Swift endorsement turns more voters from harris than it attracts…

[cjinchiangrai]

17 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Minnesota, the home state of Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, has some of the most permissive pro-abortion laws in the country. Walz signed legislation in January 2023 that declared abortion “a fundamental right” and prohibited local governments from taking any action that interferes with that legal right. This provided even stronger protections for Minnesota’s laws on abortion, which permit the procedure until the moment of birth.

 

However, the CDC does report its estimates of how many abortions occur in the 21st week of pregnancy or later. In 2019, the CDC estimated about 4,882 abortions were performed at least 21 weeks or later into pregnancy. The data is incomplete because it excludes the nine states that permit abortions at that stage of pregnancy and the District of Columbia.

 

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which provides estimates through voluntary surveys, reported that about 0.9% of abortions were conducted in the 21st week or later in 2023. The report estimated more than 1 million total abortions, which would mean that more than 9,000 abortions occurred in the 21st week or later.

 

If the Guttmacher Institute’s reporting is correct, this would mean that, on average, between 24 and 25 abortions in the 21st week or later occur every day in the United States.

 

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/post-debate-explainer-the-truth-about-late-term-abortions-in-the-united-states

 

This is why Taylor Swift voted for Harris. She wants unfettered abortion where women can decide right up to the 9th month to get an abortion for any reason.

 

This is morally wrong, 

And virtually all of them should be non-viable pregnancies. Nobody is killing viable babies.

Edited September 17 by cjinchiangrai

[marin]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

This is why Taylor Swift voted for Harris. She wants unfettered abortion where women can decide right up to the 9th month to get an abortion for any reason.

 

This is morally wrong, 

BS, you damn well know that is not why she endorsed Harris. You are certifiably crazy, I enjoy the political debates here but this is not politics. It is one crazy British nutter going off. No more for me on any thread you are a part of. I think one reason you are here is to avoid being committed to a mental hospital. 

[Cameroni]

23 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

But there are also restrictions on providers by medical boards and ethics rules. They wisely left it to medicine.

 

No they did not. Walz's law specifically prohibits anyone to interfere with the right to abortion, which is granted up to 9 months. So if a woman insists she wants an abortion with this law from Walz nobody can stop her from getting it, in fact she is exercising a constitutional right in Minnesota.

 

Why do you think they changed the wording of the law?

 

The law that Walz signed in May 2023 changed things, he law originally stated that medical personnel must “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant”. The amendment reworded this to say “care for the infant who is born alive”.

 

Why do you think that is?

[johnnybangkok]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Minnesota, the home state of Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, has some of the most permissive pro-abortion laws in the country. Walz signed legislation in January 2023 that declared abortion “a fundamental right” and prohibited local governments from taking any action that interferes with that legal right. This provided even stronger protections for Minnesota’s laws on abortion, which permit the procedure until the moment of birth.

 

However, the CDC does report its estimates of how many abortions occur in the 21st week of pregnancy or later. In 2019, the CDC estimated about 4,882 abortions were performed at least 21 weeks or later into pregnancy. The data is incomplete because it excludes the nine states that permit abortions at that stage of pregnancy and the District of Columbia.

 

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which provides estimates through voluntary surveys, reported that about 0.9% of abortions were conducted in the 21st week or later in 2023. The report estimated more than 1 million total abortions, which would mean that more than 9,000 abortions occurred in the 21st week or later.

 

If the Guttmacher Institute’s reporting is correct, this would mean that, on average, between 24 and 25 abortions in the 21st week or later occur every day in the United States.

 

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/post-debate-explainer-the-truth-about-late-term-abortions-in-the-united-states

 

This is why Taylor Swift voted for Harris. She wants unfettered abortion where women can decide right up to the 9th month to get an abortion for any reason.

 

This is morally wrong, 

You are so uneducated in these matters as to be laughable. As has been pointed out to you on NUMEROUS occasions, late term abortions are ONLY allowed if the mothers life is at stake or the baby is unviable. These are decisions made by medical professionals (as it should be) and not by individual mothers/fathers. They are 100% not because a woman decides to abort at say 8 months. That is illegal and will remain so. Waltz (like an actual sensible politician) took the advice of medical professionals and not crazy politicians who have hijacked this issue for political gain. Bravo to him.  

And your views on Taylor Swift are just...................weird. 

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

And virtually all of them should be non-viable pregnancies. Nobody is killing viable babies.

 

That's of course completely false. Unless you've had a traumatic head injury recently you should have no problem comprehending that many women wish to abort not for medical reasons but because the child is not wanted.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

You are so uneducated in these matters as to be laughable. As has been pointed out to you on NUMEROUS occasions, late term abortions are ONLY allowed if the mothers life is at stake or the baby is unviable. These are decisions made by medical professionals (as it should be) and not by individual mothers/fathers. They are 100% not because a woman decides to abort at say 8 months. That is illegal and will remain so. Waltz (like an actual sensible politician) took the advice of medical professionals and not crazy politicians who have hijacked this issue for political gain. Bravo to him.  

