How Trumpy Will The GOP Get In 2022?
The Republican Party, these days, is the Party of Donald Trump. The question the 2022 elections might answer is precisely how Trumpy the party is going to get, for at least the next two years. A corollary question is how big Trump's influence truly is with both Republican voters and Republican donors. Many are fervently hoping Trump's influence will fade to at least some degree if a few of his anointed candidates lose spectacularly, but no matter how many wind up losing, the near-certainty is that Donald Trump is going to make another presidential run in 2024 -- meaning the 2022 results may not actually matter all that much. An election with no Trump on the ballot is one thing, but if he's at the top of the ballot the next time around then all bets will -- once again -- be off.
Trump's influence will first be measured in the 2022 primaries, which are fast approaching. Texas will be the first major test, in less than two weeks. The incumbent Republican governor (even though he's already been endorsed by Trump) and the attorney general both face insurgent Republican candidates from the right, as well as a few other GOP-v-GOP state races and House contests. If any of the incumbents lose to challengers seen as more pro-Trump than they are, it might be the beginning of a shift towards Trump which could reverberate in other red states as the primaries unfold. But if the incumbents beat the Trump-favored challengers, it could signal that a Trump endorsement isn't the magic bullet many Republicans now see it as.
The effect will be most pronounced among governors and U.S. senators, to a lesser degree among secretaries of state (who are responsible for running state elections), and also among certain House members (those who have earned Trump's wrath by being insufficiently loyal to the Dear Leader). Trump has made close to 100 endorsements so far, but most of them won't garner much media attention no matter what the outcome. Successful primary challenges to sitting governors and senators will, however. So will the failures of Trump-endorsed candidates.
Unlike some Democrats who will be fighting in their own primaries, Republicans are not having any sort of ideological battle. There is no political issue separating any of them, other than how loyal they are to Trump himself and his Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him. That's the only thing they're really fighting over. And it's a very angry fight indeed. John Watson, a former Georgia Republican Party chair, summed up the intensity of the feelings that are out there recently:
The confluence of the pandemic, the manner in which Trump practiced his politics -- just pure in-your-face -- you throw in a healthy dose around what is being taught in our schools, it's just a cocktail of people being really just mad, beyond the pale of what I would say is traditional political discourse. There's not another moment in my life that you just feel viscerally that the country is in many ways at its own throat.
He was quoted in a Politico article that provides a fairly comprehensive look into many of the individual GOP primary races about to happen. Georgia is going to be one of the most contentious of these, as Trump is still seething that the sitting governor and secretary of state didn't "find" the votes necessary to declare Trump the winner of the 2020 election. It's a personal vendetta, and one of the biggest in the country for Trump.
Trump's problem with endorsements is that his vetting process seems to consist purely of a loyalty test (to him, of course). This means he's picked some mighty flawed candidates who will likely go down in flames. This doesn't exactly fit Trump's narrative, obviously. To Trump, things are simple: he bestows his blessing on a candidate, that candidate goes on to beat a "RINO" in the primary who has earned Trump's disdain, and then Trump's chosen candidate romps to victory in November. Things don't always play out this way in reality, though. Trump may look to up his winning percentage with a few last-minute endorsements (he could even switch candidates at the last minute, if everyone knows his candidate is going to lose), but the reality is that Trump's crystal ball is cloudy, if not outright cracked.
The primaries are only the first round of this, of course, and the outcome is nowhere near certain no matter what happens. Trump could sweep the primary field with his chosen candidates and then those candidates could go on to lose in the general election. Trump could strike out with most of his candidates in the primaries, too. Or Trump could emerge as the kingmaker of kingmakers in the GOP, if his chosen candidates win both their primaries and the general election. Or some muddied combination of these possibilities will occur -- which is by far the most likely outcome (some will win, some won't, making it harder to draw sweeping conclusions).
The best possible outcome for the Republican Party and the country at large would be either if the majority of Trump's chosen candidates lose in the primaries, or if they win and then go on to lose in the general election. In the first case, the party would be able to see solid proof that Trump's influence is on the wane, even among base GOP voters. In the second case, it would prove that Trump-endorsed candidates can lose very winnable races, therefore it really is self-defeating to nominate them. Either way, the party as a whole would have a good reason to distance themselves from Trump and his Big Lie in preparation for 2024. If this is a strong enough movement, then perhaps a presidential challenger could even defeat Trump in the 2024 primaries and deny him the nomination.
