Is Joe Biden coming off as a "pusillanimous"?

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (110 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image77
    Credence2posted 2 years ago

    Conservatives were quick to blame President Biden for our rather awkward exit from Afghanistan, I don't blame him as his predecessor set the stage and props that Biden had no choice except to follow through.

    I do not blame Biden for the inflation that we are experiencing as most of the developed  world is going through the same. In the face of this global affliction, why Am I to expect that Biden should be able to "pull a rabbit from a hat"? Just another disengenous GOP talking point....

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/ … and-world/

    But he consistently disappoints me in that in classic "Colonel Klink" style( "Hogan's Heroes") he sit around like a corpse that is not paying attention, while Republicans make a fool of him. He reminds me of so many of the  reasons why I did not like old people when I was young. Besides the perfume and lipstick from relations, there was this doddering and always being in the way when we were in a hurry.

    This man has long since had his "fire" extinguished and is affecting our party in the same way. To hell with moderation, we need mobilization. I need ignition...

    We have a political party (GOP) with a tyrant at its head that threaten the very Democratic foundations of this country, and yet, he still wants to be an overgrown "Boy Scout". He is still in a feed back loop from the 1970's when senators from opposing parties palled around at the local tarverns when the legislative work was done.

    After the Bombshell of the repeal of Roe vs Wade, he mouths off platitudes and does not properly mobilize the party to use this issue to castigate Republicans to ensure their defeat this fall. I want more, faster, better !  He is wasting political capital to the point that I almost believe that he is a double agent for "other side". The 'wait and see' attitude that he so easily falls back upon is not good enough.

    Well, there is such a thing as being too old, we said that about many former presidents that assumed office in their 60s, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan comes to mind. But Reagan was not geriatric to the extent that Biden appears to be today.

    The "establishment" promoted this man as a "safe" remedy for Trump and his unpopularity with so many. But in his inaction, the disease of Trumpism still continues to infect the body politic. Where is Kamela? She needs to stop the "enquirer" type drama, get up off of her ass and help mobilize the party against an intractable enemy.

    We have a grand opportunity to use these powerful wedge issues to decimate the Republicans this fall and how are we using them? The President is coming off as weak and vacillating when we simply do not have the time nor luxury. I want a younger and more energetic candidate that will fight for Democratic Party principles, next time.

    That is the view from the Left.
    ------
    I need a real progressive warrior.

    https://www.salon.com/2020/03/06/lets-f … us-anyway/

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I tend to agree that it is the view from the left.  Our people are in serious trouble with (Biden caused) inflation...and the thrust is to harm the GOP politically while mouthing platitudes and continuing the programs that caused our inflation in the first place.

      The country has desperate needs...but the Democrat Party is far more concerned with growing their power and destroying their opposition.  This is the view from the left, just as you say.

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No more than what is that YOUR party is doing with a differing set of tools....

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          No argument there - political infighting is more important that the needs of the country, or it's people, to both sides.

          It is just rather sad that we have so many people that support such action - people to whom the power of their party is more important that the country.

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            On that, we can agree....

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You agree? Oh hell, a wasted bucket of popcorn.

              GA

              1. Stephen Tomkinson profile image90
                Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                smile

              2. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Good, you can just take your seat in the peanut gallery, because this is not over.....

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  No it isn't.

                  "...he mouths off platitudes and does not properly mobilize the party to use this issue to castigate Republicans to ensure their defeat this fall."


                  "We have a grand opportunity to use these powerful wedge issues to decimate the Republicans this fall..."



                  "It is just rather sad that we have so many people that support such action - people to whom the power of their party is more important than the country."

                  "On that, we can agree...."

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    The political parties are quite different in their take on things. Is coming together for you mean being willing to be forced fed the GOP line and approach for every thing? It certainly is not that simple.

                    your interests as to what is "best for the country" and mine are always different. But we both already know that don't we?

      2. Nathanville profile image90
        Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You say "Our people are in serious trouble with (Biden caused) inflation...?"

        Just about every country in the world is suffering high inflation - and that's nothing to do with Biden; it's world events beyond the control of individual countries and their governments e.g. aftermath of the pandemic (disruption to supply chains), worldwide gas crisis, worldwide oil shortages, war in Ukraine etc.

        We're all in the same boat, regardless to politics.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image96
          DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Interesting. So why were your countrymen so eager to jump on Trump and blame him for every ill in the world?

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            FYI I am not American, I am British; although being a socialist and British I didn't and don't like Trump.

            1. DrMark1961 profile image96
              DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, I realize you are British as I have read some of your posts. My point is that if you think Biden should not be blamed for the inflation why did so many people there and in the US blame Trump for the coronavirus?
              Here in Brazil our presidents term has spanned both the pandemic and the worldwide inflation, so of course he is being blamed for both.

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Well, Dr. Mark..

                Trump was not blamed for the virus, rather than being blamed for how it was managed and controlled here.

                Yes, he deserved the blame as this article indicates.

                https://www.americanprogress.org/articl … ic-crisis/

                Much of than perceived mismanagement may have well cost him the state of Arizona in 2020. With a high population of elderly who were not pleased with Trumps performance during the crisis, this formerly reliable Republican stronghold went Democrat for the first time in decades.

                I live here and like Arthur, I don't like Trump, a full 360 degree jerk by any analysis.

                It is important to make distinctions as to what is out of your control verses what is....

                1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure, blame Trump again. We all know that Bidens multi-trillion dollar handouts have nothing to do with inflation in your country, right?

                  It is important to notice all of the facts, on both sides of the story, and not just excuse those mistakes from those you happen to be more in line with.

              2. Nathanville profile image90
                Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Almost all Governments the world over took all the action they could, based on scientific advice, in an attempt to minimise the spread of the pandemic; with just a few exceptions such as Brazil and the USA.

                Britain, like most of the world, introduced tough anti-covid-19 Regulations, with the full support of the opposition parties and vast majority of the Public.  In Britain the Conservative Government had the full support of all the opposition parties, and the support of over 80% of the General Public, in their fight against a common enemy – the virus:  It was a non-political issue.

