Below is my column in The Hill on the Graham Platner controversy on the eighth anniversary of the Kavanaugh nomination. It now appears that there are some women who are not to be believed . . . when the Senate may be in the balance.
Here is the column:
“It’s clear the fix is in.” Those words from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). came with her vote against confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Warren was outraged that her fellow senators refused to believe a woman who came forward with a decades-old allegation against Kavanaugh that lacked any corroboration.
It now appears that Kavanaugh’s former accusers are making the case that he was treated unjustly at their hands. At least they are now willing to swap “Me Too” for Maine.
Warren’s words were part of a mantra from Democratic members that either you believe women about sexual harassment and assault, or you are enabling abusers.
It was almost exactly eight years ago, in July 2018, that President Trump nominated Kavanaugh to fill the seat of retiring Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, who was at first a very uncontroversial nominee, suddenly became the target of a well-financed, well-orchestrated campaign that would continue to resonate in that fall’s election campaigns. At the time, your failure to accept the word of Christine Blasey Ford that Kavanaugh had assaulted her in high school was just proof that you and the system were sexist.
Long after the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh, the left continued to claim that his presence on the Supreme Court “rests on a mountain of misogyny.” In Ms. Magazine, actress Kathleen Turner reminded people that not believing women was furthering misogyny: “Survivors who come forward break the rules of silence a sexist society demands, and society expects them to pay a price.”
If you recall, the lack of evidence led to the Senate Judiciary Committee combing through Kavanaugh’s personal calendars. Denials that such a thing had ever happened, coming from childhood friends, were treated as still more evidence of sexism.
There was Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who grilled Kavanaugh about using the term “boofing” (apparently referring to passing gas) with a high school friend as if it were a confession to a rape. His inquisitorial barrage was something straight out of the McCarthy period.
Whitehouse expressed disgust that some would not take Ford’s word for it, declaring, “Today I stand with women who are brave enough to come forward with their stories of abuse and mistreatment. They deserve to be heard and credible allegations must be investigated. We must believe survivors, not bully them.”
Whitehouse is now a major donor and supporter of Graham Platner, the leading Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Maine. He dismisses the New York Times accounts from women of Platner’s physically and mentally abusive behavior. Instead of believing these women, he reportedly attacked Lyndsey Fifield, who “bravely” came forward publicly with her story at the request of Times reporters.
Whitehouse is quoted as saying that he was “unimpressed” by the allegations and the multiple women coming forward “seems like a lot of nothing.” He suggested that he is not prepared to believe a woman if she is a conservative. “I mean, the only one who had anything to say that seemed ‘unsettling’ was a woman who works for right-wing political operations,” he said.
That attack was picked up by others like writer Krystal Ball. She too had denounced those who did not believe Ford in the Kavanaugh controversy. In the past, she claimed at that time, “women just didn’t come forward. They knew they wouldn’t be believed.”
Now she cannot imagine why anyone would believe these women, particularly Fifield. “NYT published uncorroborated accusations against [Platner] of ‘unsettling’ and ‘toxic’ behavior that came from a Heritage staffer who previously worked for a conservative org that backs Collins,” she posted online.
Fifield, after sharing stories with the Times of Platner’s alleged abusive behavior, went public to complain that the newspaper had failed to include the corroboration she had provided. She posted that the paper not only failed to include that she has supported Democrats for office, but also asked, “Why does it say ‘nobody could corroborate’ when I offered them sources that COULD corroborate?”
She added, “The Times also failed to include any mention that I DID confide in multiple friends through the years that Graham had been abusive — long before he was running for office. Those friends confirm they told the Times so.”
If true, that is a strikingly different approach from the one taken by the media in reporting on the Kavanaugh allegations.
All the familiar faces are now attacking or dismissing these allegations. That includes Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who campaigned for Platner this week. Khanna had previously pounded his chest in public over the Kavanaugh allegations: “I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.”
Some of the usual suspects are now quiet, and for good reason. Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) dismissed Kavanaugh’s claims of innocence but later resigned from their respective offices after accusations of misconduct and harassment.
Of course, the sexual misconduct and mistreatment of women is not the only controversy surrounding Platner, who has reportedly ridiculed a wounded veteran, dismissed rape victims, and made other comments on his since-deleted Reddit account about Blacks and rural Mainers that would be considered disqualifying for most candidates. He made many other posts that were deeply offensive and some that were, frankly, gross.
Nevertheless, figures like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would not even address the allegations, simply repeating awkwardly, “We’re going to … take back the Senate.”
Back in 2018, Schumer was proclaiming on the Senate floor, “For too long, when women have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored. That cannot happen in this case.”
For her part, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) proclaimed her faith in any woman making such allegations in 2018. Now, she repeats, like Schumer, “I’m very optimistic we’re going to win Maine.”
In “A Man for All Seasons,” there is a scene where Sir Thomas More confronts Richard Rich, a former protege who lied in court to convict him in exchange for being named attorney general of Wales. As Rich passes by, More asks: “For Wales? Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world … but for Wales!”
The response by Democratic leaders today appears to be, “Well, yeah — not for Wales, but we’ll do it for Maine.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Nobody defending nazi and communist Graham Platner? That’s weird, the leftys have always told me that the bad Nazi’s weren’t socialist even though it’s in their name and how they acted to gain power. Now along comes one and they’re salivating to vote for him.
Could those shifty leftys have been lying to me?
A politician can never sink so low, that a dog or a voter won’t love him.
If a person is a louse, people will call him a louse. But put that same person in a political office and he / or she can do no wrong in the minds of half the voters, the greatest thing since sliced bread. This needs to stop.
We as a species wouldn’t let the diesel mechanic get away with major malfeasance but elect him to office and when he gets up to the level of Congress or other similar high office in other nations, it is now part and parcel to allow him to kill on a mass scale through prosecuting elective wars of aggression or at a lesser vice such as corruption or illegal influence he goes untouched by the law. As long as he follows the party line or gives people free goodies or false promises he can do nearly what he wants. The system as a whole, world wide is broken and does usually more harm than good.
I believe that eventually, it might take millenia, but I suspect the notion of the politician will go the way of absolute monarchies did in the past 100 or so years. And humanity will achieve liberation from the grips of the political class and its trappings, and allow humanity to achieve its next step in its social evolution. Sadly none of us will live long enough to partake in this. So we must try to make the best of our lives through our own merits and lessen our exposure to the political class.