And your views on Taylor Swift are just...................weird. 

 

Absolutely false. Walz has removed all restrictions in Minnesota. It is NOT illegal to demand aborton in the 8th month in Minnesota now. There is no restriction in terms of gestational period whatsoever in the law.

 

"Yes. Abortion is legal in Minnesota. There is no limit on abortion in Minnesota based on how far along in pregnancy you are."

 

https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-minnesota

Edited September 17 by Cameroni

[bubblegum]

@Cameroni you are becoming a bigger nutjob than Suzy ever was. A pro Putin westerner trying to dictate how other must vote/feel. Why don't you just piss off to Putin land and fight his cause?

[johnnybangkok]

21 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Minnesota, the home state of Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, has some of the most permissive pro-abortion laws in the country. Walz signed legislation in January 2023 that declared abortion “a fundamental right” and prohibited local governments from taking any action that interferes with that legal right. This provided even stronger protections for Minnesota’s laws on abortion, which permit the procedure until the moment of birth.

 

However, the CDC does report its estimates of how many abortions occur in the 21st week of pregnancy or later. In 2019, the CDC estimated about 4,882 abortions were performed at least 21 weeks or later into pregnancy. The data is incomplete because it excludes the nine states that permit abortions at that stage of pregnancy and the District of Columbia.

 

The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, which provides estimates through voluntary surveys, reported that about 0.9% of abortions were conducted in the 21st week or later in 2023. The report estimated more than 1 million total abortions, which would mean that more than 9,000 abortions occurred in the 21st week or later.

 

If the Guttmacher Institute’s reporting is correct, this would mean that, on average, between 24 and 25 abortions in the 21st week or later occur every day in the United States.

 

https://www.ncregister.com/cna/post-debate-explainer-the-truth-about-late-term-abortions-in-the-united-states

 

This is why Taylor Swift voted for Harris. She wants unfettered abortion where women can decide right up to the 9th month to get an abortion for any reason.

 

This is morally wrong, 

Quoting the National CATHOLIC Register for an unbiased view on this matter is about as far as your intellect allows.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

No, you don't get it. Swift HERSELF saw that her endorsing political candidates is wrong. She said so HERSELF!

 

"During an interview with Time to promote her 2012 album "Red," Swift dodged questions about the upcoming presidential election.

Swift said she'd been following the race between President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, but she felt uncomfortable trying to influence her fans."I try to keep myself as educated and informed as possible. But I don't talk about politics because it might influence other people," Swift said. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/taylor-swift-politics-endorsements-timeline#ahead-of-the-2012-election-swift-declined-to-comment-on-politics-2

 

Obviously she was right then. She understood the problematic nature of pop star endorsements and refrained from doing so herself.

 

However, she has the moral backbone of an alley cat and then turns around and does exactly the opposite of what she KNOWS is the right thing to do.

 

 

In 2012 it was choice between 2 different types of normal. Now it's a choice between somewhat normal and out there weird, stupid, ignorant and dangerous. Someone who couldn't accept the outcome of an election. Someone who supports dictators. That's what Trumpies struggle with - Trump is really different. Swift appears to be  intelligent enough to see that. 

[Elkski]

9 hours ago, Danderman123 said:

How about Elon?

 

Should he stay out of the limelight?

Elon owns a information, news organization.  I believe There are legal rules on what he can say politically. 

[Cameroni]

14 minutes ago, marin said:

BS, you damn well know that is not why she endorsed Harris. You are certifiably crazy, I enjoy the political debates here but this is not politics. It is one crazy British nutter going off. No more for me on any thread you are a part of. I think one reason you are here is to avoid being committed to a mental hospital. 

 

Abortion is the  reason why Swift endorses Kamala Harris.

 

In case anyone had anyone had any doubt:

 

 

"Taylor Swift condemns the end of US abortion rights: ‘I’m absolutely terrified’"

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/taylor-swift-abortion-rights-b2109009.html

[cjinchiangrai]

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No they did not. Walz's law specifically prohibits anyone to interfere with the right to abortion, which is granted up to 9 months. So if a woman insists she wants an abortion with this law from Walz nobody can stop her from getting it, in fact she is exercising a constitutional right in Minnesota.

 

Why do you think they changed the wording of the law?

 

The law that Walz signed in May 2023 changed things, he law originally stated that medical personnel must “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant”. The amendment reworded this to say “care for the infant who is born alive”.

 

Why do you think that is?

Let me guess, a Jewish run program to replace white people with Haitian immigrants?

[Elkski]

Taylor will be just fine.  She had to say something.   Through AI her likeness has been used to fake a trump endorsement. 

