GDT Thread! It’s here - ELECTION “SEASON” 2022 will conclude in 2023

[wnyguy]

With the economy in the state it's in the R's should have curb stomped the D's last night but it just didn't happen. It kinda feels like the Bills getting beat by the Jets or something.

[boyst]

1 minute ago, wnyguy said:

With the economy in the state it's in the R's should have curb stomped the D's last night but it just didn't happen. It kinda feels like the Bills getting beat by the Jets or something.

The Dems control the narrative and that's all that matters. In 12-15 years the GOP will be gone whether phased out and destroyed or banned outright 

[Chef Jim]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The thing we often forget is that the states are not making election calls right now. They won't until all of the counting is done, and in some cases, they'll do audits and/or recounts as well, before certifying the election.

 

What we are currently seeing is media outlets making projections based on the election data. I do not know how they should calculate potential outstanding ballots in heavy mail-in ballot states. That level of knowledge and math is beyond me. 

 

At this point, best bet is to just wait and see.

 

Also, (I realized I didn't actually answer your question) I think they should count them ahead of time. The states that do that don't release any results until the end of Election Day anyway since that could impact the vote. But when they do release the results, they can include everything that came in before election day.

Yes but if they count ahead the tallies could be leaked ahead of time. I think waiting is best. It’s just goes counter to my impatience and ADD.  LOL

[BillStime]

5 minutes ago, boyst said:

What is hilarious is you're too stupid to understand that this is what most people against Roe V Wade wanted to happen. States to decide their rights. 

 

Funny, when it's convenient people want states rights.

 

We are so ***** as a country but please don't reply. I won't waste my time interacting with you. Just pointing out how the many people saw it.

 

Was it worth it?

 

[muppy]

peeking back into this thread this morning. I saw this tweet on my feed. Wow. It's a great line. What I think in my heart of hearts is that people are voting on litmus test issues like abortion vs the Red/Trump endorsed candidates. the donald still has his proponents of course.  But from what Im reading yesterdays election was a surprise to Republican pundits  overall. The youth vote keeping democrats afloat?

 

carry on everyone. Peace Out. muppy

 

 

[B-Man]

Small victories.

 

 

[SCBills]

6 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Was it worth it?

 

Would Oz have beaten Fetterman without Roe?

 

Would Bolduc have beaten Hassan without Roe?

 

My guess is that Dems take both of those races regardless. 
 

I do think Whitmer staved off Dixon due to the abortion measure on the ballot and Roe decision. 

[B-Man]

9 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Was it worth it?

 

 

LOL.

 

That has long been answered.

 

 

On 11/7/2022 at 5:36 PM, B-Man said:

Absolutely Dobbs Was Worth It

BY: DAVID HARSANYI

 

Not everything is about short-term partisan gain.

 

You might also cheer because if someone had told you ten, or even five, years ago that Roe v. Wade would be overturned, you wouldn’t have believed them. Roe has been treated as a sacred text for over 50 years, not only by the press but by most of our institutions. The “right” to terminate life for convenience’s sake had been irrecoverably tethered to feminism and progress. For millions, it probably remains the only SCOTUS decision they can name. And once the left procures a new “right,” it rarely relinquishes it. The prospect of there being six justices willing to uphold the Constitution in the face of this immense pressure was improbable, to say the least.

 

So, yes, cheer.

 

And, surely, once Roe was overturned, there would be a tumultuous political upheaval with a massive price tag? Even if we accept everything we’re hearing about the political fallout over Dobbs, the blowback is quite underwhelming. If a two-point swing in the presidential approval rating during a midterm election is the price for overturning Roe, then it was maybe the greatest bargain in history. The consequences of Dobbs will dwarf that of, say, Obamacare — which cost Democrats the Senate, House, and over a thousand seats in lower races. Indeed, most Dems didn’t wring their hands and regret the vote.

 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/09/12/hell-yes-dobbs-was-worth-it/

 

.

 

More at the link:

 

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Was it worth it?

 

Well I agree with Boyst that it should be up to the states.  Here’s my question.  Should a state’s taxpayers be required to pay for abortions (procedures, travel and lodging) for those who are non-residents of the state? 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 minute ago, Chef Jim said:

Well I agree with Boyst that it should be up to the states.  Here’s my question.  Should a state’s taxpayers be required to pay for abortions (procedures, travel and lodging) for those who are non-residents of the state? 

Also a state decision. I’m sure California supports abortion tourism right? Didn’t they codify that? 

[boyst]

22 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Was it worth it?

 

Yes. It's not a game. That's what you don't get. It's democracy. People voted for their own rights for their state. That's what we wanted.  

 

Do I need speak more slowly?  People voting for their own rights is what we, the conservatives, generally want.

 

As far as the right to life angle and the rights of the "unborn" that's not the pursuit of my statements. 

12 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well I agree with Boyst that it should be up to the states.  Here’s my question.  Should a state’s taxpayers be required to pay for abortions (procedures, travel and lodging) for those who are non-residents of the state? 