Darren
Your lack of insight and self-awareness is astounding.
Do you not realize that when you talk of a lousy politician gaining office and having half the voters believing he can do no wrong, you are simply describing Trump and the MAGA cult.
Unbelievable level of ignorance and cult mentality.
Truly astounding!!!!!
Darren is probably a Libertarian who was never totally MAGA. That might be the case many quasi Republicans. They vote Republican while maintaining a slight distance.
I know almost no one that supports EVERYTHING Trump has done.
Support for Trump is much like Lincoln’s support for Grant despite Grant’s problems.
As Lincoln said “I can not spare the man – he fights”
What is absolutely true is that few people are paying attention to the TDS of the left.
We must all evaluate Trump on our own – because the “Trump is Hitler” stuff is so obviously insanely wrong, That we can not trust anything the left says – about Trump, or pretty much anything.
Few people have cult loyalty to trump, they just pay little attention to much of the crazy media and the left
DJT would be remembered as a hero fighting against all odds.
Anon, Your lack of insight and self-awareness is astounding.
Do you not realize you have TDS and are exhibiting signs of cult-like behavior?
Unbelievable level of ignorance and cult mentality.
Truly astounding!!!!!
get help because TDS narcissism is ruining your life.
Anon, Your lack of insight and self-awareness is astounding. Get help sicko. 2nd, thought, try suicide.
Makes me happy that it got to you enough to reply.
My work here is done (for now)
ATS – this “cult” ranting by those of you on the far left merely exposes your stupidity.
Trump’s current approval is 40% – are you honestly trying to argue that 40% of the country is a “cult” ?
I would note that of those who DO NOT approve of Trump’s presidency overall – many would likely still vote for him over any democrat.
These are NOT people who love Trump and believe everything he says as the inerrant word of god.
They are just people who beleive he is a better choice than anything Democrats have offered.
It takes very little to be a batter choice than Joe Biden or Harris.
As to actual Cults – those of you on the left who beleive all the stupid nonsense you are told to beleive – that is an actual cult.
We have had a long long list of Democrat LIES to try to take down Trump.
Whether it is the many many many lies of the collusion delusion or the Biden SAGA – like the hunter Biden laptop, or that Joe Biden was competent,
Those of you who bought that nonsense – should not be talking.
These are not lies in the form of promises broken – like “if you like your doctor you can keep them” – a promise that was NEVER intended to be kept. These are FALSE – usually KNOWINGLY FALSE misrepresentations of FACT.
Joe Biden has likely been mentally incompetent since 2016 – That is what Hurr found in reviewing the interview tapes with Biden’s biographer.
And why those tapes are still being burried.
Those who claimed the Hinter Biden Laptop was Russian Disinformation – KNEW that was absurd. And most of you idiots who beleived it KNEW or should have known.
That is the stuff of Cults.
Not the majority of americans who grasp that while Trump is NOT their perfect president – he is better than Bush, Obama or Biden.
Who grasp that he is Not Hitler or a Nazi or a Fascist – or even close, and that it is those of you on the left who are shilling for Fascism.
Trump went to Madison Square Garden for the Basketball playoffs.
Immediately left wing Talking points became “Trump is not a real Knicks Fan”
Facts such as that Trump had been following the team for DECADES, and that he was courtside – not just for Games, but for the Knicks Draft completely evaded left wing nuts.
You did not even bother to check how easily you could be disproven before spewing crazy lies.
You are an embarrassment to yourself and the country.
We have a Cult problem, we have a “drinking the Koolaide” problem – but it is on the left not the right.
The long time Knicks fan slept through much of the game, the most sought for game the Knicks have played in decades.
Slept.
Trump isn’t a fan. He is a person who wants people to see him and see him being wealthy and being court side does those things. He doesn’t know who the players are, doesn’t know their abilities. He wants to be seen as somehow equal or better than other people.
Scalpers were into 6 figure ticket prices – Trump goes for free.
And sleeps.
I replied but was censored. No 2 people have the same lens.
Anonymous wrote: “I replied but was censored. No 2 people have the same lens.”
~+~
I checked all of the filters and did not see yours the system had knocked out. Might have been some glitch on WordPress or otherwise. Sorry but I don’t know the cause. Sometimes it helps, and it is rather sad it has to be this way, but it can be prudent to highlight and copy all that you have typed into a reply before sending it; in the event that wordpress horks up you can paste what you typed originally and try again. Wish it was better but it’s what we have to work with.
It’s ok.
We all have separate realities. We see through our own eyes and are unaware of it. We make evidence fit our own interps.
I’m still intrigued by the Calais opinion.
Thanks
I think it’s my phone.
I simply can’t tolerate the aesthetics.
I think the rights of the child’s father make him less than human. Fathers have no rights to influence legal measures to protect the lives of his flesh and blood. One parent is forbidden from claiming the right to keep his daughter from dying. That isn’t right.
I agree to some extent if not completely.
Yes, but what if a man randomly chose a woman because he wanted a child? He’d know her identity and has opportunity to be involved in her life. I suppose he’d need a license declaring his intent first, a marriage license.
“prior to the age of fetal viability”
What if the abortionist is 20 seconds too late? She’s murdered a viable living human being
Trump’s Latest Meltdown
A visibly agitated Trump stormed off his interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” after a testy exchange with a reporter who grilled him over his claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Trump lashed out at moderator Kristen Welker after she insisted he failed to provide a shred of evidence about his disputed accusations that the 2020 election was “rigged” against him or that the elections in California are subject to malfeasance.
“You’re a one-sided crooked network,” Trump fumed during the interview, which aired Sunday. “Let’s call it quits because I’ve had enough. Thank you, darling. Have a good time.”
https://nypost.com/2026/06/07/us-news/trump-stroms-off-meet-the-press-interview-after-fiery-exchange-with-nbcs-kristen-welker-over-2020-election/
………………………………..
This whole interview was so absurd it played like comedy; shot inside some farmer’s barn near Chappawa Falls Wisconsin. A tractor and bales of hay provided the backdrop.
Trump was grousing in that circular monotone of his, bragging about our glorious victory in Iran, when a sudden downpour of rain pelted the tin roof.
Rain continued drumming as the conversation turned to California’s recent primary. Trump apparently expected no pushback from Welker when he proclaimed the primary was ‘totally rigged’.
