Thailand Live Thursday 17 October 2024

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Yes there is - you obviously have no idea how Constitutional Law works. The 2022 challenge resulted in the ruling that there is no provision for any particular Health services in the USA Constitution.  In order to change that back, it would require a legal issue that challenges that interpretation of the Constitution. Do you know that Dobbs was a Govt employee that refused to allow an abortion under that State's Laws and was taken to Court by the Planned Parenthood abortionists - it sure did not turn out the way they wanted. The SCOTUS ruled that it was a State right to control Health issues, as per the Constitution. 

 

Everyone got 2016 wrong - a bookie in UK paid out before the election date. This time around they have learned not to read the tea leaves with such 'certainty' which also means Trump is actually well in front. A lot of people voted for Hillary as a means of supporting her to win, because they thought it was a 'good bet' - they have also learned their lesson too.

 

What is irrelevent to some is value to another - Pigs and Pearls - One man's meat........ etc etc etc..

 

So much falsehood packed into so little space. Let's start with your original claim:

 

"But the truth is that the intelligent females on both sides know the POTUS cannot change the SCOTUS decision, and that it can only be overturned if it is challenged under the Constitution, and that all the SCOTUS did was to return the issue to the States where it belongs because it is a Health issue, not a 'rights' issue. But the stupid ones? They are voting Harris anyway."

 

Actually Potus, acting in concert with Congress can sign into law legislation that aligns with the provisions of Roe. In effect, that would overturn the consequnences of the Supreme court ruling.   Potus can also veto such legislation. So who wins the Presidency is obviously relevant. And of course, the fact is that under the Biden administration mifeprestone has been approved by the FDA to be prescribed and sent by mail without a woman actually seeing a physician. A Trump appointee could change that. Intelligent women and men know that. 

 

And if the next President gets the opportunity to appoint 2 news justices and that person is Kamala Harris, does it seem unlikely to you that they wouldn't vote to reinstate Roe. And if Trump gets to be President, isn't it likely that the opposite would be the case.  And yet, you claim that it's unimportant which candidate wins the Presidency. 

 

And your comment that  "A lot of people voted for Hillary as a means of supporting her to win, because they thought it was a 'good bet' - they have also learned their lesson too." is simply bizarre. What kind of evidence do you have to support such a weird claim?

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

So much falsehood packed into so little space. Let's start with your original claim:

 

"But the truth is that the intelligent females on both sides know the POTUS cannot change the SCOTUS decision, and that it can only be overturned if it is challenged under the Constitution, and that all the SCOTUS did was to return the issue to the States where it belongs because it is a Health issue, not a 'rights' issue. But the stupid ones? They are voting Harris anyway."

 

Actually Potus, acting in concert with Congress can sign into law legislation that aligns with the provisions of Roe. In effect, that would overturn the consequnences of the Supreme court ruling.   Potus can also veto such legislation. So who wins the Presidency is obviously relevant. And of course, the fact is that under the Biden administration mifeprestone has been approved by the FDA to be prescribed and sent by mail without a woman actually seeing a physician. A Trump appointee could change that. Intelligent women and men know that. 

 

And if the next President gets the opportunity to appoint 2 news justices and that person is Kamala Harris, does it seem unlikely to you that they wouldn't vote to reinstate Roe. And if Trump gets to be President, isn't it likely that the opposite would be the case.  And yet, you claim that it's unimportant which candidate wins the Presidency. 

 

And your comment that  "A lot of people voted for Hillary as a means of supporting her to win, because they thought it was a 'good bet' - they have also learned their lesson too." is simply bizarre. What kind of evidence do you have to support such a weird claim?

 

Wow - you remind me of Kamala - that was one big word salad. I am sure you believe it - but it aint right - none of it.

And no I am not going to 'prove' my opinion with a Harvard sanctioned research study - they are too busy planning protests after Trump wins.

[metisdead]

Posts with videos from unapproved social media sources have been removed as per the Political Soapbox forum header:

 

General approach and policy.

