So that’s a “no”, you can’t say what part of the testimony exonerates Trump. Now ask if I’m surprised.
Probably why Trump was audibly cursing during court yesterday…warned it would be contempt if he didn’t stop…cursing because he had been exonerated. That’s it.

Recent primaries were an embarrassment for Trump, losing 25-30% to Haley who dropped out months ago. Trump can’t even get all republicans, a group that shrank significantly since Jan 6 21, and he’s attracting no independents or democrats. Tons of republicans are saying they’re voting for Biden to fight against fascism and for democracy.

Trump is going out and bragging about ending Roe v Wade, saying how wonderful it’s been since he did, suggesting women in states where it’s banned who try to leave to get abortions should go to prison, now saying publicly he would support the state monitoring pregnant women like parolees which means monitoring all women constantly to be sure they aren’t secretly pregnant…I think he’s thinking a handmaiden’s tale is a plan, not a warning. This loses him about 80% of women nationwide and drives tens of millions of maybe I’ll vote voters to the polls, just like Trump being on the ticket did in 2020 but more. He’s also saying to expect major cuts to Medicaid, social security, and any assistance programs for the poor if he’s president again, losing him a big chunk of his elderly base that survive on those benefits they spent a lifetime paying into. That’s why your ridiculous hypocritical jabs at Biden never work, most people are voting against a horrific destructive monster, and he’s old but Biden is clearly no monster.

PS- a bill has been submitted in the house to remove the secret service detail for a president, VP, or other government officials who are sent to prison. Have fun in the shower, Donald!

Still waiting. I’m 99.999% sure you don’t even know what I’m waiting for despite being told a few dozen times.
Side note- sounds like most business tenants in Trump tower are failing to pay their rent, many of them are Trump companies. The one tenant who is paying their rent is the maga pac…just so you know, their operating expenses after paying Trump’s legal bills still go to Trump because they use Trump properties and Trump businesses and Trump “consulting”, all at top dollar, for their daily functions, funneling more donor money into Trump’s pockets. Just an FYI.

the idea that those who support Roe v Wade are de-fetusists is absurd. it's reality. it's compassion. it's knowing life is cruel and we don't have to make it crueler.

even the belief that life begins at conception, ignores a significant fact: ~20% of all pregnancies end in stillbirth or miscarriages. many unnoticed or unknown. meaning a Crane takes many babies away before the crane can deliver them.

if the jokes ^ can make a person winch, then why doesn't knowing a woman will die not register? all for a law w/o good intent. for the intent to be real, there would be other realities already in place, such as...

- sex education - at all levels
- contraception for both sexes (even subsidized)
- prenatal care for the viable & wanted
- education for parents
- time off for parents
- groups privately aiding in the care (churches, societies...)
- daycare is provided privately, thru companies, or publically funded

...just possibly a few 'tells' that the morally magnificent are serious.


BTW: the FBI is no lie. don is dead in the water. cry a river but the flood awaits. don't know what's on the papers other than his ass. w/o someone paying the attys - he is defenseless. three times over - he is spit in the ocean. bet me.

Your video, Roe v. Wade Cold Open - SNL, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Precedent is just that until evidence proves otherwise.

Pluto was a planet until it wasn't. Truth evolves over time.

1857 Slavery was fundamentally ruled legal under Dred Scott. Truly a wrong decision and a study in judicial overreach.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by granting citizenship to all those born in the United States, regardless of color.


Finally this is just a leaked draft opinion. One must wait to see if overturned and on what grounds .


That being said The left waited decades to get abortions. The right has waited 50+ years to get a legal argument that might overturn that decision.

50 years later and finally have a conservative court and a case that might alter Roe V wade.

The leak itself is newsworthy, but not 10% as newsworthy as what they leaked, which is proof that every single Republican Supreme Court judge lied outright under oath in their confirmation hearings when they all said “roe v wade is settled law and established precedent and will not be overturned by me”. The first chance they got, they took off that paper thin mask and revealed their agenda to legislate from the bench based on personal opinion not science, fact, or established law. They should ALL be impeached tomorrow for perjury during their sworn hearings.

Time to add 5 more liberal judges to the bench by June 1 and rehear the cases. It’s legal, and the only way to negate the liars, rapists, and religious zealots that Trump improperly installed by stealing two seats with McConnells help and filling a third with a drunk rapist. Turnabout is fair play.