Welker, like any competent journalist, asked Trump to cite examples of proof. That was all it took to send Trump into a tizzy!
Broadly Trump implied that Welker, NBC and California were all partners in some vast conspiracy. With that, Trump stormed off. Presumably a Secret Service man with an umbrella was waiting in the wings.
California: Too Big To Rig
There was a time when Democratic machines in New York and Chicago could decide election outcomes for their respective states. That was possible because New York and Chicago were easily the biggest cities in those states.
But Los Angeles and San Francisco are 700 miles apart. Both anchor Top 5 metro regions. Yet Orange County, just south of Los Angeles, is a Top 10 county by itself. San Diego is also a major metro region.
So it is hard to imagine Democratic leaders from all those different areas huddled together, in a smoke filled room, to decide election outcomes. There would be too many actors with different agendas.
“So it is hard to imagine Democratic leaders from all those different areas huddled together, in a smoke filled room, to decide election outcomes. There would be too many actors with different agendas.”
When you’re all working from the same sheet of vapid, threadbare, hackneyed, boilerplate clichés, it wouldn’t be hard at all. Democrats are brainless automatons, with zero capacity for individual creative thought.
California Democrats are varied and many. Anyone who thinks they’re all on the same page doesn’t know California.
They got the group-think down pat though. They’re all on the same insane-train mentally (emotionally?)
Question: if voting is restricted to citizens and citizens must speak English, why are ballots printed in Spanish?
It’s why Democrats all dress alike, have the same job, are all transsexual; all working from the same sheet of vapid, threadbare, hackneyed, boilerplate clichés.
You won’t find a bunch of them wearing off-the shelf Chinese-made red hats with a slogan from their leaders printed on them by Chinese companies. Or waving Chinese made flags with the name of their leader on them. Or plastering their vehicles with stickers made in China with their leader’s name on them. Not like Republicans do.
How do you think JFK got elected. So it’s not that hard to imagine.
JFK was never elected in California.
Rigging merely requires collusion and some kind of big payoffs for silence. Democrats are that good at that sort of corruption because socialists are able to seriously collectively scheme. all they care about is raw power over other humans. Communist’s must tear down every just means of governance to gain control, they need the lawlessness and chaos and they certainly are able to produce those in massive amounts. Americans faith in the fairness of elections is one of those things that must be destroyed before a communist revolution has traction. It’s all in their little red book. McCarthy was right about everything. Fortunately the CA communists can be isolated and squashed merely by exodus and their contained chaos reflecting back on them. We only need to starve them of federal assistance. This is the way. The Constitution wins.
We recently saw Democrat elites rig an election. They did it in full view of the public. On a national scale.
A handful of powerful Democrats decided to nullify the votes of millions of people who chose President Biden to be the Democrat nominee.
Those people used their power, influence, and threats to claw back money donated to Biden’s campaign and threats to not finance his general election campaign to get him to withdraw. He did so under duress. Jill Biden said in a speech at the 92nd Street Y promoting her book that President Biden told her, “Jilly, I had no choice.”
We all saw with our own eyes how Democrats rigged that election. It’s likely one reason why Trump won. The coercive strongarm tactics employed to throw the incumbent President of the United States off the ballot after he’d duly won the nomination, was too much for normal, swing voters to stomach.
It is part of a pattern.
We’ve seen Democrat prosecutors contort the law beyond all recognition to charge Trump with 34 felonies that were actually minor misdemeanors. We’ve seen a partisan Democrat judge try to bankrupt Trump and effectively steal $500 MILLION from him for “fraud” in which creditors received every $0.01 they were owed. We’ve seen ten years of lies accusing him of white supremacy, fascist, Nazi and all the rest. And we’ve seen four people try to assassinate him after feasting on ten years of hateful, anti-Trump rhetoric from Democrats and their media allies.
And now you pretend your party is just not pure to engage in rigging an election in what is effectively a one party state Who are you trying to fool? Us or yourself?
Right there in plain view.
All you are doing is pointing out the massive problems with mailin elections – especially the way California conducts them – it does NOT require all – or even ANY democrat leaders to huddle together.
All that is required is for those same leaders to create the laws and process that can easily be rigged – and less well known political operatives will do so on their own.
California mails ballots to everyone on the voter registration lists – yet we KNOW that the lists just in LA alone have over 1M people on them who are inelligable – they are dead, the do not exist, they moved, for any of myriads of reasons in LA alone – over a million registered voters are FAKE and everyone of them gets a ballot mailed to them.
That a Million potential fraudulent votes.
Those ballots go somewhere – anyone who manages to get ahold of one can vote it.
CA does a pi$$ poor signature match – only a 40% match is required – but worse still – the signature is optional. You can just put any mark on the signature line and have someone else sign as a witness. And the witness signatures are not checked at all. Nor do they have to be legible
In fact you o not even need a name for the witness – just a scribble on the witness line.
So no organized plot among democrat leaders is needed.
But the above still requires recovering massive numbers of ballot that never should have been mailed from wherever they were mailed to.
Of course there is an easier way – Just print forged ballots and fill them out.
Very few people are needed to do this, and it is near impossible to catch them.
Absent REAL scrutiny it is not even possible to know that fraud occurred.
CA conducts elections little different than they were conducted in the late 19th century – this resulted in massive fraud and ultimately 38 states adopting as part of their state constitution – Secret or Austrailian Ballot measure
1) an official ballot being printed at public expense,
2) on which the names of the nominated candidates of all parties and all proposals appear,
3) being distributed only at the polling place and
4) being marked in secret.
Mailin ballots do not meet provisions 3 and 4
When ballots are floating arround in public – MYRIADS of types of Fraud are not only possible, but easy and some are undectectable.
If you conduct an election where fraud is easy and you will not get caught – you WILL get ever more massive fraud.
Are the leaders of the democrat party involved ? Only to the extent that the created the election process that makes the fraud likely, and undetectable.
The LA election is the perfect example.
Polls are not perfect – thy usually have a small margin for error.
But when the outcome of the election deviates from the polls by more than double the margin of error – with near certainty – you have FRAUD
As myriads of people have pointed out regarding LA – while late mailin ballots are likely to favor one party – in the past when the numbers were small absentee ballot tended favor republicans. Today it is democrats who are more likely to vote by mail.