We maintain a strict policy of accepting links or content only from mainstream and recognized media sources to ensure that information posted by members is both verifiable and trustworthy. We strive to remain impartial, prioritizing content that meets these standards and removing content that, in our opinion, does not.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Wow - you remind me of Kamala - that was one big word salad. I am sure you believe it - but it aint right - none of it.

And no I am not going to 'prove' my opinion with a Harvard sanctioned research study - they are too busy planning protests after Trump wins.

In other words, you've got nothing.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

In other words, you've got nothing.

Nothing that you would understand or be able to accept with your cognitive bias.

[Danderman123]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Nothing that you would understand or be able to accept with your cognitive bias.

Great.

 

Explain your position in English.

[placeholder]

57 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Nothing that you would understand or be able to accept with your cognitive bias.

I challenged your assertions with statements of fact. Instead of specifically challenging those statements of fact, you just resorted to insults. 

 

I pointed out that according to the Constitution, presidents nominate supreme Court Justices. So if two vacancies occur president Harris would most likely  nominate justices who would over turn the Dobbs decision. If Trump  wins, most likely he would nominate justices who support the Dobbs decision. You have offers no refutation of this point at all. 

 

I also pointed out that Congress could enact act a law that aligns with Roe nationwide. 

It's likely that President Harris would sign that bill into law. And it's likely that President Trump would veto it. 

Once again, you will for no reputation of that point.

So, despite your claim that it doesn't matter who is president as far as abortion irights are concerned, you are, in fact, dead wrong.

[Steven55]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:53 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

And still no proof he said it - and where that was and when it was. But I think he will certainly halve it and quickly within his term as POTUS, from the peak level it was under Biden-Harris.  BY the way what was that peak level for gas in USA under Biden-Harris?

 

Yes we all have our retarded cousins we dont associate with. Like those demonstrators for Gaza, and all those radical Trans nutters, and all Pink/Blue haired nutters, and other very 'undesirable' people, who will be voting for Harris.  I think that they will cancel each other out and thus the real/normal People will decide who becomes POTUS.  

  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2024/10/14/two-thirds-of-economists-think-inflation-would-be-worse-under-trump-than-harris-poll-finds/

[Danderman123]

https://www.threads.net/@meidastouch/post/DBNZAn-gARQ?xmt=AQGzSDQPFbwLnayONAbMN-6aPzSMQO6UHgDRhMGYCM-aIg

 

Apparently, these people don't love Trump.

[Danderman123]

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/LeB3Jx6D9PS913ow/

Edited 5 hours ago by Danderman123

[TroubleandGrumpy]

I also love Trump because he will end the war in Ukraine. Zelensky has just give a madness speech, saying that the only way to beat Russia was to give Ukraine full NATO membership and to allow them to launch long range missiles deep into Russia. This tin-pot madman is prepared to start WW3 in order to enslave Eastern Ukraine.  It is not so obvious what Trump will do when POTUS, but he will de-escalate and then end the war in Ukraine. Most people in EU have had enough of this fake war and so has those in USA who are sick of funding it.  The war was started by a dictator who saw no alternative to what was happening in Ukraine. If Trump was POTUS at the time IMO it would never have started.  This territorial dispute could lead to WW3 if both the dictator and the tin-pot madman are not put in their places - and Trump is the man to do it. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0z8gg5v14o

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I also love Trump because he will end the war in Ukraine. Zelensky has just give a madness speech, saying that the only way to beat Russia was to give Ukraine full NATO membership and to allow them to launch long range missiles deep into Russia. This tin-pot madman is prepared to start WW3 in order to enslave Eastern Ukraine.  It is not so obvious what Trump will do when POTUS, but he will de-escalate and then end the war in Ukraine. Most people in EU have had enough of this fake war and so has those in USA who are sick of funding it.  The war was started by a dictator who saw no alternative to what was happening in Ukraine. If Trump was POTUS at the time IMO it would never have started.  This territorial dispute could lead to WW3 if both the dictator and the tin-pot madman are not put in their places - and Trump is the man to do it. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0z8gg5v14o

 

Sure. The war would never have started because Trump would....do what exactly? Given that he wants to absolutely retreat from foreign engagements, what would he have done to discourage Putin? Return his friendship ring?