MAY!? This IS the decision, they may rewrite the explanation slightly, but without a few assassinations, “accidents”, or criminal charges, this is how the vote will be reported next month, they already voted in Feb as I understand it, it’s just not official until it’s published but rarely are votes changed, and soon abortion will likely be 100% illegal in any state led by Republicans. Anybody know Barrett’s address? What about Kevanaugh? They, and any state representative voting against personal autonomy, should be doxed at every abortion clinic entrance so the now choice less women, many rape or incest victims, can make themselves martyrs and not just suicide statistics. There will be no exceptions now that they can write the laws that way.

We know this is a real draft because they instantly started looking for the “leaker”. You can’t “leak” a fake decision.

I hope women will start a sex strike in every red state. No nookie until they can control their own womb and it’s contents. It’s the ONLY logical move unless they want to be incubators with no autonomy.

Pretty certain that, if you disagreed with their decision, “wait and see” would not only be a terrible idea to you, it would also be an insult to your intelligence.

I’m petitioning Newsom to boycott any state enacting new laws restricting abortion, “new” meaning in the last decade. California does a shitload of business, we shouldn’t be doing it with states that are removing rights from women.

I just can’t fathom, with overpopulation being the root of all major problems humanity and the planet face, why so many idiots still think they should “be fruitful and multiply”, and should force that on their neighbors too. It’s the height of stupidity, and their children will pay the price for the lack of thought their parents put into the decision. We need to abort 9/10 embryos (or get 10 times better at stopping fertilization in the first place), not increase birth rates by double.

(Before you try the “but it’s murder” nonsense, legally and scientifically those things inside wombs aren’t people, and even if they WERE, one person cannot enslave another even in life or death situations. If they could, we would force live organ donations, transfusions, etc with the donor having no right to refuse.)

To me, the current crop of justices seem to be less willing to deviate from the Constitution as written. Should abortion be allowed? IMO, yes. BUT, are laws banning abortion unconstitutional? According to the Constitution as written and amended, probably not. Roe v Wade was written by a court that believed that abortion and the "right to privacy" should carry the weight of constitutional law, even though the Constitution is silent on these "rights".

My suggestion: If abortion should be considered to be a "right", then so amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be subject to the vagaries of "interpretation" forever.

Please show me the politician who has clearly said they want to criminalize travel with the intent to have an abortion, which is what this ad shows.

It isn't clear if it's to another country or state, which if Roe V Wade was overturned, would have no impact on travel to either.

This has nothing to do with her capability. It never has been. It has to do with people pissed because there is a nominee during this time.

News flash, it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. He can nominate someone even after he loses. Until he is replaced, he is THE President of the United States.

No judge is required to have a photographic memory of the Constitution. I bet you could ask SITTING judges on the Supreme Court and have them miss a question. That is what clerks and research people are for.

What this comes down to is two basic things.

1. Merrick Garland never made it onto the court. People are still bitterly pissed off that he didn't. But what they forget is that he WAS nominated and did not get through the process due to a Republican majority. It was perfectly legal and was allowed. It sucks if you wanted him, but that is the way the game works.

2. People are STILL scared that Roe v Wade is going to go bye bye or the ACA is going to get kneecapped. News flash, SCOTUS has been majority Conservative leaning judges for YEARS. When Gorsuch was picked, all I recall hearing was OMG OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING, ROE V WADE IS DEAD! Same thing as when Kavanaugh was picked; although they were pissed about his supposed rape as well, every news site was repeating the mantra about Roe V Wade now dead.

It isn't going to happen. Not at a Federal level. It would be suicide for years. Conservatives, by and large, do not give a fuck about abortion. It's only the squirrelly ultra right wing pricks that care and Republicans sadly have to cater to them verbally to keep their votes. States, yeah, some will pass laws and then those will get turned away from SCOTUS like they have been for a while. The appellate courts will set the precedent on those rulings and they solidly rule for Roe v Wade.

Same thing for the ACA, although personally I wish that would die a fucking quick death. As I've said before many times, that little gem has fucked the value of my family insurance from work into the ground. I didn't get to keep my doctor unless I wanted to pay 2k+ per person per year, because he and a shit ton of other doctors went to Concierge fees to cover the money they were losing under the ACA. Now I have to go to either:

A. Doctor's who have horrible ratings for their practice, ie ones that suck or just don't care.

B. A clinic setup where I 'technically' have a 'family doctor' but in reality I can be bumped to others on staff or, most likely, a PA. There is no feeling that I know my doctor because, even if I do get to see him, they just run me through as fast as possible so they can get another patient in.