Any half intelligent American would have to agree that JDVance attacks on childless car women was not a smart move. Pretty much solidifies him as the worse VP pick ever by the Worst ex president ever. 

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

In 2012 it was choice between 2 different types of normal. Now it's a choice between somewhat normal and out there weird, stupid, ignorant and dangerous. Someone who couldn't accept the outcome of an election. Someone who supports dictators. That's what Trumpies struggle with - Trump is really different. Swift appears to be  intelligent enough to see that. 

 

Indeed Trump is different. He has vowed to fight the political establishment. Harris and Biden just continue it

 

But irrespective of this crucial difference, it is not right for someone who has influence to use that influence to get the vulnerable to do their bidding. This is like a teacher telling their students how to vote, only Swift will carry far more influence than most teachers.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Let me guess, a Jewish run program to replace white people with Haitian immigrants?

 

No because previously the law required doctors to keep a baby alive. This has now been changed to say "care for the baby". A crucial difference,.

[cjinchiangrai]

2 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

No because previously the law required doctors to keep a baby alive. This has now been changed to say "care for the baby". A crucial difference,.

That would make total sense for non-viable pregnancies. You are not selling it. Stephen Miller would like the replacement idea though.

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

That would make total sense for non-viable pregnancies. You are not selling it. Stephen Miller would like the replacement idea though.

“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. It only requires ‘care.’ So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures,” Paul Stark, communications director with the pro-life group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told the Register. 

 

Republican state Rep. Peggy Scott of Andover described the language in the new bill as “very vague.” She noted that it doesn’t define “care,” and she argued that everyone deserves potentially lifesaving intervention. 

 

“Whether that baby lives or dies, that is not up to a human being — another human being — to decide that. In my opinion, that baby should be treated and given lifesaving care regardless of the maladies that baby may be born with,” Scott said. 

 

https://www.ncregister.com/news/tim-walz-born-alive-abortion

 

So in Minnesota now women and doctors can play God and decide if they save the life of a child or not. Whereas  before the law required them to use life saving measures, now it only requires "care".  

 

I addition where abortions resulted in babys born alive there was a law passed in 2015 in Minnesota that required to document these cases and what happened to the babies. Walz also made sure to repeal this law, so there will be no more mechanism to track anything related to such cases.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. It only requires ‘care.’ So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures,” Paul Stark, communications director with the pro-life group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told the Register. 

 

Republican state Rep. Peggy Scott of Andover described the language in the new bill as “very vague.” She noted that it doesn’t define “care,” and she argued that everyone deserves potentially lifesaving intervention. 

 

“Whether that baby lives or dies, that is not up to a human being — another human being — to decide that. In my opinion, that baby should be treated and given lifesaving care regardless of the maladies that baby may be born with,” Scott said. 

 

https://www.ncregister.com/news/tim-walz-born-alive-abortion

 

So in Minnesota now women and doctors can play God and decide if they save the life of a child or not. Whereas  before the law required them to use life saving measures, now it only requires "care".  

 

I addition where abortions resulted in babys born alive there was a law passed in 2015 in Minnesota that required to document these cases and what happened to the babies. Walz also made sure to repeal this law, so there will be no more mechanism to track anything related to such cases.

But this is a perfect example of bad politics. They are trying to write laws with a bit of subtlety to deal with rare and difficult situations with some discretion for a reasonable common sense solution. So Trump being Trump summaries it by saying babies can be executed after birth and his supporters say yeah Democrats bad. 

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But this is a perfect example of bad politics. They are trying to write laws with a bit of subtlety to deal with rare and difficult situations with some discretion for a reasonable common sense solution. So Trump being Trump summaries it by saying babies can be executed after birth and his supporters say yeah Democrats bad. 

 

Trump saying this nonsense, that babies are murdered after birth, I can't fathom why he'd say such a stupidity.

 

However, it is very clear that in Minnesota the thing they were very subtle about was to remove the duty on doctors to use life saving measures and ensure now that only "care" is required.

 

You have to understand that before a doctor was obliged by the law to do all life saving measures possible. Now, no longer. He, the doctor, and the mother can play God. Of course this won't happen a lot, because people are not insane, but in law this is the state of affairs.

 

This is bad, and the Democrats did a very bad thing in allowing abortion without any gestation period limit. I mean this is completely insane. No civilized country in the world has such laws on abortion.

 

 

[cjinchiangrai]

18 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Trump saying this nonsense, that babies are murdered after birth, I can't fathom why he'd say such a stupidity.

 

However, it is very clear that in Minnesota the thing they were very subtle about was to remove the duty on doctors to use life saving measures and ensure now that only "care" is required.

 

You have to understand that before a doctor was obliged by the law to do all life saving measures possible. Now, no longer. He, the doctor, and the mother can play God. Of course this won't happen a lot, because people are not insane, but in law this is the state of affairs.

