Not if you admit it was incredibly stupid for you to post a video from that racist, sexist, transphobic hack and then claim you were not the messenger as if you didn't post it.
No, it is meant to give remedial examples of the difficulty and scope of the election process in our country in the hope that MAGA conspiracy cheerleaders like yourself might understand that mistakes will be made........and they all aren't intentional or evidence of fraud. Like when you get your Happy Meal at McDonalds and they forget to include your toy. No one is trying to ruin your day. Stuff happens.
I don't recall saying mistakes won't be made. Why are you lecturing as if I did?
This paragraph exposes your apparent lack of knowledge about how lawmaking works. Wouldn't whomever is president have to either sign, or not sign, a national abortion ban or a law codifying Roe? Isn't whomever is president allowed to advocate to the legislators to pass a bill that would do either thing? Thus, the president CAN do something about it, yes? If it were true that "the Dobbs decision has made it a states rights issue. Period," wouldn't that mean that any of the folks running for any national office saying that they DO support a national abortion ban--or previously said they supported it, before having to run away from it given how unpopular it is--are also lying to the voters because that's not a thing they can do anymore?
I didn't say you did. You replied to me with one of your passive aggressive posts that had nothing to do with mine. Then you did it AGAIN. I know you get all pissy when people don't forget the topic and follow your deflections. You freak out when you don't have control of a conversation. I was just giving you another opportunity to stay on point.
Check with katJM, who studied in the nationally acclaimed IU general studies program, but I think 'whoever' is correct in this case. He or she may know despite his or her demonstrated ignorance in so many other areas.
You said the Kimmel video gives examples of the difficulties of the election process in our nation.
You would post more logically and wouldn't constantly feel the need to insult instead of answer ...
The GS program is nothing to be ashamed of if it is the best you can do.
Not going to make it more dramatic like your previous departure announcements? That is incredibly sad.
Your insult to me is childish.
I didn't insult you.
What you've described is a scenario that is, in your opinion, unlikely. Even if that's true, that's not the same thing as "impossible." Your previous post seemed to purport that SCOTUS's decision made it that, legally speaking, abortion was now a states rights issue and that it COULD NOT be taken up via the lawmaking process, of which the president is a part.
Your own clarification above disproves this statement, as you've correctly indicated that congress could, theoretically, pass a law. The president CAN do something about it. Whether or not he or she would be successful in doing so is a different question. But, candidates run all the time--and people vote for them--based on proposals that they ultimately are unsuccessful in implementing. That's not a reason for candidates to not advocate for positions on those issues. As I said above, the president is part of the lawmaking process, and there is nothing that makes a national law about abortion access (one way or the other) "impossible."
Here is my argument, restated in syllogistic form:
Your first words: "This paragraph exposes your apparent lack of knowledge about how lawmaking works."
That's not an insult, lack of knowledge on any particular subject is not a character flaw.
Your comment was a childish insult. My knowledge of the legislative process is extensive and you know nothing about me.
How would I know that when the post by you to which I responded indicated that you thought there was no legal mechanism for the president to have an effect on national abortion rights, which (as you apparently agreed in your second post, despite the inappropriate use of the word "impossible") is clearly not the case? I now understand that you simply didn't clearly state what you meant, which is fine. But, again, simply pointing out a lack of knowledge is not an insult. I have basically no knowledge of Mongolian throat singing, and it would not be an insult were someone to point that out.
This is kinda amazing. What would Kamala do...pack the courts and/or kill a SCOTUS? It was rightfully put back to the states as it should have been, and Ginsburg who knew it was bad law in 72 can now RIP. There are no women's rights or men's rights...just people rights. Too many adults fooled once again my the media that Kamala was going to change things outside of what I listed above.