I have pre-existing conditions, so I empathize with those who are on the ACA. But the act itself is fucked up beyond repair. It needs to die and get replaced with a true national insurance. If not that, something that lets me go back to feeling like I have a real doctor and not just whoever is johnny on the spot at that moment.

It isn't going to be killed at SCOTUS though, they don't want to legislate. They will let it survive and if you think otherwise you are drinking the liberal koolaid that they are serving to round up voters.

I like the Youtuber and do agree with his other videos. I do not agree with this. I can diagnose a Macbook Pro right now if I had to, even after being away from Apple for around 8 years. But I might need to pull up a damn schematic or reference manual to know how much resistance I should be looking for on the PPbus if it isn't present when trying to power the thing on. If I and everyone else had photographic memories, we wouldn't have reference material. Wikipedia wouldn't exist. This is simply a nitpick because people are worried and still pissed.

So, the argument is two fold.
One, this issue of personal freedom/choice is important enough that it can't be left to states who might eliminate individual choice in favor of a state's choice. This is the liberal position on this issue, that states will take the choice away from individual woman in favor of the choice made for them, usually by groups of old men. That's why Roe V Wade is essential, it denies the states the right to enslave women to their unwanted, potential, in some cases forced upon them, offspring.

Second, he argued we can't allow laws that take away the freedom of individuals to choose, which slavery did...as do anti abortion laws. You cannot crush the choices of another person....this includes the choice to not be an incubator for another "person" (to misuse the word, assuming they're incorrectly insisting a blastocyst or foetus is a person, all medical and scientific evidence notwithstanding). The "developing life" (doesn't realize he just blew the "life starts at conception" argument with that phrase) cannot take away the rights of the womb's owner, cannot make them a slave to the blastocyst/foetus. The right to life argument fails when you realize no person is forced to donate blood or organs, which people need to live. Real right to life would extend beyond birth and require people become medical slaves to those who need them or their parts.

If it can live without help, fine, develop an abortive processes that allows that at any point in pregnancy, fund it across the board, and start the debate again. Until then, this dumbass just made two arguments for pro choice.
Pathetic.

We go from Roe V Wade to abortion up to delivery in NY.

No slippery slope there.

Your video, Roe V. Wade V. Everyone | April 3, 2019 Act 1 | Full Frontal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Even if they did, it wouldn't show evidence that he assaulted her. She has no worries about an FBI investigation because there is no evidence to find. Literally none, other than the marriage counselling thing you mentioned.

I'm sorry, but simply accusing someone of assault doesn't mean it happened. I don't know what her reasons are and I don't know if he did assault her, I just know that as long as we have no evidence he couldn't be convicted by a court in the nation. If he couldn't be convicted, he shouldn't be held accountable as far as his future career goes. I recall that it used to be innocent until proven guilty, not the way it is now.

I am worried he will end up fucking up Roe v Wade and I support legal abortions, but at the same time, I can't say he should be barred from the opportunity of his lifetime based on a simple accusation from someone who went 36 years without mentioning it to anyone other than her husband and marriage counselor.

Anita Hill had a much better case versus Clarence Thomas and the Democrats still voted him into SCOTUS.

I'm a rare conservative leaning person who would prefer a slightly more middle ground nominee, simply because I am almost certain that Kavanaugh will tilt the court enough that it does away with roe v wade. I support abortion. Making it illegal throughout half of the nation simply is going to fuck over poor people. People with money will fly out to a state that supports it.

Your video, Goodbye, Roe v. Wade | July 18, 2018 Act 2 | Full Frontal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fair point, and I would agree with you that if one of your core beliefs are pro-life/pro-choice, of course you want the law to reflect that because you care about the people affected by the law.

That said, it's hard to simultaneously urge the liberals need to stop tip-toeing AND fret that a right-leaning majority on the Supreme Court might overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not because you can't want to uphold Roe vs Wade, but because Roe vs. Wade has stood a long time under a left-leaning majority which tends to argue that the liberals haven't exactly been tip-toeing.

I just wish people would place live and let live much higher up in their value systems. I've got plenty of really strong beliefs that I don't believe should be enshrined into law. The reason being that merely not sharing those beliefs doesn't need to affect anybody else, so to each their own. I believe society is better if I try to convince others of most beliefs voluntarily and not through force of law.