                In contrast Trump discouraged mask wearing and discouraged social distancing; making them political issues which divided the nation, and in doing so caused a greater spread of the virus, leading to more deaths e.g. At Trump’s election rallies he discouraged mask wearing and ignored social distancing so that they became ‘super-spreaders’ of the virus.

                Thus Brazil and USA have the 2nd and 3rd highest rate in the world of covid-19 related deaths per head of population respectively; covid-19 related deaths in the USA being over 1 million.

                So yes, Trump is being rightly blamed for how he managed and controlled the pandemic in the USA.

                1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                  DrMark1961posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Not sure where those numbers are coming from; do you even realize that many countries had a higher per capita coronavirus death rate than the US and Brazil?
                  https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

                  Blaming a country because it is large makes absolutely about as much sense as equating gun violence in a tiny insulated homogeneous country like Japan to that of the US. The US and Brazil are both large countries.

                  1. Nathanville profile image90
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Many countries?  Not that many countries. 

                    The link you provided gives two sets of data:-

                    •    Case/fatality ratio i.e. the percentage of people who catch covid-19 and then die of it, and

                    •    Pro-rata by population size.

                    The chart is set to default on the case/fatality ratio; and even that puts Brazil 5th from the top @ 2% and the USA 8th from the top @ 1.1%; while the UK is 12th @ 0.8%.

                    So there are only 7 countries that have a higher case/fatality rate; and just 4 countries worse than Brazil:  So I don’t think that’s “Many Countries”; it’s just a few countries.

                    Click the button in the chart to change it to ‘pro-rata’ (Deaths per 100,000 population) and it’s even worse for Brazil and the USA; Brazil being 2nd worst ‘per head of population’ and the USA 3rd worse.

                    The latter chart data takes into account population size, by giving the death rate per 100,000 population, so that you can make a direct comparison between countries regardless to their population size.

        2. peterstreep profile image81
          peterstreepposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Yes,  "Our people are in serious trouble with (Biden caused) inflation...?" that was a sentence that raised my eyebrows too.
          It has nothing to do with Biden but with a lot of other things. The prices of fuel and gas for one thing. A crisis that was highly overdue as we had already reached the year of peak oil and still countries demand more energy for production and living than production can deliver.
          The war in Ukraine only made it crystal clear that the financial world was not on par with the real world. Cryptocurrency blew up and the oil finally got a more realistic price. 
          This crisis is just beginning and will take a couple of years as the price of oil will not go down nor will the cost of living. (Fracking and green energy will not fill the gap that quickly.)
          To blame the crisis on one person is far too easy. This is a worldwide problem. If you really want to blame someone, blame Putin. But this is also far too simple.
          Blame the financial world that was unrealistic and not attached to the real world. Blame the crypto market, blame companies like Uber who are millions in debt, and blame the greed of social media companies making a profit from lies, not caring about the effect it has on society. Be angry...on what!!! On an abstract concept.
          But still, by blaming someone/something you won't solve the problem. And the frustration won't go away. A frustration I think many people feel as the lies and incompetence is so clearly shown in politics.
          Politics has always been related to money. Corruption is always close at hand. And sooner or later the corruption is so connected with politics that it creates a crisis. That's what I think. Capitalism is dead, it's become a monster eating itself.
          We had the death of Communism, now we have the death of free market capitalism. What's next, I don't know.
          It's frightning to know that the world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet’s population. (OXFAM) - Think about that. 2000 persons have more than 60% of the planet's population.
          I don't mind millionaires, some of my friends are but this is something else.
          But well....I'm going of topic...
          All the best.

          1. Nathanville profile image90
            Nathanvilleposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Yep, that sums it up.

          2. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            'Some of my best friends are millionaires.'

            That's classic.

            GA

            1. peterstreep profile image81
              peterstreepposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Haha...
              Context GA...

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                I think that was a statement that says the same thing regardless of the context that led to it.

                GA

                1. peterstreep profile image81
                  peterstreepposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  Of course not.
                  Every sentence depends on the context. A word is meaningless without other words.
                  In this case, I wanted to say that if someone has a lot of money it does not make him automatically a bad person or an exploiter. As I was pointing out that there is something seriously wrong with the capitalism of today as the richest 2000 persons own as much as 60% of the world population.
                  Making a distinction between the concept of Free Market Capitalism and a person who is a millionaire.

                  By isolating the phrase GA you gave it sarcasm and giving it the meaning: "All millionaires are bad, but not the ones I know because they are my friends."
                  That's reducing a discussion to tabloid talk!

                  Context is everything.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image88
                    GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Nope, you missed my point. (or, I'm missing yours)

                    My view of any statements that include "Some of my best friends are . . . " is an empty validation of the point made before those words.

                    i.e. the most commonly heard, "Some of my best friends are black . .  so I know what I'm talking about." Or "some of my best friends are cops . . . so I know what I'm talking about."

                    My quip was sarcastic, (but intended humorously, not derogatorily), and was not intended to address your point proceeding the remark, (the context). It was simply a jab at the use of the remark. So the context doesn't affect my point of the statement's usage.

                    Consider, (maybe your view is different), that when I hear that statement it serves to diminish the point it is intended to support, rather than support it.

                    If I had been addressing the context of your point: the inequality of wealth disparity, I would have talked about the "whys" of the disparity rather than be sarcastic about the fact of it.

                    The disparity issue is real, but it is a wide subject, so pick a point of that inequality and go from there. I promise, no sarcasm. ;-)

                    GA

          3. IslandBites profile image88
            IslandBitesposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            https://hubstatic.com/16079268.jpg

    2. Sharlee01 profile image90
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I mean how can I disagree with you? Can't --- But, did you accept Biden was going to change his spots? Did you not ever recognize how he goes with the way the wind blows?  His entire history is pretty much online, and my memory helped me out, just remembering how phony this man has always been sickened me.

      I am in no way surprised at how inept Biden is, and how he will tell one anything on the spot, knowing he is BSing.  He was always the guy in the corner, Obama's nickname for him was perfect --- uncle Joe...

      Your sentiment is well shared
      "A new CNBC poll, conducted by the same polling firms that helm the NBC News poll, finds President Joe Biden’s overall approval rating sinking to 36% among all adults, while his approval rating for handling the economy has fallen to 30% — both all-time lows for the president in CNBC polling.