That looks pretty far-fetched at the moment, I will admit. The much-more-likely outcome is that no matter what happens in 2022, Trump will run again in 2024 and walk away with the Republican nomination. In that case, Trump's endorsement track record won't matter one whit, because the party will continue to remain in thrall to him, lock, stock, and barrel.
Of course, most Republicans would not agree with any of this assessment. To them, Trump candidates winning in both primaries and the general election would be the best possible outcome, because they would increase their power through these victories. Trumpy or not, more governorships and congressional seats would mean a stronger GOP.
Ultimately, of course, all of this is up to the voters to decide. If GOP voters decide to double down on Trumpism in the primaries, then the party bigwigs who might wish to move on from the era of Trump are still going to have an uphill battle when it comes to convincing their own base to change direction. If most of these candidates lose in the general election (or just the most prominent of them, perhaps), then the party leaders will at least be able to argue that electability matters when choosing nominees. If most of them win in both rounds, then the Republican Party will by definition have become more Trumpy and nothing any GOP member says against Trump is going to change that one iota.
As mentioned, there are a lot of ways this could all play out. The most likely is that we get a mixed outcome. Maybe some Trump candidates win in the primaries, but not all of them. Maybe some of them go on to lose in the general, but not all of them. In this case, Trump will (as he has done before) announce total victory and scoff at the candidates who lost as being "total losers" and flawed beyond his magic powers to fix. Pundits of all stripes may draw differing conclusions, of course.
So buckle up, folks. This year's election season is going to be a rough (but fascinating) ride.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
No, Trump won't say his candidates lost because they weren't sufficiently trumpacious, he'll say they actually won, but the elections were rigged, and then asks his supporters for donations to sponsor a mob in each state that will disrupt the swearing-in ceremonies.
Texas will be the first major test, in less than two weeks.
I voted! :)
the moderna booster was a doozy. i took my shot sunday, and even thursday night i'm still feeling it a little in my muscles and joints. this vaccine is no joke.
we are at war with eurasia. we have always been at war with eurasia. ignorance is strength!
Ditto for the Pfizer booster - "it nearly killed me."
i thought pfizer wasn't quite as harsh as moderna
Well, you know what thought did... he only thought it did!
I had no reaction from the first (Pfizer) nor from the second (Moderna) but, you know, the third one made for a helluva lot of vaccine in one year. No more for me! For at least another year, anyways.
@Russ,
And a “baby” does not exist 6 weeks after conception. It’s a clump of cells called a zygote. So you are arguing that morally and ethically there is no difference between one thing that does not exist as you describe it and one that can exist.
You can call the baby a zygote if you wish.. But it's still a baby with it's own unique heartbeat..
Why are you so intent on helping women murder innocent babies, Russ??
Really? Our legal system disagrees.
And, AGAIN, with the lack of reading comprehension..
Did I say LEGALLY?? No, I did not..
Let me repeat it slowly for you.. So you can understand..
MORALLY.... ETHICALLY... There is NO DIFFERENCE between killing a baby at 6 weeks gestation and killing a baby at 1 week after birth..
Now, do you want to address what I actually said???
Or do you want to continue showing everyone what a moron you are??
I am not so sure that the unborn child would wish to be born if they knew what was waiting for them.
You obviously didn't even bother to read the relative article did you??
Florida's bill contains exceptions if the abortion is necessary to save a mother’s life, prevent serious injury to the mother or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality. The state currently allows abortions up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Why do you insist on display such butt-ugly ignorance, eh Russ??
Moron :^/
JL, Liz
the moderna booster was a doozy. i took my shot sunday, and even thursday night i'm still feeling it a little in my muscles and joints. this vaccine is no joke.
Ditto for the Pfizer booster - "it nearly killed me."
I have never understood a persons desire to make themselves sick to prevent getting sick...
It's mind-boggling..
I mean, honestly.. Think about it..
"I really don't want to get sick.. I really don't want to get sick... Oh.. Wait.. Let me go get purposely sick.."
Where is the logic??
I mean, both of ya'all had said how utterly crappy the "vaccine" made you feel..
You DO realize that, even if you GOT Covid, the symptoms would be very mild, right??? I am living proof of that..
So, in essence, it's more than likely that the "vaccine" made you feel WORSE than actually getting COVID, eh??