If as LA counted ballots Bass and Raman BOTH saw their totals rise roughly proportionate to election day and the polls, That would only be mildly suspicious. But there is abslutely no reason that Bass’s portion of the late votes would decline slightly, Pratts would decline precipitously to far bellow his polling and Raman’s would see double digit gains.
There are explanations for Late Democrat votes, There is no explanation for a late Raman surge that defies the polls..
Is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt of fraud – no Is that absolutely sufficient to have a DEEP criminal investigation into LA voting – ABSOLUTELY.
” we KNOW that the lists just in LA alone have over 1M people on them who are inelligable”
No, “we” don’t know that.
For it to be rigged, the Republican poll watchers would have to be in on it, be an active participant to falsifying the election count. Are the Republicans rigging the California elections against themselves?
You do realize that Republicans say that mail in ballots are a curse and therefore will either vote in person or hand deliver their ballots, meaning that a stronger portion of Republican votes will be counted first. They are also likely to be in smaller voting districts, meaning the votes will be counted faster than in the larger districts.
The same thing happened when Biden was elected. And the polls for the election of Hillary Clinton also did not pan out; some no doubt by double digits of error; this because Republicans didn’t respond to polls.
Changing the subject is an admission that you have no viable input for the topic.
Yesterdays news, no big deal.
Fu_ck off you maggoty moron.
I read your whole TDS screed looking for this:
“competent journalist”
Found your error. Welker’s a political apparatchik. YOU have TDS!
ATS – Scott Pelley did an exit interview – in which he said a number of unbelievable things – such as that he had no idea that he would be fired or that CBS was unpopular.
The POINT is that he was completely clueless about reality
The same it true of Welker – if you wish to beleive that Biden won the 2020 election – that is fine.
But when you say there is NO EVIDENCE of fraud – you are completely clueless.
You can try to argue that the fraud was not large enough to alter the outcome,
But there are myriads of examples of Fraud and lawless conduct
You can try to challenge Trump on the 2020 Election – but when you make idiotic claims like he has provided zero evidence – you are proving that like Pelley – you are NOT in the real world.
Why on earth would ANYONE continue an interview with a reporter that so OBVIOUSLY is clueless about what she is asking.
When those of you on the left and particularly in the media – rejoin reality.
When you conceeded that the 2020 election was a disasterous mess in which laws were broken all over the place and
where hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted lawlessly – fraudulently.
When you are prepared to concede that 2020 was NOT the most secure election in history – but one of the worst in the last century.
When you are prepared to admit that rather than do things properly so that the results could be trusted that at every step of the way
you THWARTED the inquiry that was absolutely necescary – then and only is Trump – and the rest of us not going to roll our eyes and walk out on you when you try to pretend there is no evidence of fraud in the 2020 election.
Where is the evidence that Trump lost in 2020 due to fraud?
Most of the fraud for which people were charged came from Republicans voting more than once for Trump. Trump had 2 months after the election to discover it and has now had another 6 years for Republicans to expose any fraud in 2020, but none have done so.
Why would Republicans cover up fraud in elections?
Here’s how to steal an election and placate the Republicans.
Pre-print duplicate ballots and fill them in ahead of time. Since they are already filled in, the count is known before the election starts. Then, on Election Day, discard all mail-in and in-person ballots to a shredder and produce the pre-filled ballots. One hour after the polls close, announce the pre-defined count.
See – all the requirements are met. Ballots counted quickly and all available to see that they match the count. Since it’s perfect, no one will check. Since the Republican poll watchers are part of the conspiracy, they won’t tell.
Welker is a fish wife. Amazing he stayed that long.
About time. More of this with outlaw lower courts:
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/scotus-smacks-obamabiden-appointees
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs, AINOs) are direct and mortal enemies of the American thesis of freedom and self-reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
This is war, and you are still playing tiddlywinks.
Interesting how quickly the leftist minority has managed to change the comments debate from the subject of Truley’s column — double standard expedience to win elections —- to a constitutional debate over abortion law. When the leftists can so easily deflect from a position they can’t defend to one they feel more comfortable defending they win the debate.
You know, you make a good point point. Wok loves discussing how wonderful they feel about killing children. One of their great talking points, it is for sure.
OOOPS! Almost forgot. It has Nothing to do with killing. It’s just if you don’t do it, Uh Oh, Surprise, a people shows up! It’s a festivus miracle.
The debate is this:
Conservatives are saying that Liberals are doing exactly the same thing Conservatives have traditionally done.
Turley’s claim is that Conservatives should ignore the accusations against Kavanaugh but is unhappy that Liberals are doing the same thing about Platner. How dare they!
Except it isn’t true— Platner has mostly admitted some of the accusations — saying he went through a dark period in his life and is seeking forgiveness and a second chance. Kavanaugh denied everything, called his accuser a liar and Republicans cut off at least 25 witnesses who wanted to testify to bolster Dr Ford’s testimony. Kavanaugh also lied about the preclusive effect of Roe v. Wade.
The accusations against Kavanaugh were not disproven. They were thoroughly aired
All communist propaganda is also ‘thoroughly aired’. just sayin
Mea culpa. I thought my comment about leftist’ lies and double standards was sound. Then I responded to someone who said Kavanaugh lied about Roe v Wade by saying that that was a stupid litmus test for a judicial confirmation. It ran from there.
Where you are wrong is that it was not a leftist deflection. Just normal internet freedom in action.
Women do and will report rape. The only mitigation is if a death threat in addition were the case.
Some women do and will report rape. Many know they will get the “he said” treatment and the “what did you wear that led them on” and “if was it a date then what happened was expected” and so forth. When it is rape by a family member, it is even worse. The rest of the family doesn’t want to be known as being related to a rapist.
Prosecutors often don’t go after rapists because they want an unblemished conviction record and even a sliver of doubt is enough to leave them with a loss. It’s why they like to make deals – it keeps the original and actual charge from going to a jury and losing. The victim doesn’t want to be questioned about how many men they had sex with, if any relationships had ended on unfriendly terms, whether it was just a misunderstanding, why she didn’t fight back, had she been drinking, did she initially agree, and so forth.
Women look at that and the chance of failure and they decide not to do it. The effort hurts only them and, if they lose, can open them to a lawsuit for defamation.
Women, not children, do and will report rape. Rape is strictly defined.
In red states women HAVE to report rapes in order to obtain an abortion. Though even then an abortion might still be denied. The whole idea is to instill great fear in women with regards to pregnancies. Even a miscarriage can mean a police investigation. This level of strictness is deemed necessary because feminists remain a major threat to male evangelicals.