      What’s more, Biden’s ratings are lower than the worst scores ever for Donald Trump (37% job rating, 41% economic handling) or Barack Obama (41% job rating, 37% economic handling) during the entire course of their presidencies, according to both the CNBC and NBC surveys."

      "The new CNBC poll also shows just 11% of Americans believing the economy is either “excellent” (1%) or “good” (10%), compared with a combined 88% who say it’s “only fair” (30%) or “poor” (58%).

      Additionally, 22% say the economy will get better in the next year, another 22% say it will stay the same and 52% think it will get worse. "
      https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … -rcna38240

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I can only say, Sharlee, while Biden has been a disappointment for me, it comes from failure from a left side bearing. Relative to that, I would have no choice as Trump would have been a disaster comparably.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          We can only hope neither run in 2024.  In my opinion, both parties have changed, and don't resemble much of what we had been accustomed to.

          I have butterflies when I think about the future of America.

    3. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I have been hesitant to give a comment to this, yet it did act as a trigger of sorts. Being probably closer to the run of the mill populace than the regulars here in this forum, whom are experts in their own right on governing and politics, I basically only see what is on Local Network news about Biden plus 'if' I  watch network roundtables like Face the Nation. And, then Facebook stuff. I consider that not even a snap shot of him, yet my local San Diego news broadcast will tell both the good and bad while the network roundtables do a deeper dive.

      That and what is discussed here in these OP posts where others send me on short adventures reading their offered links supporting their positions while of course paying attention to the comment itself is my source of info. In other words the average Joe/Jill are educated by TV and social media mostly memes and word of mouth by posters. That is why I do not put a lot of faith in polling as they are dependent on those forms of info; e.g. Local news broadcast, maybe network round table, social media memes, and word-of-mouth by social media posters, which tends to be emotional and goes with current crisis of this or that while each has their particular issues important to themself. I am speaking about average Joe/JIll as I see it.

      With that in my mind my sentiments of Biden is I see him taking steps forward, though their certainly is debate if correct or not. Yet, I place a degree of his leadership on the impact of inflation on my life. Who else am I to blame if a 'person' is sought out. It is easier to blame a person than blame a concept like economics especially when Average Joe/Jill don't  understand economics to begin with such as myself.

      As far as the abortion issue he had nothing to do with it as I see it, yet, frankly, I don't know what he can do as far as rallying the troops within each state to support it. From my understanding they are doing a lot on their own, so maybe he needs not worry about it. As far as I see it it is regional kinda' thing. And, seems other Democrat leaders are silent in my view as they are not in those news sources I pointed out. So, are they to blame too? I certainly hear about the conservative positions probably because it is 'newsworthy' giving credence to if it bleeds it leads.

      And, as far as gun legislation goes credit goes to congress, not Biden. I own a pen or two myself and could do what he did.

      So, that is more rambling than anything. Being an independent I wouldn't vote for him in 2024 in the primaries, though I can't anyway, I wouldn't vote for him in the general election. I think as Sharlee has said it is time for new blood in the both parties. We need a JFK kinda' thing or Reagan.

      I think the Republican party is asunder between then and now principles of leadership and, frankly. never see anything about policy only being the yea or nay of Trump mostly yeah, yeah, yeah..

      The Democrat party is too left for me in some ways not necessarily of policy, but of the movement toward identity politics and there are too many of them now. They compete with themselves to be on the top of the hill while instituting social penalties, i.e. cancel culture for anything. I mean today I hesitate to say hello to anyone in the market fearing it will be an insult ha-ha And, they will sue me for it.

      There, today, are far too many different mores and folkways to tend with in society. I can see stopping and using some fancy calculator on my smart phone to input the perceived profile of someone to decide if to say 'Hola' - Spanish, Howdy - Redneck, or Hello - conventional greeting. Remember I live in San Diego area and Hola is common at times, yet some think an insult.

      Well, just random thoughts of this and that. As far as Biden goes I will give him attention as he is the president, yet I really, really wonder if he is the leader of the Democratic Party. I think that is so far up in the air it touches the heavens the Webb telescope is probing now. That is newsworthy and definitely is a reality check of sorts.

      Thanks for listening ha-ha wink

      1. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't know that we are so much experts more than we are extremely opinionated.

        I do need to give Biden a little kudos for his Executive Orders protecting the right of pro-choice under certain circumstances. States like Texas are already attempting to sue the Biden Administration for federal intrusion into what should be the state's prerogative.  If I can put a burr in Texas' saddle, that has to be a good thing.

        It is always true that if there is a crisis, the man or woman in charge is going to get the blame. That is the nature of leadership.

        The President needs to mention even in his sleep the stark challenge that will be presented to American voters this Fall, as the wedge issue it is. Are women to be property of the state or are they individuals who can make their own choices concerning their reproductive options and by extension, every other aspect of their lives? These are important differences between Democrats and Republicans and the dissemination of this powerful message cannot be left to chance. I want him on it every day without letup until November. As the leader, he should be setting the tone and the pace for Democrats and their strategy across the nation.


        I did not care for Ronald Reagan, but for conservatives he set the pace and the tone.

        Great outcomes require leaders and the times, circumstances to match. I don't know if JFK or FDR or even honest Abe would or could be as great in the current circumstances. We are looking for a "great man", I don't see one on the horizon.

        While I see identity politics as an irritant at best, the autocracy and how close we came to it in 2021 is of more concern. We have always had differences, but we have always agreed to play by a common set of rules, until now. And that threat, in my opinion is coming from the Republicans and is far more dangerous.

        Mr Biden cannot be content to be just a caretaker, but must boldly and without vacillation pursue goals that he campaigned on, and not be so conciliatory with the opposition that we question how in earnest he is about attaining them.

        Thank you for your imput.

        1. GA Anderson profile image88
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Shouldn't this "leader" be setting the pace and tone for all of the country? I don't think a president should be a party advocate.

          I also don't think the 'leader' should be bashing the Court. Disagree with them, ask the voters to do what's needed, of course, but excoriating them should be a party hack's job, not the 'leader's'. It diminishes that 'leader', just as dashing off a fast Exec. Order to pander to the mob does.