That's what is unfortunately happening. It's being conflated. The states rights choice being involved with state sponsored genocide are not equal.

 

I cannot imagine a proper SCOTUS or lesser court endorsing the choice to use state funds to support out of state travel. 

[TH3]

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

Well I agree with Boyst that it should be up to the states.  Here’s my question.  Should a state’s taxpayers be required to pay for abortions (procedures, travel and lodging) for those who are non-residents of the state? 

"Up to the states" but not up to a woman and her doctor says everything you need to know about this issue

4 minutes ago, boyst said:

Yes. It's not a game. That's what you don't get. It's democracy. People voted for their own rights for their state. That's what we wanted.  

 

Do I need speak more slowly?  People voting for their own rights is what we, the conservatives, generally want.

 

As far as the right to life angle and the rights of the "unborn" that's not the pursuit of my statements. 

If its "what they wanted" put it up a referendum and see what happens...don't convulate gerrymandered male dominated legislatures with the will of the people

[BillStime]

Just now, TH3 said:

"Up to the states" but not up to a woman and her doctor says everything you need to know about this issue

BINGO

 

And this will be on the ballot in 2024 - I don’t think it was worth it for the cult.

[Westside]

1 minute ago, TH3 said:

"Up to the states" but not up to a woman and her doctor says everything you need to know about this issue

The unborn baby deserves rights. If it was a rape or the mothers life is in danger, then yeah. I can understand that. But if it’s used as a contraceptive then no. I don’t agree with that. 
 

It’s pretty simple 

[boyst]

7 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Also a state decision. I’m sure California supports abortion tourism right? Didn’t they codify that? 

In this case California can make this law. IMO legally. 

 

3 minutes ago, TH3 said:

"Up to the states" but not up to a woman and her doctor says everything you need to know about this issue

If its "what they wanted" put it up a referendum and see what happens...don't convulate gerrymandered male dominated legislatures with the will of the people

Uh.  Up to the voters of the state is what is meant by up to the state. You're smart enough to know this yet dumb enough to post this. The problem is there are people here dumb enough to believe that the state > people. 

 

Jesus Christ our country should be nuked. 

 

This site is a dumpster fire with you and the other 3 trolls. Y'all should love be gone. You make this place worse for everyone involved. 

[Warcodered]

Just now, Westside said:

The unborn baby deserves rights. If it was a rape or the mothers life is in danger, then yeah. I can understand that. But if it’s used as a contraceptive then no. I don’t agree with that. 
 

It’s pretty simple 

This feels kind of contradictory, maybe it makes you feel better about it I guess. Generally if we're trying to figure out what the law should be, kind of need to keep feelings and religion out of it and scientifically define when you assign personhood to someone and yes include medical exemptions.

[TH3]

1 minute ago, Westside said:

The unborn baby deserves rights. If it was a rape or the mothers life is in danger, then yeah. I can understand that. But if it’s used as a contraceptive then no. I don’t agree with that. 
 

It’s pretty simple 

Then don't get one....The simple fact is  - people like you - especially men -  Sit on their high horses....but you know what? When your 16 year old  daughter gets pregnant...well all of a sudden its ok to make an exception...You know people who have gotten abortions, people in your family have gotten abortions, people in your church have gotten abortions...you just don't know about it. 

 

Maybe if conservatives world work to eliminate the reasons for abortions - lack of birth control, lack of sex ed, lack of accessible day care...they would not seem so hollow....

 

Herschel still gotta chnace huh? 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

This feels kind of contradictory, maybe it makes you feel better about it I guess. Generally if we're trying to figure out what the law should be, kind of need to keep feelings and religion out of it and scientifically define when you assign personhood to someone and yes include medical exemptions.

 

I still think the simplest way is to have the rights of the woman paramount early in the pregnancy with that giving way to the baby later in the pregnancy. Lots of grey area in the middle where we can try to draw a line or restrictions.

 

In any case, what we *should* be focusing on is preventing unwanted pregnancies instead of overregulating medical care.

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Then don't get one....The simple fact is  - people like you - especially men -  Sit on their high horses....but you know what? When your 16 year old  daughter gets pregnant...well all of a sudden its ok to make an exception...You know people who have gotten abortions, people in your family have gotten abortions, people in your church have gotten abortions...you just don't know about it. 

 

Maybe if conservatives world work to eliminate the reasons for abortions - lack of birth control, lack of sex ed, lack of accessible day care...they would not seem so hollow....

 

Herschel still gotta chnace huh? 

Im pro-life, but I think we should do what most Americans and civilized countries want…. Legal access up to 15 weeks and then exceptions after.  
 

I find the Dems view far more radical than the R’s, but messaging mixed with R’s in certain areas going for full bans, made people only view one side as extreme this election cycle.  
 

R’s have pull back a bit and shift the focus to the extreme Dem views on this issue.  
 

ESPECIALLY in northern states. 
 

Edited November 9, 2022 by SCBills

[Tiberius]

Abigaile Spanberger. I'm glad she is ours