Ooooooh, Protestant Evangelicals, the bogeymen. Watch out anonymous! There’s an evangelical under your bed, there’s one in your closet. There’s one behind every rock. How you gonna sleep tonight, all your teeth a-chatterin?
The protestant evangelicals are a large, single-issue voting block. They are easy to manipulate with arguments that conservatives also like – to make the godless suffer here on Earth where the suffering can be seen and enjoyed.
Congrats on the most bigoted comment of the day.
Found the protestant evangelical.
No, but I found the ignorant bigot with a single digit IQ.
Almost certainly Southern Baptist then.
Why are you looking for them? weirdo.
That’s some pretty delusional paranoia. Most of the people I see rooting for human suffering and death are from the party of “tolerance and compassion”, and are talking about how much they hate Trump supporters.
I always wondered at the amazing dissonance with the party of “Hate has no place here” while consumed with such demonstrated hatred.
This coming from “we want communism!” single-issue voting block.
Can you name some of those states?
Thirteen states currently enforce near-total abortion bans with no or extremely limited exceptions:
Alabama
Arkansas
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mississippi
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia
State-specific exceptions vary, but these bans generally prohibit abortions at all stages of pregnancy, only permitting care in rare situations like preventing the death or serious physical health risk of the pregnant patient.
Even worse, there isn’t a defined “close enough to death” condition, so doctors are subject to being sued or charged with murder if the woman doesn’t die anyway. If the woman lives she clearly wasn’t nearly dead enough.
Isn’t the entire purpose of life to produce the next generation? That makes the child more important than it’s mother? The reason is completed at birth?
Interesting than one believes life has a purpose. Perhaps there is a parallel belief in high-school impregnation days, where the girls are forced to have sex with the boys so they can all be pregnant and begin their adult lives of pushing out a baby a year until menopause or they die from complications, Hellstrom’s Hive style.
I think you mean ‘trans-feminists’. The best woman is a man, after all, and ‘women-women’ have been out-performed and are now ‘old news’ and replaced. Trans rights, you know and stuff.
Now someone explain to me, these new women; and why don’t we just call them ‘women’ since they replaced the previous women and are ‘women’ right? why is trans a word that’s used? isn’t that bad? If i call all women “trannies” now won’t i be correct? will they get mad at me? Is it just the new ‘superior to old-school women’? And just what are these new rights that trans should be getting that no one else is getting. Opps sorry I mean women, don’t mean to stereotype previous men. Should we call them ‘new women’? is that bad? Do we still need to keep women (the previous, inferior ones) around anymore? Sincerely, confused
I don’t think that’s the reason. After Roe v. Wade abortions tracked as near vertical as graphed to 1 million within 5 years. It could be fewer than 5 years but was immediate. I’m not sure what to make of that data.
Legal abortions were tracked. When made illegal a similar number of abortions occur, but aren’t counted.
As is always obvious with the Dems: If it weren’t for the double standard, they’d have no standards at all.
Gigi comes on here every day and says the same thing:
“I didn’t read the article, but I’m gonna react to it anyway. MAGA MAGA MAGA blah blah blah blah blah blah, I hate, I hate, I hate, I hate, I hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hateI hate, I hate, I hate, I hate, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, I am miserable, MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGAMAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life, I hate my life.”
Many politicians (both sides) are simply terrible human beings.
In all fairness Trump was a terrible human being before he was a politician.
You hate him don’t you? It consumes you at times and it feels like you are going to burst. You grit your teeth and wonder if you’re grinding your teeth while you sleep. You mind searches for action, anything to right this dissonance between what you know is ‘right’ and the reality of TRUMP! It surrounds you, envelopes you, drowns you in frustration and won’t release!
I am starting a foundation to research this phenom and find a compassionate treatment but for now, know you are terribly, horribly doomed.
How do you know what kind of human being Trump was. Seemed to be a good father, gave to charities, helped his friends, didn’t drink, didn’t smoke. Created thousands of jobs for people, strayed on his wives. Sounds like a pretty good human and normal to me.
His family was convicted of stealing from charities. He put a great number of people out of jobs, stole from subcontractors, tried to extort the NFL into selling him a team and put the USFL into the ground to do so. He hasn’t helped anyone. He would call in with a fake name to radio shows to promote himself. The only touching moments regarding his children is sitting Ivanka on his lap – the daughter he said he would date were she not related to him.
Didn’t read today’s MAGA spam–didn’t need to–I read just the intro, and that was enough. No comparison between Platner and Kavanaugh whatsoever. First of all, Platner and Democrats haven’t tried to hide or silence those who spoke about his alleged misdeeds. Republicans cut off at least 25 witnesses wanting to speak out against Kavanaugh, and they used their power to silence them. Why, unless what they had to say was damaging to Kavanaugh? Secondly, Kavanaugh DENIED what Dr. Ford and others said about him and his wild ways. Last I heard, Dr. Ford was still in hiding over threats to herself and her family. Platner did not deny–in fact: Third: Platner asked for forgiveness and a second chance to redeem himself. Kavanaugh is a proven liar–he LIED about Roe v. Wade being “settled law” and subject to the principles of stare decisis and then proceeded to reverse it. Fourth–Kavanaugh was seeking a LIFETIME appointment to the SCOTUS–the ultimate authority on interpretation of our laws for decades to come. Platner is seeking to be a Senator–a 6-year term to be one of 50 voices in just one of our legislative bodies–way less power, not a lifetime appointment nor power that could affect the lives and rights of Americans for decades. No comparison, but that’s not what Turley’s paid to write about.
Turley tries to turn this into the usual MAGA attack against Democrats, accusing them of hypocrisy– not believing women when they accuse a Democrat of misdeeds–but that’s a disingenuous spin on the facts–pure MAGA. Platner is NOT denying the accusations. Kavanaugh did–and lied about Roe v. Wade. The stakes are not even remotely comparable.
Awww, so women will have to travel an extra couple hours to murder their babies? Bummer for you, right?
Women will have to travel a day or more to have a dead fetus removed so the rotting corpse doesn’t poison them.
False. If the fetus is dead, then it’s not an abortion and any hospital or medical facility will do it.