          Wanting a national leader to be the champion for a party instead of a nation doesn't seem so progressive to me.

          And, "Mr. Biden"? Has he failed to measure up to the honor of Pres. Biden now?

          I don't want that kind of national "leader.' You shouldn't either.

          GA

          1. Ken Burgess profile image73
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Too sensible.

            Too much common sense.

            They really need to ban you from this, and all, forums.

            Its sensible people with a modicum of common sense that are the true threat to the necessary changes needed to be imposed on America.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Imposed?

              It is nonsense to think that anyone has the right to impose anything upon anyone else.

              Are you morphing into some sort of autocrat, Ken?

              And, oh, by the way, welcome back....

            2. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              It's good to see you pop in Ken.

              GA

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Would you have said that your Ronald Reagan set the pace and tone for the entire country?  Did he not advocate Republican and conservative ideas that we all did not necessarily subscribe to?

            Yes, he disapproved of the Supreme Court ruling, as did a large part of the population. Just as Obama disapproved of the Citzens United ruling from the court, earlier.

            Yes, I understand your point though, I am the one that complains about following the rules, inspite of the fact that Republicans break them more often and To a greater extent. President Biden has to respect the institution, even though that too was rigged by Republicans by denying Obama his right to replace Scalia during his term in addition to the  diabolical McConnell filling a vacant seat at the 11th hour in stark contradiction to his so called principles. That still sticks in my craw.

            It not a "party" but a set of principles and ideals that I voted for and, if memory serves, the majority of the American people voted for, despite the "great lie" that conservatives continue to harp on.

            So, instead, I say that he should avoid attacking the institution but attack the opposing party policies at every level of politics and then let's see what the electorate thinks about the "tone and pace" of the country which for conservatives, is always just another euphemism for simply acceding  their policies and ideals without debate.

            1. GA Anderson profile image88
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yep, Pres. Reagan did promote conservative values, (which were also Republican values), but he did it by persuasion and by appealing to all Americans, not just Republicans. I think you picked the wrong example. Do you really want to compare Pres. Reagan's public persona, style, and method of leading, to Pres. Biden's excoriations and condemnations of the Court and conservative Americans?

              At least you had the charity to agree that attacking the Justices isn't a proper presidential move. That's a start.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I am always charitable, GA, when it is merited.

                Ronald Reagan was a great communicator but that did not change the substance of his policies for many of us. As a "conservative"  for you he spoke to the nation, for me as a liberal, he did not. Words are words, but using a common euphemism of the era, " where is the beef"? As a liberal/ progressive that was my primary focus.

                I will admit that I did not give a whit about the righty claptrap from him and the Republican Party at that time, but unlike Trump he was a likeable guy almost to the point that I was willing to hear him out. But, he being just another well polished Rightwinger, I caught myself in the nick of time.

                Also, you have to remember that we are far more politically polarized today then say what we were in 1983. Differing times call for differing tactics, with case in point being the continued obstinacy of the Republican Party, here and now.

                1. GA Anderson profile image88
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Caught yourself in the nick of time didja? I'm not so sure. I've seen some cracks in that Progressive mantle in past discussions, and this latest admission that your president shouldn't have attacked the justices as he did might be another one. A real Progressive Warrior would never say such a thing.

                  I also think the polarization of Americans has gotten worse since Reagan's time. However, maybe new tactics aren't what is needed now. Maybe getting back to those tactics is what is needed. Escalation isn't usually the best, (or only), tactic available, yet it seems to be the one that has been tried, (and, it seems, the only one you see—on any issue), since then, and look where we are.

                  As to your thought about almost listening to a well-polished Rightwinger . . You should work on that, you might learn something helpful about your enemy. (it would be a good workout for your conscience too ;-o )

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    My views and attitudes have hardened and is more fervently Left, when compared with 40 years ago. The Republicans and their behavior in the last 20 years has prompted this. I became more liberal with age, and dismissed conservatism as just a life passage from an earlier, more primitive state of blind belief and naivety.


                    I am fair, progressive and fair, and pursue my and our objectives with fairness toward the side that would not even consider reciprocating the same on our behalf.

                    Not attacking Supreme Court justices for their rulings is fair and is part of this system. I subscribe to the rule of law, while Republicans take a "look the other way" attitude about a President that played a major part in disrupting the political system and breaking the rules, and almost got away with it. Why should I listen to any of you?

                    My enemy is intractable, ruthless and diabolical, and we as Democrats and progressives can ill afford to "trust Lucy with the football" again. From the Right's behavior, they have already shown me who and what they are. I am naturally repelled. Looking at the Roe repeal, for example, I see no sign of moderation or conciliation from the conservatives, while they "double down" on locking in their way. This seems to be the prevailing tactic over many states.

                    Unfortunately, time machines are hard to come by, and after 40 years, too much bad blood has been shed and there may well be no healing.

                    My conscience is fine and  I have been studying your folks and their tactics for many years now and they are, fundamentally, no good at their very core.

        2. abwilliams profile image65
          abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          There you go Cred insulting women...again, as if they do not have the good sense to know what causes pregnancy and how to prevent it!!! But, typical of those of you on the left...all that a woman gets credit for, in your warped world:
          Was she woman enough to take it out on the innocent little creation; was she woman enough to NOT make a way for her baby.

          1. abwilliams profile image65
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Oh shoot, I used the word "woman" quite a bit.
            Do you all know what a woman is, this week?

            1. tsmog profile image84
              tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              With humor I think of Wilma Flintstone and Jane Jetson when I think of a woman or maybe Jeannie popping out of her bottle poof appearing out of nowhere within a cloud of who knows what. Just kidding about.

          2. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            So now we twist the argument, AB?

            Sometimes things happen, does the state have the right to control what on within your own body? I do not insult women. Which has always been a lame conservative talking point, but trust them to make the correct choice on their own personal affairs.

            While I have you here, why don't you tell me why you conservative types are looking for ways to restrict and restrain a woman who seeks abortion from going to a state where it is legal. Is it not enough to ban the procedure in your own red jurisdictions? Why do you always want to control people in the Right of their own individual bodily integrity?