 

This is bad, and the Democrats did a very bad thing in allowing abortion without any gestation period limit. I mean this is completely insane. No civilized country in the world has such laws on abortion.

 

 

As opposed to making people carry dead babies to term? 

[placeholder]

33 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Trump saying this nonsense, that babies are murdered after birth, I can't fathom why he'd say such a stupidity.

 

However, it is very clear that in Minnesota the thing they were very subtle about was to remove the duty on doctors to use life saving measures and ensure now that only "care" is required.

 

You have to understand that before a doctor was obliged by the law to do all life saving measures possible. Now, no longer. He, the doctor, and the mother can play God. Of course this won't happen a lot, because people are not insane, but in law this is the state of affairs.

 

This is bad, and the Democrats did a very bad thing in allowing abortion without any gestation period limit. I mean this is completely insane. No civilized country in the world has such laws on abortion.

 

 

This was written to address the fact that some babies are born alive but with no hope of survival. For instance, babies born without a skull. Previously, the law demanded that even in such a hopeless case, any measure that could prolong the life of the infant should be taken:

 "The law now requires “all reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice … shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.”
What that means, as Liebling noted, is that families and physicians decide together how best to proceed when a termination past the point of viability is tragically required. Thankfully, this is rare, with just 1% of all U.S. abortions happening at or after 21 weeks"

https://archive.ph/eOh0L#selection-1107.190-1119.31

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's of course completely false. Unless you've had a traumatic head injury recently you should have no problem comprehending that many women wish to abort not for medical reasons but because the child is not wanted.

Good point

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, CallumWK said:

 

Yes it is, because it is a comparison between TWO specific presidential candidates, and one is gone.

 

See, you have so little that you don't even know what you're quoting. In other words, you got NOTHING

Here is a favorability map for Trump alone during his last year in office:

Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's of course completely false. Unless you've had a traumatic head injury recently you should have no problem comprehending that many women wish to abort not for medical reasons but because the child is not wanted.

You missed the key word: "viable". Not even Roe v Wade allowed for abortion of viable fetuses.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Here is a favorability map for Trump alone during his last year in office:

Trump Ratings Remain Low Around Globe, While Views of U.S. Stay Mostly Favorable

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

 

 

Got to admit I'm surprised how favorable these results are for Trump.......UK 32%.....how sad is that.......mainly down to our right wing press I imagine.

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Will B Good said:

 

 

Got to admit I'm surprised how favorable these results are for Trump.......UK 32%.....how sad is that.......mainly down to our right wing press I imagine.

 

 

 

 

I would guess mainly hardcore Brexiteers.

[riclag]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

No they did not. Walz's law specifically prohibits anyone to interfere with the right to abortion, which is granted up to 9 months. So if a woman insists she wants an abortion with this law from Walz nobody can stop her from getting it, in fact she is exercising a constitutional right in Minnesota.

 

Why do you think they changed the wording of the law?

 

The law that Walz signed in May 2023 changed things, he law originally stated that medical personnel must “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant”. The amendment reworded this to say “care for the infant who is born alive”.

 

Why do you think that is?

Good point!
 

“The legislation Walz signed in May 2023 got rid of the word “preserve” and replaced the previous wording with a revised requirement “to care for the infant who is born alive.” 

“The concern is that the law no longer requires that lifesaving measures be taken. So the law as it’s now written could allow a baby to be left to die, even a baby who could be saved with appropriate lifesaving measures,” Paul Stark, communications director with the pro-life group Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, told the Register”.

 

 https://www.ncregister.com/news/tim-walz-born-alive-abortion

[cjinchiangrai]

12 minutes ago, riclag said:

Good point

But they do not wait eight months to do it.

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Callmeishmael said:

Many years ago Mark Twain said, "There are lies, and there are damn lies and then there are statistics" or words similar to that. 

 

When looking at a poll, you have to look at what was really asked and of whom.  In this particular poll All Potential Voters were asked how they felt about Swift's endorsement.  Naturally, the voters who were already favoring Trump gave one answer and the voters who already favored Harris gave another. 

 

The Poll did not ask if Swift's endorsement made them change from Trump to Harris or vice versa. 

 

Celebrity endorsements rarely have much of an impact on how people vote, and I think that this will be the case in this instance.

Shes a good singer and like many celebrities are progressive in their political positions!

 She’s got a big fan base too!

But like many of the rich & famous , they dont live in traditional reality!

imop

 

 

[couchpotato]

30 minutes ago, riclag said:

Shes a good singer and like many celebrities are progressive in their political positions!

 She’s got a big fan base too!

But like many of the rich & famous , they dont live in traditional reality!

imop

 

 

And more importantly she has a sheetpot full of money.