Here’s the problem – doctors won’t perform the procedure because it could be claimed they performed an abortion. As a result hospitals won’t allow a doctor to perform the procedure there and they cannot perform the procedure anywhere else.
That’s total BA and you know it, liar.
Yes, we get it, your thought is: nobody does anything anymore “because it could be claimed”
We got it. that’s the thought that went into your brain somehow and compelled you to put it here to convince us, not yourself, that this is how it is. Got it.
Women have gone to prison for murder because of a miscarriage.
There are already hospitals that won’t teach D&C, a necessary step to removing a dead fetus because it is also a step in some late term abortions.
Prosecutors will claim whatever they want, regardless of medical necessity, in order to get a win on a popular topic.
“In October 2021, the state of Oklahoma convicted Brittney Poolaw of first-degree manslaughter after the miscarriage of her 15 to 17-week-old foetus and sentenced her to four years in prison. After admitting to methamphetamine and marijuana use during pregnancy, trace quantities of these substances were found in the foetus’ brain and liver on post-mortem. However, the report also cited evidence of ‘congenital abnormality … placental abruption and chorioamnionitis’, all deemed by the medical examiner as ‘conditions contributing’ to miscarriage.
As 12–24% of recognised pregnancies result in miscarriage, there is no consistent, investigatory process to consider these as homicides. Currently, a growing adversarial relationship between pregnant women and their foetuses is challenging women’s rights. Between 2006 and 2020, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) identified 1254 cases where women but for their pregnancy, would not have been subject to legal charges. Expanding awareness of prenatal harms questions the expectation for pregnant women to conform to new, scientific discoveries. Can a woman be wrong ‘for drinking coffee or exercising too little, each of which could pose some risk to a fetus’?”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10262324/
Why is this broad support for Platner by so many Democrats a surprise? This is the same Democrat party that lionized Ted Kennedy after his reckless driving (likely while impaired) resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne who he let drown in his wrecked submerged car, never trying to save her, while he fled the scene (likely to sober up) to save his own political ass? The Democrats are showing us who they are, and “. . . they should be believed”.
So he apologized. If one of the allegations was made and he apologized (before he ran for office and they all came out to the forefront) it would be one thing, but with so many disqualifying allegations that he has admitted to it’s clear he doesn’t need to be put in office. Yes there are others in office that shouldn’t be there either but does that make it right, I don’t think so! vote them out when you get the chance but don’t knowingly put such a disgusting individual in office.
Roe v Wade was a stupid litmus test for a SCOTUS nomination. Pushing the responsibility to the states seems the correct approach.
I wonder how soon a case of a silly evangelical red state prosecuting a woman for traveling to get an abortion will find its way to SCOTUS. The red state will be told to stay in its borders.
As it should be.
Abortion was regulated at the state level from 1776 to 1973, when Scotus took it out of the democratic process. In 2022, Scotus returned the issue to where it used to be, and where it rightly belonged, given that the US Constution does not given the federal government any power to regulate abortion.
By 1972, the prevailing trend at the state level was toward liberalization. Scotus’s action in halting that process, and forcing uniform ultra-liberalization nationally, was foolish. Not only did it improperly usurp state-level authority, it made the issue vastly more contentious on a national level. The harm to social cohesion and national unity cannot be overstated.
The US Constitution does not give the federal government the power to outlaw tapping your phone without a warrant, either — because there weren’t any telephones when the Constitution was drafted. However, the right of privacy derived from the Constitution covers wiretapping. Here’s what “Legal Clarity” says about the right of privacy and the Constitution:
“The Constitution never uses the word “privacy,” yet the Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right to privacy since 1965. The Court built this right by reading several amendments in the Bill of Rights together, concluding that the specific freedoms they guarantee create surrounding zones of privacy that the government cannot invade. That recognition has shaped American law on everything from contraception and marriage to cell phone searches, though its boundaries continue to shift.
The Penumbra Theory: Where the Right Originates
The constitutional right to privacy traces to the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut had a law making it a crime to use contraceptives. The Supreme Court struck that law down, and in doing so, announced that the Bill of Rights protects a right to privacy even though no single amendment spells it out.1
Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion and introduced what became known as the “penumbra theory.” The idea is that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights cast shadows, or penumbras, that extend beyond their literal text. Those shadows overlap to form broader protections. A law banning married couples from using contraceptives, Douglas argued, invaded a zone of privacy created by the combined force of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments.2
The penumbra theory was controversial from the start. Some justices in Griswold preferred to ground the right to privacy in the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment‘s concept of liberty rather than in penumbras. But the core result stuck: the government cannot regulate certain deeply personal decisions without an extraordinary justification. That principle has been the backbone of privacy law ever since.”
Yeah, until the Federalist Society got Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch.
Sorry, but abortion is simply not expressly or implicitly included in the Constitution at all. And it’s not like abortion was an unknown concept at the time the Constitution was written. Roe v Wade was an illegitimate decision from the moment it was handed down, and it was rightly disapproved in 2022. See my more detailed answer below.
Oldman, To clarify, do you want the Supreme Court to overrule their Griswold and Eisenstadt contraception decisions? Also, didn’t the Casey decision address some of your earlier criticisms of the way Roe read?
It only became contentious when Reagan went to the Evangelicals and told them they could have a religious say in government if they voted for him. They did and Reagan poisoned US society. At the time even the Catholics felt it was a personal decision; they didn’t station thugs at abortion clinics, try to murder doctors, and didn’t set fire to clinics.
Thanks Reagan. Rot in Hell.
No. Reagan was duly elected by the people based on his policies. Religious citizens and non-religious citizens have equal rights to vote for candidates that embody their preferred public policy.
As for activity at abortion clinics: what in the world are you talking about? Most of them are Catholics. Maybe in some geographical areas most are protestants, but in many others most are Catholics. You seem to have an irrational phobia or hatred of Protestant Christians. That’s your problem, not theirs (and I can definitely understand why you’d post your hatred anonymously).
And although you disagree with their speech, they have the right to speak near abortion clinics if they so choose. But don’t take my word for it, read the First Amendment.
90% didn’t want what the evangelicals wanted. The problem is that it’s not a one issue President and so they collect a lot of conflicting voters, but the majority of voters for Reagan didn’t realize he’d sell them out for the evangelicals.
They aren’t speaking at abortion clinics, they are menacing, forming a gauntlet that women have to pass through. Another term for it is extortion. They do it so they can feel superior by making those at the center feel inferior.