            Sounds like autocracy, authoritarianism to me. Can you answer me on that one?

        3. tsmog profile image84
          tsmogposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks for the reply to my rambling. I think a lot about average Joe/Jill of voters today since basically I fall into that category somewhat. Today, I discovered an interesting article about Voters knowledge of Political News, link following, interesting. I found  it to be somewhat of a powerful article sharing about average Joe/Jil voter across demographics. It is just a smidgen of what they discovered, yet gets the point across.

          Voters’ knowledge of political news varies widely, study shows by MIT Management written by Columbia University’s Andrea Prat published on 10/13/20.
          https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to- … tudy-shows

          It was a research study where one excerpt says, "The research identified inequalities in voter awareness of stories across age, gender, race, partisan preference, and socioeconomic status."

          In essence as stated in my rambling average Joe/Jill voter is informed mainly through social media where per Pew Research says 80% of voters get their news. That along with the strength of Word-of-Mouth by family, friends, and associates is what influences average Joe/Jill voter.

          A few key points from the article are:
          ** We live in a partisan echo chamber.
          ** Still, the average citizen is well informed about big stories (Key is Big Stories leading to specific issues at times guided by emotions)
          ** Minorities are less informed

          Another revealing excerpt is, “It seems whole segments of society are just not getting the news. And it’s despite the fact that they spend hours consuming it, but they’re not absorbing it."

          From poking about over the past few years most become a member of one side of the fence mostly influenced by what their parents and extended family is. Thus, in a sense it is heredity. Yes, there are those who attend college/universities where their ingrained beliefs are challenged thus may switch position, yet few happen as challenging beliefs lead to strong cognitive dissonance, which is always difficult to overcome.

          That happens with life experience too as I am a testament to that late in life and is why I switched from Republican to Independent while confess I have conservative and liberal values, thus for self I have my cognitive dissonance as well. Yet I am not invested with passion in either side of the fence while pay attention to issues close to mind and heart.

          How does that tie into your OP, Cred. I think as indicated by my original post Biden is not in the limelight of the main sources of info; e.g. mainly local TV broadcast and in essence few viewing cable network, Social Media inundated by memes and quick short character quips waking up the thought process to ponder or react to with either contempt or rah, rah, rah, the strong influence of Word-of-Mouth by family, friends, and associates that usually is not verified and accepted as a truth, and finally the few in comparison to average Joe/Jill voter that do read articles and research for veracity such as those here in the political/social issue forum.

          In other words we mostly in general see firstly the negative of Biden in those forms of gathering info. It is the 'Big' stories that inform the populace or average Joe/Jill voter as the media usually seeks emotional responses, which tends to formulate the attitude toward Biden. Wasn't that the case with Trump too? And, is today as well whether deserved or not. Joe/Jill voter's passion of this or that is fed leading to the results at the polls, though there are the run-of-mill party loyalist a product mainly of heredity just by being born into a family with party allegiance.

          Again, just some rambling, so apologies for maybe a hijack of the thread. Oops!

        4. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Why Kuo's for sitting signing a paper that ultimately means nothing --- a political ploy, "Dress him up in his little blue suit, and put him behind a little desk, and have him sign a document" ...

          The President needs to mention even in his sleep the stark challenge that will be presented to American voters this Fall, as the wedge issue it is. Are women to be property of the state or are they individuals who can make their own choices concerning their reproductive options and by extension, every other aspect of their lives? These are important differences between Democrats and Republicans and the dissemination of this powerful message cannot be left to chance. "

          Logically do you think red states will be swayed by Roe being sent to the states?

          Do you really feel republican's in heavily red states will vote on that issue when the country is in such a mess? Red will vote red, blue will vote blue. perhaps in blue states more may get out to vote, and make sure their already Blue representative is sent back to Washington.

          "We have always had differences, but we have always agreed to play by a common set of rules, until now. And that threat, in my opinion, is coming from the Republicans and is far more dangerous."

          Do you feel Hillary played by common rules? I think Republicans have to a greater extent played by the rules. They're much more assertive for the last 9 or 10 years, and Trump brought along a concept that gave voice to an entirely new wave of Republicans. People that never dreamed they would have a voice. The party is not the old party of strong silent types any longer. I assume the cork will never be put back in the bottle.

          Biden is no caretaker --- he has many caretakers...

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee, Executive orders are more than just a scrap of paper, just ask Donald Trump as he signed dozens of them.

            Logically, the red states have already been swayed, they are getting extreme and doubling down on ever more repressive legislation. It is the "Handsmaiden's Tale" in the making.

            But if enough of our ladies in blue have their anger stoked due to the sheer temerity of the GOP proposals and their ultimate goals, it can drive them to the polls in record numbers and they won't vote for Republicans. That may well be enough to upset the Apple cart in November.

            Is this new wave of Republicans allowed to nullify votes of their opponents, even though they won? That is what Trump and GOP attempted to do in 2020. The voice is one of bigotry, authoritarianism, why should I give that voice an audience? Hillary did not attempt to unravel the Constitutionally prescribed way of managing Presidential elections, that is what the Republicans attempted to do and they almost got away with it. So, this idea that all of this is just politics is another Red herring. Republicans are afraid of Democracy and its outcome and that is expressed throug xenophobia, misogyny, racism, elitism, greed along with all the other bitter dregs at the bottom of the cup.

            This is war, Sharlee, and President Biden is being seen as the "weakest link" in the battle.

    4. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. We need a stronger leader, and Biden needs to stop his "I Love The 90s" tour. There will be no bipartisan agreement because neither side will try. We are losing our Democracy and need someone strong who will actually do something. I voted for Biden because I felt anyone was better than Trump, but
      Biden's record has been lackluster considering the serious issues we face as a nation.
        As far as Kamala, she's pretty useless. I hate to say it, but the D party needs some new blood, a positive attitude, and younger people.
      I am very concerned what an R Congress will look like though, considering how they are voting to block anything at all, woman are being silenced and repressed, the LGBTQ community is next on their hit list, and forget the environment, childcare for working parents, gun control, and all practical needs in the 21st century that are being called "progressive." Plus our Supreme Court is basing decisions on what was written in the 1700s. People still talk about American exceptionalism, but I'm not seeing it. We are moving so far backward.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        "Plus our Supreme Court is basing decisions on what was written in the 1700s."

