth at all from occurring. You are only evaluating fetal reduction as being "you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don't want 6 babies." I find that to be a narrow perspective. The purpose behind fetal reduction can be much more complicated than that. The women who seek IVF treatment want to bring more life into the world. To equate that with abortion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
"you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don't want 6 babies." You find this fact narrow? It’s just a fact that stands in its own. “ bring more life into the world” by eliminating fetuses. It doesn’t matter if it’s complicated in your view, from past experience everything is complicated to you BB. Denoting it may be complicated does not change the basic fact fetuses are being eliminated in utero.
I believe that has another name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#35,064
#35,064
NurseGoodVol said:
"you have the choice of how many you want to eliminate if you don't want 6 babies." You find this fact narrow? It’s just a fact that stands in its own. “ bring more life into the world” by eliminating fetuses. It doesn’t matter if it’s complicated in your view, from past experience everything is complicated to you BB. Denoting it may be complicated does not change the basic fact fetuses are being eliminated in utero.
I believe that has another name.
Click to expand...
Yes .... because the purpose behind the multifetal reduction performed during IVF services, is often to help ensure a healthy pregnancy for both the mother, as well as the unborn child/children. Those fetuses will, in many cases, not be viable. You are only breaking it down in terms of being "if you don't want so many babies."

Your perspective on this is more than narrow. It is far-right zealotry. It's cutting off your nose to spot your face. Otherwise infertile women being able to experience child birth through IVF should only be regarded as a great thing.
 
Last edited:
#35,067
#35,067
Franklin Pierce said:
Well, after what happened to the mostly peaceful protesters at J6, there is scant evidence anyone on the right is planning even something that relatively minor again.
Click to expand...
The attempts by the right to minimize the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 are pathetic. They weren't "mostly peaceful." It was anything but "relatively minor." That is revisionist history. I have posted video after video from that day which shows unprovoked acts of violence being committed against Capitol police officers and security, as well as acts of vandalism. You are not in denial. You are simply dishonest. This is just flat-out lying.

The manner in which Donald Trump and his followers handled his defeat in the 2020 Presidential Election was a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ohhbother
#35,068
#35,068
BowlBrother85 said:
That's not what happened. Walz retired beforehand. You can make the argument that Walz retired with the knowledge that he was about to be deployed .... but still, you are being dishonest with this characterization.
Click to expand...
He quit during a war. Which part is dishonest? That’s what happened. No need to spin or protect him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#35,072
#35,072
85SugarVol said:
I think you’re underestimating the yearning that exists among suburban white women to hear more about Abortion from the likes of JD Vance.
Click to expand...

The real issue here is the media. Trump has been previously face checked for claiming burgers were stacked a mile high.

Kamala Harris claims Trump wants to ban abortion and zero outlets believe actual key issues are worthy of honest discussion. But we must know how high the burgers are
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz, TN-POSSUM, LouderVol and 2 others
#35,074
#35,074
kiddiedoc said:
Annnnnnddddd, your infatuation with her is still creepy. She already told you Trump doesn't need her to hold his hand. After the assassination attempt, I wouldn't want my wife in harm's way, in case something did happen to me.
Click to expand...


Wow, what a horrible excuse. To use that terrible moment as an obvious dodge of the fact his wife knows him .... and loathe his very presence.
 
#35,075
#35,075
BernardKingGOAT said:
Plenty of people are trying to spin it negatively too
Click to expand...

From my experience you normally know of deployments well before getting your actual orders (I believe it was roughly 6 months advance when our unit knew) So he likely knew.

His argument is the official orders had not came through, and it’s a weak/dishonest argument.

The honest argument here would be “running for congress was an opportunity that I couldn’t pass up, so I made the difficult decision to leave my unit”. That’s an argument that would be honest and reasonable. His current claim is neither
 
  • Like
Reactions: dovervolz, hog88, KptVFL and 1 other person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top