Further, the immunities you would get from actually getting COVID would be MUCH better than than anything you would get from a "vaccine"...
Given these facts, it's amazing that people opt for a "vaccine" that, all things being equal, would make them feel worse than actually getting sick..
But hay.. It's ya'all's choice.. I respect that..
Just as ya'all should respect a person's choice NOT to make themselves sicker, eh?? That's how it works..
Right???
Speaking of COVID...
The Democrats are losing their wedge issue...
The Covid State is Crumbling.
State Legislatures Must Continue to Curb Emergency Executive Power
Connecticut and Iowa ended their states of emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on February 15th and 16th, respectively. According to Ballotpedia, 26 states still have emergency declarations or public health directives in place, though these declarations confer varying levels of emergency power to each state’s chief executive.
It's likely the last of these dominoes will fall before the end of the calendar year. Just in recent weeks, it has become more apparent that the COVID state is crumbling, both domestically and abroad.
Although most states will have ended their emergencies within the next week, many continue to grapple with finding the proper balance of power between the legislative and executive branches during an emergency.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/02/17/the_covid_state_is_crumbling_state_legislatures_must_continue_to_curb_emergency_executive_power_817114.html
The Democrat Party Power Trip is over...
The facts will come out on how badly Democrats ignored the science and abused their political power...
Masks didn't help and actively harmed..
Vaccine was useless..
Mandates and lock downs did more harm then good..
The Democrat Party is facing extinction...
Traditionally, states of emergencies are declared for natural disasters and catastrophic weather events like wildfires, tornadoes, or here in New England, ice storms and Nor’easters. Never before have most people seen an emergency declared – and then persist in perpetuity – period, let alone due to a new pathogen.
Equally as troubling is the ways in which governors wielded their vast emergency powers during the pandemic, often with no involvement or oversight from the people’s branch, the legislature.
In Maine, Gov. Janet Mills – like many governors – issued nonsensical rules that had no backing in science. At one point, Mainers could only golf in their home county unless they were a member of a golf club in a different county. There is no evidence that golfing contributes in any measurable or significant way to the spread of COVID-19, but Mainers’ freedom to do so was nonetheless curtailed by their governor.
The complete and utter STOOPIDITY of Democrats...
ALL of the facts regarding the absurdity and downright maliciousness of Democrats and their fascist gestapo tactics is going to come out in the leadup to the November elections..
Democrats will be lucky to get themselves elected dog-catcher..
While Democrat Janet Mills' example only scratches the surface of ridiculous restrictions forced upon citizens by governors during the pandemic, it underscores the true absurdity of what’s transpired in virtually every state over the last two years: unscientific micromanagement of nearly every aspect of society and sector of the economy, all in the name of “doing something” to stop the virus; facts, science, logic and livelihoods be damned.
Fortunately, American citizens – and as a result, their elected officials – have had enough.
In 2021, at least 46 states introduced reforms to their emergency power laws to require greater oversight of their governor’s actions. Sixteen states enacted reforms, and 11 of them were substantial enough to reflect changes to their ranking in the second edition of Maine Policy Institute’s “Scoring Emergency Executive Powers in All 50 States,” a scorecard that measures the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches during states of emergency in every state.
Eight of the 15 highest scoring states reformed their laws in 2021 while the bottom 20 scoring states made no changes at all.
Let's play that one for the cheap seats...
unscientific micromanagement of nearly every aspect of society and sector of the economy, all in the name of “doing something” to stop the virus; facts, science, logic and livelihoods be damned.
That is going to be the epitaph on the gravestone of the Democrat Party...
unscientific micromanagement of nearly every aspect of society and sector of the economy, all in the name of “doing something” to stop the virus; facts, science, logic and livelihoods be damned.
As I have proven beyond ANY doubt whatsoever...
Democrat "science" is nothing but poorly disguised Democrat activism..
SILENCE GIVES ASSENT
ON OVERRULING ROE
It is very much in the air now, with a deep hope on one side and a grim resignation on the other, that the holding in Roe v. Wade will not survive this year. Conservatives seem sure that something decisive is about to happen because they have helped to put on the Court the judges who can make it happen. They worry that some of their six judges may lose their nerve or settle for a decision that keeps Roe v. Wade on the books, as a fragile façade, while its substance is removed step by step. Liberals are terrified that the abortion license put in place by Roe will be swept away.