        This does seem to be a big difference between Democrats and Republicans.  Republicans accept the law as it is written, with a big nod to the intent of the law.  Democrats feel it is changeable according to political winds, without the need for agreement from anyone else.  The law is rubber, to be "interpreted" according to the political needs of the time, ignored whenever convenient, and in general malleable to Democrat wishes.

        Personally, I fall into the camp of We are a nation of laws, and they are not bendable to the desires of anyone.  If a law needs changed, then change it - do not ignore it and do not simply declare the words mean something other than what was intended when the law was written.  And that goes for laws written yesterday just as it does to laws written 250 years ago.

        1. abwilliams profile image65
          abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
          - Thomas Jefferson

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            That was a golden nugget that led me to look for the vein. And I found it.

            National Archives - From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

            This source is a gold mine of 'nuggets' for Constitutional supporters, and if reworded in today's language, it proves, for me, the validity of this 230+year-old document.

            It's a tough read but worth the effort. Here's another nugget from Madison's letter. It is the first part of your quoted segment:

            "It may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at once, and with precision in every case, this limit of jurisdiction. but there are two Canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases. 1. the capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the US. those which respected citizens of foreign or other states: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. "

            GA

            1. abwilliams profile image65
              abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, golden nuggets! Thanks for sharing this GA.
              Our Governor (FL) has just announced a much broader Civics curriculum here in our State, along with speech/debate education. Preparing kids to go out into the world, with a diploma....and a CLUE!!
              Love it.
              It is beyond the time to "recollect the spirit of the debates"; too much time has been wasted dissecting and... "invented against it"!

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              I understand Madison's comment and, I think, support it.

              Unfortunately Congress has found a way around the intent.  By taxation beyond anything the government needs they are able to distribute vast sums of money to the states...as long as those same states do as the feds want them to.  Coercion via purse strings, completely violating Madison's thoughts.

              It happens everywhere we look, but perhaps the most glaring was when the feds set a speed limit of 55 nationwide.  And if states did not follow along, making state law the same, the road funds from the feds would dry up.  This kind of thing is quite common, I think.

              1. abwilliams profile image65
                abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                ....and quite infuriating, I might add.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  With this I agree 100%.  The federal government constantly oversteps its bounds, and it badly needs reined in.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image90
                    Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    The quicker the better.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image90
          Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          so true...

        3. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Hi Dan,
          Hope all is well.
          I agree about the intent of the Constitution. But it was written at a time where it only protected white, male, landowners. It mentions nothing about women at all, as they weren't worthy mentioning. I have a gay son and am worried what freedoms of his will be on the hit list next, when they are legal now. I believe the 14th amendment allows individual rights not spelled out word by word. I could be wrong, as I am not a Constitutional expert. But both sides play with the interpretation of the document, much as Christians do with the Bible.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Jean!  Good to see you again - haven't seen anything from you in quite a while.

            I agree.  The Constitution has been interpreted to include everyone, black or white, male or female, gay or straight, etc. with the same rights.  Unfortunately, evil people will always look for loopholes and will always find them - no one is perfect at writing laws.  I'm with you - I fear some for my gay niece and nephew, and their spouse.  I like to think that sending them back to the dark ages would be an unwinnable battle, but you never know.  I never thought RvW would be overturned, either.

            I also agree that both sides have a tendency to twist the law, Constitutional or otherwise, to what they would like to see...but I stand by the gut feeling that liberals do it far more than conservatives do.  It is the nature of the beast, after all - conservatives, by definition, prefer the status quo while liberals always want something different.

      2. Credence2 profile image77
        Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

        Nice to hear from you, Jean

        I think on history and how it repeats itself. In Germany during the late 1920s and early thirties, the Weimar Republic was in place and was considered as the period defined as "before the deluge" characterized by a weak and aged Chancellor named Paul Von Hindenburg, a relic from an earlier period, out of time and place and woefully inadequate in the face of the coming tyranny and despotism that was well on the way. That expressed itself in Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich.

        We are seeing this now with Joseph Biden, Jr. vs the Republican Party. Who will be the tyrant in waiting? It may well be Ron DeSantis, give him a "Charlie Chaplin" type mustache, and he may well become our version of "The Great Dictator". 

        Have you been to Idaho lately? There, they speak of banning abortion with no exception made for the life of the mother. The Rightwinger on steroids?

        And you can also dismiss as BS the idea that conservatives are anymore objective in their interpretation of the Constution than liberals. They can be and are just as subjective in their interpretation as they accuse liberals of being, it just depends on what it is that is on the docket.

        We are in danger of losing hold of this American experiment of government for and by the people, in exchange for authoritariam.

        I would say, Jean, that we are in a lot of trouble. I have not come anywhere to being as concerned about the dire nature the Republic is in during any period of during my lifetime and for a considerable time before it.

        1. abwilliams profile image65
          abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

          Oh my God, because conservatives want to protect LIFE, we are now Hitler?!? How much more warped will you get in your thinking?
          One group of us, Conservatives, protect and value LIFE, another, Dems/the Left, you know.....your precious group.....is all about ending life, devaluing life, deciding who gets to live and who doesn't, sounds a lot more like Hitler to me, without any stretching of the imagination, whatsoever!

          1. Credence2 profile image77
            Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

            And in your zygote hunt that you use as an excuse to control the private lives and affairs of those you don't agree with, that has to be seen as Hitlerian.

            Does your people ever think, using their heads for something other than a hat rack?

            Running after zygotes means destruction of casual intimate relationships How is that any of your business?

            I don't define life as beginning at conception and don't care that conservatives do so.

            My group rather than be pro-abortion is pro choice preferring that these issues be left with women and their families and physicians, not a gang of rightwing patriarchs making their edicts from the statehouse.

            I still never got a satisfactory answer as to why you want women not to have the choice to go to a blue state for abortion as necessary? You so called States Rights people want federal legislation to tell us in advanced blue states how to conduct our affairs. We don't want your red bleeding into our blue. We would appreciate if you kept your retrograde policies within your own jurisdictions.

