Issues with Rasmussen aside, we need to get back to a place where we can disapprove of a President without wanting to impeach him.
[tw]1433092182622314506[/tw]
Issues with Rasmussen aside, we need to get back to a place where we can disapprove of a President without wanting to impeach him.
[tw]1433092182622314506[/tw]
The vetting process for adopting should be definitely be thorough, but it shouldn't be so damn expensive.
Is knowing about an imminent attack while using your troops as crowd control a high crime and misdemeanor?
I can be convinced of that...
Then campaign off of it in '22 and '24. Trying to use it for an impeachment that will obviously not result in Biden's removal will do nothing but hurt Pubs in at least '24. Point out that Pubs aren't the ones trying to gerrymander the Senate, stack the Court, or impeach for political games, and that those are signs of Dem extremism.
The vetting process for adopting should be definitely be thorough, but it shouldn't be so damn expensive.
I think I prefer a diminished and malleable Biden at the helm to any version of Harris.
Nah, they're doing their best to keep Harris behind doors playing with coloring books or something. This whole thing is being run by Obama's brain trust, with the added liability of Joe being able to get his way on things like Afghanistan. He was the one being told to play with coloring books when Obama was in charge.
Agreed. In general, a lot of the demand for abortion would be mitigated if we actually gave people a viable alternative, both for prevention of pregnancy and the consequences of having the child. However, a combination of religious objections to contraception and sexual education, and a fear of entitlements for parents or potential adopters has led to more unwanted pregnancies than we could otherwise have and more aversion to keeping the child. The fun part is that it’s often the same group concerned with abortion that won’t consider the solutions to limiting it naturally.
I run in an extremely evangelical crowd and had a conversation about some of this stuff with about 50 of them at a retreat.
I said "okay, if you could ban abortion, but the cost was free condoms available in every school, health department, doctor's office, etc, would you be interested?"
100% were cool with that. I'm sure the numbers would drop significantly with the addition of post fertilization measures like morning after and birth control pills (which I and many others still consider abortion,) but the religious opposition to birth control is largely overblown.
It should also be pointed out that no one is doing more than that crowd per Capita for kids in poverty.
I love how "not destroying a baby in the womb" is considered the worst instincts of the republican party
How many adopted kids do you have?
I’m not here to attack your religious beliefs, but can you see how that might be an incomplete solution to the underlying problem? Having contraception be readily available is a good start, but there are some immediately obvious gaps, the largest being in the case of sexual assaults. I’m guessing the rapist isn’t going to stop to consider that free condom left out in the schools.
I truly appreciate that even some that take a hard line on these issues have some wiggle room, but I just don’t see there being a significant change in the demand for abortion without considering all the options on the table. Along those same lines, I appreciate the charity and generosity of those who serve their community, but I find myself constantly frustrated by such a large subset of that group going along for the ride with the worst instincts of the Republican Party. I think often of the amount of good that could be done in this country if we focused less on corporate interests and more on how those with good intentions on both sides could help those in need.
The sexual assault condition is one of those rare cases used to justify the majority, and it's one where the traditional GOP types have always been willing to give ground. The old "I'm opposed to abortion except in cases of incest and rape" line. I don't understand it. If you're opposed to abortion because you believe it's ending the life of an innocent child (that's me) or because you believe it's God's will, where is the room for qualifiers?
So I personally don't believe in exemptions. Sexual assault is a tragedy. My belief is that aborting a pregnancy that results from sexual assault is a second tragedy. More pragmatically, we've seen from Kermit Gosnell and his ilk what a slippery slope those exemptions can be. How many false sexual assault allegations would result from a sexual assault exemption?