But one way or another, whether Roe is overturned, scaled back dramatically, or set on a path toward reversal, people will be invited to deliberate again about just how much protection they are willing to accord a child in the womb. Put another way, they will be invited to judge just who will be protected by their laws against homicide. For this reason, it matters profoundly how the issue of abortion is framed by the Court and sent back for the people in the various states to ponder anew.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2022/03/on-overruling-roe
No matter how ya slice it...
Roe is going down...
TENS OF MILLIONS of babies have been killed..
But, finally... The killing will end..
"So say we all"
But when we turn to conservative lawyers or judges, who speak the language of jurists, the victim is curiously displaced from the scene. We hear that Roe was an outrage because seven justices exceeded the reach of their authority. They legislated from the bench and deprived people in the states of their chance to make up their own minds as to whether the child in the womb is a human being duly protected in law. It was an exercise of raw judicial power, we are told, licensed by nothing in the Constitution.
With this move there is a notable shift in focus. The killing of the child—the gravest matter that brought forth the law—is displaced as the main question of harm and justice. The harm done to the fetus is replaced with the harm visited on the people and state legislatures, as they are now deprived of their right to determine how much weight might be given to the life of a child when it is set against the interests and convenience of a pregnant woman.
Even though Russ tried to obfuscate the facts (IE spew bullshit) the simply fact of this is that it's a BABY'S LIFE we are talking about..
How ANYONE can sit there and type about how awesome it is to kill an innocent baby??
It's simply mind-boggling...
And, on another, lighter note.. :D
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/afb021722dAPR20220217054504.jpg
THAT sums it up PERFECTLY for Democrats..
Honestly, people.. How do you expect ANYTHING but a total and complete shellacking of Democrats in November??
Ahhhhh Now the pattern becomes clear..
If Democrats can't kill babies in the womb...
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/stg021522dAPC20220215014510.jpg
Then they commit child abuse in school...
When I say peacefully protesting, I would call it more of a demonstration because what are we guilty of? Some trucks parked illegally? Okay, I'm not sure that that warrants the response from the government. But one of the things that they did include in this emergency act is it forces tow truck companies under duress to come in and tow the trucks. And if they refuse to tow the trucks, then the government can say, "Fine, we're canceling your business license and fining you."
Trudeau said in his press conference that he's not going to call in the military, and we were all laughing because our response was, "Yeah, you tried that last week and the military said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks – this is not in within our purview.’" And many of us have families in military and policing, and that's how we found out. So you know what they say? A general without an army is a fool. Justin Trudeau just hasn't realized that yet.
-BENJAMIN DICHTER, Canadian Trucker
Adolph Trudeau is the laughing stock of Canada...
A little man trying to act tough...
Hay Russ,
Whatever happened to your bimbo "friend"??
BBBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Once again.. You are proven to be FULL OF SHIT!! :D
'The View's' Joy Behar says she will wear a mask 'indefinitely' in public places
The CDC has said it will be updating its guidance on wearing masks 'soon' amid the continued reduction of coronavirus cases across the country
Co-host of ABC's "The View" Joy Behar declared Thursday that she would continue to wear a mask "indefinitely" when in public places despite the continuously dropping number of coronavirus cases across the country or any potential easing of masking guidelines.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/the-view-joy-behar-mask-indefinitely-public-places
In other words, Behar is a moron who ignores science and is just intent on virtue signaling and being politically correct.. :^/
Michale,
FYI...
I would recommend the World Health Organization as a great place to start when it comes to understanding all you need to know about how vaccines work, in particular, and about global public health, in particular.
And, be sure not to miss the virtual press conferences which have been exceedingly enlightening - not necessarily by the questions asked by the journalists but always by the in-depth and comprehensive answers given by the public health scientists of the WHO.
to my knowledge, the covid vaccine has never killed anyone. catching covid, on the other hand, has killed six million people. that's about the same number as jews who were killed in the holocaust. the main reason most cases are now pretty mild is most likely BECAUSE many of the people who catch it are vaccinated. so yeah, i'd absolutely deny anyone the right to put other people's lives at risk by refusing to chance getting sick for a few days.
i've never heard of anyone who actually likes abortion. the trouble is that trying to legally prohibit abortion is kind-of like trying to prohibit alcohol or drugs. it doesn't stop the practice, just moves it into the shadows where desperate young women put their life and health in the hands of criminals.
a foetus is not a person. it doesn't even begin to be able to feel pain until around 26 weeks, because it doesn't have a nervous system yet.
