SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.

[Mekh]

So yes, you do support the act of defrauding voters if it means consolidating conservative power. This word salad of yours just attempts to shift the blame from those committing fraud to the victims of fraud. How very you.

Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.

[HeatBlast]

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.

No that's wholly in the realm of GQP voters, factually speaking.

[Taifuu]

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity.

Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent. There is also the option to resign and force a special election for her district so someone who could stand up to the alleged bullying can be elected. Assuming that she doesn't vote alongside Republicans, why even join the party at that point? Is the expectation that they are going to fund her campaigns despite knowing she won't vote alongside them?

[Endus]

That's a very hyperpartisan spin you're applying here. I'll echo it as an exercise. You wish to shackle representatives to their party bosses and threaten them if they dare step out of line, no exceptions. You're acting as a mouthpiece of enforced conformity. Party corruption finds a hospitable place in your worldview.

This is entirely based on your argument that party identity, not abandoning past positions she ran on, is the measure of defrauding voters.

Again, for the cheap and dishonest seats, the outrage is not that she dared question Democratic policies. The outrage is not that she didn't fall in line. The outrage is not even that she chose to leave the Democratic Party. The outrage is that she joined the Republicans, who actively campaign against the stated policy viewpoints she personally has expressed to her voters in the past and which led to her support from that base.

Pospospos made no argument that "party identity" was the measure of defrauding voters. You're making that up, likely as just pure projection of your own personal biases, since there's certainly nothing in their post that would suggest that.

[tehdang]

Look what you have done. You have made @tehdang so upset, he absolutely failed to tell us why he supports women being forced to birth unviable fetuses, their funerals not being paid in spite of promises to the contrary or the internet of Texas being censored about the fact that abortions exist.

If only my political opponents would not be so upset! If only calling points word salad made them even more eager to have more points called word salad (as the post you quoted was responding to)! I think I've heard enough trolling on the topic.

No that's wholly in the realm of GQP voters, factually speaking.

"You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption. She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.

Inaccurate. What we want is people to stick by the platforms they ran on. You STILL haven't provided an explanation as to why switching to the Republican party was the appropriate choice over switching to being an independent.

You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.

[SoulForge]

You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.

Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.

[Mekh]

If only my political opponents would not be so upset! If only calling points word salad made them even more eager to have more points called word salad (as the post you quoted was responding to)! I think I've heard enough trolling on the topic.

So you do have nothing.

[Taifuu]

Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.

With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.

[unfilteredJW]

With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.

The issue is one of projection. That poster doesn’t have a shred of ethics and everything is about keeping his parties ghoul claws on power. They assume, incorrectly, that everyone else is as objectively terrible of a human being as they and their party are.

These posts make much more sense after you realize this.

[Milchshake]

With that line of thinking, I am not sure that Tehdang understands what a political party even is at this point.

The GOP is basically the political arm of Rupert Murdoch's Anus Fox News.

These posters just enjuoy being the last guy in the Human-Centipede-of-White-Grievance.

[Rasulis]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...rtion-98441293



JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT! JUDGE! FIGHT!

Thank goodness the Republican party spend decades turning the judiciary into yet another political battlefield.

This basically leaves it up to the states. The pro-abortion right states will follow the Washington State Court ruling. The anti-abortion states will follow the Texas State ruling. At least until the issue is decided at the Supreme Court. The question is which one will the FDA follow?

[Endus]

"You will stay in the party or you're defrauding voters" - The Best News to party corruption.

This isn't what people are complaining about. It wasn't her leaving the Democratic Party that's the problem. It's her joining the Republicans.

You keep creating this false dilemma.

She was a swing vote on some issues before, I'm sure she will be after. I don't think she's going to suddenly discover that a decade of pro-choice was just an extremely disciplined con.

See, this is the point; if you're staunchly pro-choice, why would you ever join a party that has been adamantly anti-choice as one of their central pillars? It demonstrates a lack of conviction in that platform position, that you only ever used it as a tool to attract voters of a given party rather than through any actual support for the position. That's why people are angry; her joining the Republican Party has demonstrated that much of why people supported her in the past was, for her, a useful lie she used to manipulate voters, rather than a heartfelt belief.

You don't like her choice of response, but you still haven't given a reason why she can't stick to her campaign promises with a different party tag. Is the -D or -R after her name or district actual predestination? Does it rob her of free will? I'm only hearing demands and knee-jerk reactionary hatred. She didn't act like you wanted, therefore such an inappropriate choice is ipso facto proof of voting treachery? I don't see it.

Joining a party demonstrates an ideological affiliation. When all her platform positions were opposed to that party's positions in the past, it raises giant red flags as to why she'd ever join that party.

You know this. You're just being dishonest about it.

[Rasulis]

The GOP is basically the political arm of Rupert Murdoch's Anus Fox News.

These posters just enjuoy being the last guy in the Human-Centipede-of-White-Grievance.

The GOP is basically Taliban lite right now. Ban abortion. Ban misoprostol. Ban interstate travel. Ban books. Ban transgender. Ban drag shows. See the trend?

[s_bushido]

The question is which one will the FDA follow?

The more restrictive one, presumably.

[tehdang]

Because damn near everything the parties stand for is the opposite of the other? This isn't hard. Being an independent means she can vote whatever way her heart desires and she can just say she's independent. Going directly to the other side is picking 180 degree opposition to Democrats. Especially in North Carolina.

