I would add to the descriptors "agit-prop" and "fear-mongering". Classic: "the opposing party are monsters and will destroy your lives..."

Since it's exactly what the right promised to do, and the reason they broke all norms and precedents to pack the supreme court with anti choice judges, I don't understand your misplaced dismissiveness.
Shall I guess which side of the issue you stand on?

No newt this is the lefts imagined fear.
Don't worry killing babies is still a thing.

Spin and fear is all the Democrats have to get votes.

No plan just fear.

No, Bob, this is the right's main platform, denying citizens their rights.

...aaaaand more projection. Rotflmfahs!
Sorry, sunshine, Trump's entire campaign is only about fear. Fear the black mobs, fear socialism, fear baby eating, fear the Trump depression, fear Mexicans, fear China, fear Biden. All you've got to sell is fear and projection....and people stopped buying it. Lol.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

you are free to guess, and will certainly be wrong...

Bad acts by members of one group don't justify worse acts by the opposing group. That road leads to genocide...

And the Republicans didn't "pack" the supreme court - they exercised the authority that the Constitution and Senate rules afforded them - no less so than the Democrats used their authority and rights to trash every supreme court nominee that has been put forth by Republican administrations. If you want to play hardball, you won't get much sympathy from me when you complain that the opposition elects to play hardball too...

Happy to see this clip disappear...

What? Are you replying to another post? What do bad acts not excusing bad acts have to do with court packing? You are arguing that republican court packing isn't a bad act, so what are you talking about?

Republican court packing, the unprecedented denying dozens of a sitting presidents nominees a hearing despite the constitution stating they shall hold one in order to steal court seats was arguably unconstitutional but worked because they had the power and democrats had no recourse to remedy the crime since they didn't have the votes to force them to adhere to the constitution.

Adding seats is not unconstitutional nor is it unprecedented, the founding fathers did it themselves repeatedly. Not holding hearings for a nominee is unconstitutional, congress SHALL, not can or may.

No, they ignored a clear constitutional obligation knowing they couldn't be forced to follow it. Senate rules did not allow that, but a majority allowed the laws and rules to be ignored.

Lol. "Trashing them" by asking them to answer questions and accusations pertinent to the job is the same to you as denying a hearing in your opinion?!? I suppose you feel the same about republicans trashing democratic appointments, even outright denying them hearings required by the constitution....nominees who have NEVER had a problem clearly describing the rights codified in the constitution, which is the job they're nominated for...right...because certainly you aren't just a hypocrite.

🤦‍♂️

So, republicans played hardball by ignoring their constitutional obligation to hear nominees to steal seats, now you're whining that Democrats shouldn't play constitutionally allowed hard ball too by increasing the number of seats?!? Oh shit...you done fucked up.

I refer you to this page to see the list of Obama nominees trashed, refused, stalled, and or filibustered by Republicans....dozens of empty seats stolen by McConnell and handed to Trump to fill.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_judicial_appointment_controversies

Also, turnabout IS fair play. Bad acts by one group do excuse similar bad acts against them.

Edit: I see it this way....Republicans have set the bar for governing at "you can't stop us"...Democrats need at least 4 years in the same position to reverse the damage, probably 8 since they're so wishy washy and don't often play hardball....Biden is still talking about bipartisan committees to figure out how to get back to working civil governance, starting with balancing the supreme court...but what's needed is pure partisanship like Republicans display. Nasty, ruthless, unethical, even illegal partisanship at every turn on every issue.

A few judicial assassinations aren't off the table either. Anything goes is the rule of the day, thanks Trump.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by original submitter newtboy.

*wheels

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by ant.

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.

Sure, here you are. It was Mr Smith of Texas.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt671/html/CRPT-112hrpt671.htm

"First, CIANA makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor
across state lines to obtain an abortion in another state... "

"Second, CIANA applies when a minor from one state crosses
state lines to have an abortion in another state that does not
have a state law requiring parental involvement in a minor's
abortion decision, or when a minor from one state crosses state
lines to have an abortion in another state that does have a
state law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion
decision, but the physician fails to comply with such law. In
such a case, CIANA makes it a Federal crime for the abortion
provider to fail to give one of the minor's parents, or a legal
guardian if necessary, 24 hours' notice (or notice by mail if
necessary) of the minor's abortion decision before the abortion
is performed"

"CIANA contains two sections, each of which creates a new Federal crime subject to up to a $100,000 fine, or 1 year in jail, or both"

Google is a great resource...took me 2 seconds to find. Pretty much exactly what the commercial is about.

Extrapolated from there, when abortions can be outlawed statewide, that ban would be extended to anyone transporting a pregnant woman to another state for an abortion....it tries to force neighboring states to follow your states laws for notifications and wait times, and criminalizes transportation of the pregnant women, it's completely dishonest to imply the same wouldn't go for outright bans.