I have no irrational fears, but Protestant Christians (you know that Catholics aren’t Protestant, right?) are a wide group – mainly it’s the evangelicals who think they are more righteous than everyone else who are the largest problem. Before Roe, the Catholic Church had no particular stance on abortion. That shifted when the Evangelicals showed they could gain a hold on government and eliminate the separation of church and state.
In any case almost nothing of what they do is Christian. They are not aligned with the teachings attributed to Christ. You can refer to what Christ said about abortion.
Now do Jewish students trying to go to class at NYU, Columbia and other Progressive hivemind schools.
What? Regan sold us out to illegals by giving amnesty, not to evangelicals! And NO ONE thinks they are more righteous than everyone else as much as leftists. Anyone who opposes them on anything is considered evil. J.K. Rowling found that out the hard way; she supports 99% of the Left’s positions, disagreeing only on the matter of biological reality, and for that the Left made her a hated pariah.
Did you forget JFK… Jezzzzzzzzz
Just like in engineering, politics is all tradeoffs.
I wonder how soon a case of a silly evangelical red state prosecuting a woman for traveling to get an abortion
I doubt that will ever happen. There are no state laws that prohibit traveling out-of-state for an abortion, and it’s unlikely there ever will be, given that it would be kown to be invald on account of the constitutional right to to travel.
It’s a different story if the boyfriend’s mother takes the pregnant girlfriend, who is under 18, out of state for an abortion. That could be interference with a child’s custody. But I’m not sure if you had that scenario in mind.
“Texas and Alabama have laws that punish people who help adult abortion seekers cross state lines.
Here’s how the Texas law works: Alex knows that Bob helped Caroline get an abortion. Alex can file a lawsuit against Bob. If Bob loses, they must pay Alex a minimum of $10,000. Though the Texas law doesn’t directly target out-of-state procedures, helping someone get to an abortion clinic—whether in Texas or another state—would seem to fall within its scope.
Currently, Alabama is the only state that directly penalizes people who help others leave the state in search of a legal abortion. The Alabama law allows anyone who knows that you took someone to a neighboring state for an abortion to sue you and collect a minimum of $10,000.”
https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/family-law/reproductive-rights/can-you-cross-state-lines-to-get-an-abortion.html
I doubt such laws would withstand a constitutional challenge.
I doubt that many people can afford to make a constitutional challenge once they have had $10,000 taken from them and given to each accuser.
OldFish: the problem with your argument is that Constitutional rights do not depend on your address. You either have Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of privacy and freedom to make choices about your reproductive life, including whether to end an unwanted pregnancy (prior to the age of fetal viability), which is what Roe v. Wade found, or you don’t. These rights do not and should not be different whether you live in Texas or California. That’s the purpose for a Constitution—it defines the rights of all Americans. Roe v. Wade was settled law for about 50 years until the Federalist Society got involved and Trump lied his way into office. The SCOTUS has never before reversed a Constitutional right found by a prior panel. What gives any state a greater right to decide whether an unwanted pregnancy should be terminated than the woman herself, or make exceptions in the case of rape or incest and require all kinds of proof and police involvement if there is rape or incest, which traumatizes the victim even more? What gives any state the right to prosecute a physician, like, for example, Dr. Caitlan Bernard, gave medications to terminate the pregnancy of a 10 year old girl who had been raped?
The US Constitution says nothing about abortion. It does not expressly or implicitly give the federal government authority to regulate abortion, nor does it give individuals a federal constitutional right to get abortions. Many things reserved to the states are different from state to state, such as the laws concerning marijuana to take one example. A person’s legal rights with regard to such topics most definitely do change from state to state, as is the design of the system as a whole. Abortion is the same. The only way around that is to find a right to abortion in the US Constitution, which is simply not there no matter how much you may wish it were. You have the right to try to amend the US Constitution to put it in there, but as of right now it does not exist. I studied Roe v Wade in law school, and the majority opinion in that case is a joke. It contains no legal analysis that would support a federal right to abortion. It is a political decision through and through. It reads like legislation, not judicial analysis. For 49 years America lived under that illegitimate opinion until it was rightly scrapped by a far better decision in Dobbs that actually was grounded in the text and history of the US Constitution.
I also studied Roe v. Wade in law school. There is nothing expressly in the Constitution that prohibits people from using contraceptives, either, but Connecticut banned them, even for married couples. Griswold v. Connecticut. The SCOTUS held that the Griswolds had a right of privacy to decide whether to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. The Constitution was never intended to be THAT specific about rights–some of them, like privacy, are implied. A woman finding herself with an unwanted pregnancy, whether from rape, incest, contraceptive failure, exposure to radiation, or any other personal reason, shouldn’t have her right to decide what to do about it depend on whether she lives in a red or blue state. There is no state right implicated when a woman becomes pregnant—that’s between her and her physician. The argument that states should have a voice IS political.
Penumbras and emanations also don’t appear anywhere in the Constitution. That whole scheme was cooked up in the wacky days of the 1960s Warren court. Since it has no basis in the Constitution’s text or history, it was never gonig to withstand critical examination over the long run. It felt satisfying at the time, and it lasted a littel while, but it is not a legitimate way to interpret a legal text.
Your position seems to be that, once the Supreme Court – again, the wacky Warren court – departed from the text and history of the Constitution and “found” federal rights that it favored as a political matter, such as a federal right to contraceptive use, any further departures from the text and history are ipso facto legitimate. That is not exactly a logical position to take.
Gigi also said that she was working as a nurse, (apparently not making enough to live on from her “law” practice). Take her with a grain of salt.
More like take her with a dose from Xlax.
Did they not cover federalism in your law school? Point out that the federal government has no general police power? That its powers are limited and well defined?
“. . . nor does [the Constitution] give individuals a federal constitutional right to get abortions.”
The Constitution does not *give* rights. Nor is it a comprehensive list of individual rights.
Your frightening notion is that our Constitution is a permission slip from the government.
Even “rights” spelled out directly as protected in our Constitution from government interference vary in the details from state to state. It is not surprising that abortion rights be nonuniform.
We have gotten the overeaching federal monster out of it. Now it is a job for the people of each state to get their own monsters in check.
I don’t know what is worse: one big monster or fifty little monsters.
The same was said by slave holders when they decided to divide the nation, that their right to do what they wanted was more important than the rights of those they held captive in forced labor camps.