Manchin and Sinema go 180 degrees opposite the Dems on an incredibly wide variety of issues. I don't understand what logical basis exists to declare this cannot be true for Republicans.

So you do have nothing.

I look at the health of debate and see you're calling me upset and he's calling points word salad, and decide there's nothing more to do than let everybody get more rest before returning. Or perhaps the forum needs a different right-of-center poster to start quoting the 4-5 of y'all, do the same sort of stuff back to you (quote the post, call it word salad, and speak as if the post didn't exist in this case) so you start to understand the playing field better. I have no appetite for it.

[Mekh]

I look at the health of debate and see you're calling me upset and he's calling points word salad, and decide there's nothing more to do than let everybody get more rest before returning. Or perhaps the forum needs a different right-of-center poster to start quoting the 4-5 of y'all, do the same sort of stuff back to you (quote the post, call it word salad, and speak as if the post didn't exist in this case) so you start to understand the playing field better. I have no appetite for it.

You chose this. You don't like it, there's exits on every floor.

And of course I'm calling you upset. I'd never presume to claim that you are unable to defend your party on points like forced birth of non-viable fetuses that won't get proper funerals. You have most certainly a perfectly rational explanation for why this is fine and we should in fact all vote GOP to have more of it.

[SoulForge]

Manchin and Sinema go 180 degrees opposite the Dems on an incredibly wide variety of issues. I don't understand what logical basis exists to declare this cannot be true for Republicans.

You picked the wrong two people for this scenario.

People are upset over Sinema as well. But she at least became an Independent.

Manchin is in a hugely Red State. He votes the way he does because he's in a hugely Red state. If he was voting and holding the ideals of a Democrat the way others in the party do then he would have gotten replaced long ago in that state. He's also deeply in the pockets of corporations. Big time. When Manchin retires he will be replaced by a republican. Manchin declares his dislike for certain Democrat things very clearly most of the time.

The one from North Carolina campaigned on a clearly Democrat platform. Then she changed parties.

[Taifuu]

Manchin and Sinema go 180 degrees opposite the Dems on an incredibly wide variety of issues. I don't understand what logical basis exists to declare this cannot be true for Republicans.

I look at the health of debate and see you're calling me upset and he's calling points word salad, and decide there's nothing more to do than let everybody get more rest before returning. Or perhaps the forum needs a different right-of-center poster to start quoting the 4-5 of y'all, do the same sort of stuff back to you (quote the post, call it word salad, and speak as if the post didn't exist in this case) so you start to understand the playing field better. I have no appetite for it.

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned. She still didn't do a complete 180.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats. The Republican party at this time goes out of its way to be on the opposite side of pretty much any issue that the Democratic party platforms on. I know you're already aware of the information presented in these articles, but your arguments are so easy to refute I'll post them anyway:

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...joe-manchin-k/

However, in his Tulsa remarks, Biden was wrong to say that Manchin and Sinema — or any other Senate Democrat, for that matter — "voted more" with Republicans than with Biden.

FEATURED FACT-CHECK

Tweets
stated on March 11, 2023 in a tweet
Kari Lake called Trump the “fattest president since Taft” in a 2016 tweet.
truefalse
By Samantha Putterman • March 16, 2023
According to FiveThirtyEight vote tallies through May 28, both Manchin and Sinema have voted 100% with Biden. That’s not only a perfect score, but it’s a slightly higher party unity score than the ones earned by a number of liberals, including Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

[tehdang]

You chose this. You don't like it, there's exits on every floor.

Hence, when you call me upset and roundabout ask for my opinion on multiple subjects going around with other people in the thread, I declined. You don't have to get sore at people for not entering into every related topic you wish I'd cover.

You picked the wrong two people for this scenario.

People are upset over Sinema as well. But she at least became an Independent.

Manchin is in a hugely Red State. He votes the way he does because he's in a hugely Red state. If he was voting and holding the ideals of a Democrat the way others in the party do then he would have gotten replaced long ago in that state. He's also deeply in the pockets of corporations. Big time. When Manchin retires he will be replaced by a republican. Manchin declares his dislike for certain Democrat things very clearly most of the time.

The one from North Carolina campaigned on a clearly Democrat platform. Then she changed parties.

She's historically a swing voter. Her district has swung from Republican do Democrat and back. Her position relevant to this thread is pro-choice. That's what I'm looking for in whether or not the premature charges of flipping her positions on the issues were justified.

Telling people you're still going to get upset at them despite accepting your alternative makes the option to be in a more influential position (the vote that could make a supermajority) much more attractive.

Sinema just switched to an Independent last year, for which she has gotten a lot of flak. since she did it after she ran for election and she should have resigned.

Manchin ran on a platform that followed the majority of the Democratic platform and some things that went against it, like his support for the coal industry. Those are issues that he openly ran on. He also gets a lot of flak from his fellow Democrats.

So you're agreeing with me that she might as well join the opposite party, since every alternative option still gets the flak.

She also stated that she would still largely be voting alongside Democrats. That was still a terrible move

Outlets like the Charlotte Observer observed that Cotham was already a swing vote on some issues. She stated that she'd research the bills and the legislation before her to decide how to vote. So in terms of the statements she's made, she's in line with previous actions as a Democrat. You're still acting like the -D or -R matters more than what she actually does in office. Premature panic does nobody any good.