            1. abwilliams profile image65
              abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              Do you understand that perfectly formed, healthy full term babies are being destroyed by the millions, on a regular basis.....because of the madness of words and phrases such as, "running after zygotes", "zygote hunts", is that how you have to see, the taking of innocent life, in order to live with yourself.....in order to sleep at night?

              1. Credence2 profile image77
                Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Rest assured, AB, I sleep fine.

                I was fine with Roe vs Wade, the compromise between abortion on demand and making women slaves over their reproductive functions. So, contrary to popular belief, I am reasonable as liberals usually are and cannot be defined as a baby killer.

                The Rightwinger, pushing  his or her inane ideas are responsible for the current impasse in which we find ourselves.

                1. abwilliams profile image65
                  abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  "Slaves"?  I don't think God saw us women as slaves.... when he chose us to be the ones to bring life into the world and NO SIR, you don't get to blame me for this modern day insanity of aborting babies for any damn reason a woman so chooses!

                  1. Credence2 profile image77
                    Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Roe vs. Wade did not allow women to abort children under any conditions.

                    There is a difference between God and tyrannical right wing legislatures. Don't make it sound as if they are one in the same, because they are not.

                    It is distorted to think that I attack women as part of my argument in the debate.

          2. Jean Bakula profile image93
            Jean Bakulaposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Liberals' don't want to tell women who have too many kids and don't give them enough attention that they HAVE to have abortions. So why should Conservatives have the right to tell Liberal women who may get pregnant because birth control failed, got raped, or got pregnant at a bad time she MUST have an unwanted child? Hypocrisy, much? You can't have it both ways.
            None of Conservatives actually care about what happens to these children once born, as you cut any programs to help them or their Mothers, don't want Daycare for working Moms yet vilify them for working, and love guns and don't care that our children are murdered in schools because you love weapons of war. 
            And giving the power to the states is dangerous. Now women living in Red states who miscarry can't get the pill they need to finish the miscarriage safely, because Conservatives don't like that. They want to outlaw birth control. The 10 year old rape victim who was pregnant and had to go to another state for an abortion was also lied about on conservative media, when it was found to be true. Red states are getting off the wall with the way they want to control women's reproductive and sex lives. It's not the State's or Federal business. If men got pregnant, their would be abortion clinics on every corner.
            Also, this whole Right to Life biz is a Christian one. What ever happened to the separation of Church and State? Jews believe life begins at birth. I am a Pagan. Why should everyone be held to Christian ideas when many of us in the U.S. are not Christians? Do what you think is right. But don't push it on everyone else. That's what you really want.
            Women are becoming 2nd class citizens right before our eyes. Trump's 3 Justices lied about how they would preserve precedent in legal cases.
            Sorry, these issues bother me.

            1. abwilliams profile image65
              abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

              You are all over the place, Jean, but since you are responding to me specifically and since I was responding to the specific subject of abortion, I'll stick to that.

              Devaluing of life, bothers me!

              Self-centered, inconsiderate, entitlement, bothers me.

              Having zero concern for the other person, who has become a part of the equation, like it or not, that's a fact...bothers me.

              When a woman becomes pregnant, another life instantly begins to form, a fully-developed baby in just 37 short weeks, is mind-blowing to me!

              I've never suggested that bad things don't happen to people/to women. It can be a wicked world at times. Why do we have to make it even more wicked by propping up and crusading for...the killing of the most innocent among us?

              As Sharlee asked earlier, what do you think is being carried off in those little bags after an abortion takes place, some of them aren't so little, some of those bags are carrying 8 lbs 6 oz worth of baby.

              Because the other 99%, are perfectly healthy, perfectly intact, perfectly formed babies and they are being destroyed and thrown out like yesterday's trash.....yes, that bothers me!!!

              We have put too much emphasis on...there's an abortion for that, rather than, there's multiple options available which PREVENT pregnancy.

              Finally, you do realize that conservatives come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, sexes and religions right? There are agnostics/atheists opposed to abortion, there are Jews opposed to abortion, there are conservative Democrats opposed to abortion, there are conservative Muslims opposed to abortion, so enough with this, it's just Christians who believe in the RIGHT to life. I've heard it all and then some! As some here like to say, I've heard it six ways to Sunday.
              You haven't introduced anything new or enlightened anyone.

  2. PurvisBobbi44 profile image90
    PurvisBobbi44posted 2 years ago

    My two cents from a country girl---I believe President Biden is a very ill man. I am not a Dem any longer--however, I feel bad for him, and I do not think he is being taken care of, nor do I feel he is being given all the facts about current events.

    Bobbi Purvis

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It is worth quite a bit more, thanks for your opinion.

      As old as Biden is, I have to be surprised that he is not sick. The job has been known to have exhausted men far younger than he.

      1. abwilliams profile image65
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Cred, Joe was ill long before the Presidential campaign began; everyone surrounding him knows it and everyone around here {HP} knows it.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I could only choose between ill verses clearly evil and malevolent.  I chose the former over the latter.

          1. GA Anderson profile image88
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sounds like the choice Trump voters said they faced—the first time around.

            Hmm . . . feeling any empathy now? (nah, I know, that was different)

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, it WAS different, HC did not attempt to overthrow the electoral process, she did not have a record of misogyny, race baiting and questionable business practices over a considerable time.

              I can understand 2016, and the ideas that this "man" was going to "shake things up" in Washington. I did not believe anything that he said from the beginning, and knew that he was just a corpulent oink er  going back well into the 1990s. But, I cannot expect everyone to be as prescient.

              But, by 2020 he was a known quantity, who duped the naive working classes into thinking that someone like him could possibly be on their side regarding anything. Just as what was sought by the January 6th rioters, Trump offered a return to the time when his attitude and that of much of the rioters were more in the mainstream of American life.

              1. GA Anderson profile image88
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If you can "understand 2016 and the ideas of this "man"", then maybe there is a little empathy there, now. It wasn't there before Pres. Biden, so what changed?

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  The "man" is a known quantity now, his populist right agenda fell flat on its face. In the final analysis, what did he "shake up"? I knew that Trump was a scoundrel long before Biden, I wasn't dismayed about anything needing to be "shook up" why should anyone else be?