The feds didn’t overreach on Roe; they told the states to stop overreaching.
At last count nearly 80 million little monsters turned the country into a mess. I suspect OldFish is one of them.
Again, that position only makes sense if you start from the assumption that the federal constitution guarantees a personal right to an abortion. It doesn’t. You can’t quote a single phrase in the US Constitution that says that or implies it.
If you hate slavery, then you should equally hate abortion. Both practices are based on dehumanizing another human being.
Give it up on the slavery shit man. 650,000 White men died over that. We should have picked our own cotton.
A lot of whites did pick cotton. It is a fallacy that only blacks did.
Poke Henry for one!
Even Ginsberg thought Roe v Wade was decided wrongly.
Once again Meyer spouts the typical lies and myths that he learns as part of the MAGA cult.
Firstly, it is Ginsburg, not Ginsberg.
And she NEVER said that Roe was wrongly decided. This is yet another MAGA lie. She absolutely agreed that there is a fundamental right to an abortion.
She simply disagreed with the decision to use the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to establish a right to privacy as the basis for the decision. She believed that the case should have been decided using the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
She argued that Blackmun’s majority opinion was centered too much on the physician’s right to practice medicine in a private relationship with the patient. She believed that the opinion was centered on the physician and protecting his or her rights to perform an abortion, rather than the woman’s right to control her reproductive choices.
She argued that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy created a disadvantage by restricting her ability to make decisions about her education and career simply because she was a woman, and as such violated the Equal Protections Clause. She believed that a woman has an absolute right to control her own destiny, and that a forced pregnancy limited her right to make other choices in her life. Thus, a forced pregnancy is a violation of the Equal Protections Clause, because the woman’s rights were restricted simply because of her gender.
Ginsburg was right. As I stated, she said the decision was wrongly decided.
Ruth Bader should’ve been drafted like Elvis Presley before making an argument like that.
Let ms know when my right to own any firearm I want is the same in California as it is in Alabama.
“Trump lied his way into office”
OK, yeah, you had me considering your screed thinking you were lucid. TDS detector activated.
“What gives any state a greater right”? State’s rights 101.
The Federalist Society goal is to make abortion a federal crime. These are the stepping stones to that goal. If a red state is told to stay in its borders then that’s going to be given as a reason to push for federal legislation to make the law uniform across the US.
Why not push the decision to the county level, the city level, or the personal level? What’s magical about the state level except that many states have legislatures which don’t do what the voters tell them to do, even if they pass a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion.
The Federalist Society goal is to make abortion a federal crime.
So? It won’t succeed. You seem very scared of the Federalist Society.
What’s magical about the state level?
I’m happy to provide a civics lesson.
It’s the way our system is set up. States are the sovereigns. States are the ones that have police powers, not the federal government or political subdivisions such as counties and townships. (Police powers is a legal term that means unenumerated powers to pass laws to promote the health, safetey, and welfare of the people.)
Political subdivisions such as counties and townships don’t have any inherent powers of their own, not even the power to exist except as given by the state legislature. They only have so much authority as the state legislature gives them. That’s why each local ordinance must be authorized by “enabling legislation.” (Home rule cities are a slight variation on this.)
When the US Constitution was written, states were the sovereigns and agreed to give up a little bit of their sovereign powers, but only those actually enumerated in the US Constitution. This is in contrast to state powers which need not be enumerated, since again, they are the sovereign with police powers that need not be enuerated.
“I wonder how soon”
Do you ever wonder why it _hasn’t_ happened?
LOL
The comparison is obvious. With Kavanaugh, there were literally saying to believe all women. That was their stated sexist, stupid position and now they are doing a 180 and refusing to hold their own to the standard THEY put forth! That is why they are hypocrites here.
So your comparison is that platner is admittedly guilty and Kavanaugh says he’s innocent.
Well, totally completely side-by-side point-by-point comparable situations that should result in the same outcome, glad you thought this through so thoroughly anon. Hang this post on your wall of credit or refrigerator. Attaboy
The longer it takes for California to complete its mail-in primary counts…….the more that Republicans Pratt and Hilton seem to be slipping behind……
No surprise. Trump toadies are seen as losers in California.
So what you just said is: Californians vote for their own destruction, for the burning down of their cities, for a lack of water to put out the fires, for open-air drug markets, for needles and feces on the streets, for unsafe neighborhoods where raising a family is next to impossible, for downtowns with all stores boarded up, for massive shoplifting, for riots and poverty, and for communism that drives job-creators elsewhere. They vote *for* all of that, and then when they see red states like Texas, California, and Tennessee thriving, without all those massive problems, they conclude those red states are losers. Got it.
Not sure ‘what state’ you’re babbling about.
It’s all there in black and white. Do you have trouble comprehending the English language?
“red states like Texas, California, and Tennessee thriving”
It seems like you have anger management issues there, old man.
States don’t thrive. Individuals do. California has a mild climate which makes being homeless there survivable. Texas, Florida, and Tennessee aren’t better because of their politics, but simply from being physically inhospitable. As to politics – what red states often do is to purge people rather than help them or force them into prison for slave labor purposes.
So your primary complaint is that I said “states are thriving” as a shorthand for “the people in the states are thriving.”?
If your telling were correct, then we wouldn’t be seeing a voluntary mass exodus of middle class citizens and job creators from blue states like California, NY, and Illinois, to red states where taxes are lower and there’s more freedom. This is happening, whether you put your head in the sand or not. California has the best weather in the country, but people are leaving in droves because it is being run into the ground by the Democrat party. Based on the 2030 census, the blue states are projected to lose many congressional seats while the red states pick them up.
red states like Texas, California, and Tennessee thriving”
***********************
Ano.
Lay off the booze Calif is not red. Nor is it thriving. The debt alone it killing it.
Battle cry of the dead: “We have not yet begun to vote!”
Platner’s campaign took off because Bernie Bros embraced that Trumpian notion that ‘no political experience’ is really an asset. Like the best way to find good candidates is to shun anyone who might be qualified.
The Bernie Bros are simply Trumpers in reverse and every bit as stupid.
Like the best way to find good candidates is to shun anyone who might be qualified.
You’re seriously proposing that all politicians prior to Trump were “good” because of their experience as politicians?
After all, senate candidate Graham Platner won’t do anything wrong if elected.
Oops I thought that was Eric Swalwell.