              2. abwilliams profile image65
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If I may interject gentlemen, HC did/had, everything +++, you've stated that she did not.
                She had it in spades!
                She needed it to win. She was responsible for the Russian hoax story, which got the "you can't trust Trump" wheel spinning. The bogus dossier on him (again...HC all over that) made up claims that stuck and had people worked up and going into the past to find specks of dirt on him. Naturally once "the specks" were dug up and magnified tenfold by the HC-embracing MSM team, Trump was left for dead! Mission accomplished? Not exactly.
                Fortunately for him and for us...HC is despised by far more people than were conditioned to despise Trump.
                Okay that is out of my system. Carry on. wink

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Ok, you can interject, what did she have in spades?

                  She was right about Trump, I did not trust him and I knew that long before so I did not need Hillary Clinton to explain that to me.

                  It was more than specs of dirt, more like a mudslide.

                  I will never understand the Right's embrace of criminals, but that is ok.

                  I am never conditioned but look at a his sordid record that speaks for itself.

                  1. abwilliams profile image65
                    abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Yeah, lying Bill, cheating Hil and the Biden crime family need you fixated on Trump. Keep doing your part.

  3. profile image75
    KC McGeeposted 2 years ago

    biden could not find his ass if he had both hands stuffed in his back pockets.

    1. abwilliams profile image65
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Bahaha, I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

  4. profile image75
    KC McGeeposted 24 months ago

    Wilderness, Democrats don't give a damn about the Law. They care ONLY about power and how they can keep it. The Constitution be damned. Theey will bend, break and skew the law to maintian power. They will skew the Contitution to mean something in doesn't.

    This is why we should not and will not put up with their BS no longer. Put them a**holes in jail. ALL OF THEM. The stole they election from Trump and you can bet in 2022 and 2024 wil be no different. We need to TAKE our country back from these Democrat left garbage.

  5. abwilliams profile image65
    abwilliamsposted 24 months ago

    How long does a woman need to make this decision, since you think women incapable of making the decision long before "intimate relationship" occurs? 12 weeks, 15 weeks? Factor in, this is well beyond your "zygote" stage?

    1. Credence2 profile image77
      Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

      Perhaps, I should ask you why you righty types were dissatisfied with Roe.

      Isn't it true that you people are out to criminalize women even after the immediate point of fertilation? And from what I have heard, you are after contraception as well. Imagine, forced to give birth, sounds a lot like Hitler to me....

      Even if I factor that in, isn't the righty's goal still to criminalize women for terminating a zygote?

      1. abwilliams profile image65
        abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

        I am VERY MUCH in favor of birth control. No, you don't get to keep blaming me, I'm not the one who thinks it is perfectly okay to kill babies, whatever stage/trimester.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          I blaming your rightwing gang, not you, let's make that crystal clear.

          Your "gang" is trying to restrict access to medications that allow a woman to abort a zygote on her own. I presume that you think that I don't read the papers?

          Saying life begins at conception, requires a zygote hunt by the Rightwinger. I am not easily fooled.

          Again, I ask you, what was wrong with Roe, that your side was so determined to do it in?

          1. abwilliams profile image65
            abwilliamsposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Roe v. Wade was passed by a radicalized 1973 Supreme Court, it should have NEVER left the States, but, nevertheless, it did.
            Over time it went from being a matter of, "in rare cases", "to protect the health of the mother", to "only in the first trimester", to young women celebrating their abortion(s)

            But guess what, because States get to decide, States, such as Oregon, can keep in place their "Reproductive Health Equity Act of 2017" and late term abortion isn't going anywhere.

            https://abortionclinics.org/oregon/late … on-oregon/

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              I am not unreasonable, I don't believe in available of abortion services on demand after the point of fetal viability beyond the womb of the mother. The exception is when the fetus is determined not viable in the womb or the life of the mother is threatened. That should have been the intent of Roe.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                Would you agree that in just a few decades (certainly 50 years) we will have the ability for true "test tube babies"; babies that have never seen a womb?

                What then?  Drop back to can't abort a zygote?

                1. Credence2 profile image77
                  Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

                  If there is never a womb then there is no imposition on anyone regarding bringing a zygote to a fetus to a full grown baby.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

                    Good point!  And simply not wanting it won't happen either.

                    But in between, as medical tech improves, we will continue to see earlier and earlier "viability", right up to the zygote stage (the zygote could be removed and grown in a test tube).

      2. Sharlee01 profile image90
        Sharlee01posted 24 months agoin reply to this

        I am going to jump in, and out ... Most women don't even know they are pregnant at the zygote stage. The zygote phase is brief, lasting only about four days.

        Most women abort at about  12 -14 weeks.  a fetus at this stage has a heartbeat, and one can see if it was a boy or girl.

        So, many talk so casually about abortion, like a human being is not even in the equation.  What do you think is being put in that little red plastic bag?  Gosh, if you are going to support abortion, don't assume most women abort within the first four days --- they don't.

        Abortion is killing a living being, no matter what anyone tells themself. In that red plastic bag is a human being.

        1. Credence2 profile image77
          Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

          I understand, but why have a law that says life begins at conception thus it is illegal to use morning after pills and such. Conservatives won't even compromise with this 12-14 weeks, they criminalize at the point of fertilization.  They make it illegal to terminate even 4 or 5 days according to these laws.That is extremist, yet that is what I am seeing coming from too many red states.

          All or nothing which is the way of conservatives on this issue and it simply won't do.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 24 months agoin reply to this

            Just like the gun control problem, with liberals hell bent to disarm America...while claiming that is not their goal at all.

            Problem is that we as a nation, or at least our politicians fighting for re-election, have decided that compromise will NOT be a part of their agenda.  All or nothing, with no in-between, for voting for a compromise might cost them a vote or two from the fringe of their party.

            1. Credence2 profile image77
              Credence2posted 24 months agoin reply to this

              "Just like the gun control problem, with liberals hell bent to disarm America...while claiming that is not their goal at all."

              Well, if that has been their goal then  they have been quite a failure in it as there are more guns in America than citizens. Such is the case nowhere else on Earth.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)