JL,
to my knowledge, the covid vaccine has never killed anyone.
Your knowledge is incomplete..
Since December 2020, more than 469 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered in the U.S., and VAERS has received 10,483 reports of death (0.0022%), according to the CDC.
catching covid, on the other hand, has killed six million people.
Not factually accurate.. There can be no way to determine if people with comorbidities would have died anyways..
What IS factually accurate.. What IS possible to determine is that COVID itself has killed only 5% of the total..
Further, the reporting agencies have politicized COVID, so there is really no way to know the actual facts.
When you have vehicle accident deaths and other non-COVID related deaths reported as COVID deaths, you know the "facts" from the political entities are suspect...
. so yeah, i'd absolutely deny anyone the right to put other people's lives at risk by refusing to chance getting sick for a few days.
Really?? So, since flu can kill MANY more people than the average run o the mill pandemic, would you support FORCING people to get a flu vaccine??
Where would you draw the line???
Especially when you consider the FACT that the COVID pandemic has been so politicized and we are now learning so much about what was done, so many liberties restricted, that WASN'T supported by the science....
How about forced sterilization of Democrats so they can't reproduce?? You down with that?? :D
I am.. :D
i've never heard of anyone who actually likes abortion.
First off, Russ appears to LOVE abortion.. It's understandable.. He's a Democrat and Democrats hate kids...
Secondly, you are not up on current events..
I suggest you research #SHOUT OUT YOUR ABORTION and #CELEBRATE YOUR ABORTION..
Sounds like THOSE people simply LOVE abortion... Whatser' name?? Alyssa Milano?? She LOVES abortion...
it doesn't stop the practice, just moves it into the shadows where desperate young women put their life and health in the hands of criminals.
So??? That's like arguing for making MURDER legal, since we can't prevent it anyways..
Come to think of it, that is EXACTLY what Democrats want in abortion.. Making murder legal... If people turn to the criminal element and they get hurt/killed, then that's on them... Iddn't it...
Maybe not using abortion as birth control is not the best solution, eh??
a foetus is not a person. it doesn't even begin to be able to feel pain until around 26 weeks, because it doesn't have a nervous system yet.
So, yer definition of a "person" is someone who feels pain???
So... Someone with CIPA isn't a "person" and they can be killed out of hand??
Of course, I am being annoyingly facetious, but you see my point..
Whenever you start creating definitions out of thin air to justify killing a person, it's a slippery slope indeed..
Unique DNA at conception...
Unique heartbeat at 6 weeks...
Unique fingerprints at 17 weeks...
Sounds like a person to me....
Finally, it's also interesting to note that Democrats are right up there with Iran and North Korea in allowing on-demand abortion right up until birth.. :^/
And still the question remains..
Morally or ethically...
What is the difference between killing a baby at 6 weeks gestation and killing a baby at 1 week post birth???
Answer: Morally or ethically, there isn't any difference...
a foetus is not a person. it doesn't even begin to be able to feel pain until around 26 weeks, because it doesn't have a nervous system yet.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
Let's look ahead to 2025 when President Trump is in the Oval Office and the GOP owns Congress..
They pass a FETAL PERSON PROTECTION ACT which will define a fetus as a person under the law with all the rights and protections under the law..
Then what???
I mean, if you want to talk about the SCIENCE, I refer you to the DNA/HEARTBEAT/FINGERPRINT science above..
The Abortion Question comes down to whether you agree or disagree that freedom of Religion is meaningless unless that includes freedom from other people's religions.
If your religion forbids abortion you don't have the right to impose your beliefs on anybody else, period.
Besides, we're only talking about making abortions more difficult and dangerous for poor women in red states, max. When your Pastor knocks up the church secretary he's not going to have any problem getting that taken care of, hello?
Good work, peeps!
Abortion wasn't the focus of CW's column but there lots to like in your observations.
Oh look!!! cad is back!!!
"Ignoring" my comments again!!! :D
The Abortion Question comes down to whether you agree or disagree that freedom of Religion is meaningless unless that includes freedom from other people's religions.
ABORTION has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion..
It has to do with the concept that life is sacred..
Even yer life, cad...
If your religion forbids abortion you don't have the right to impose your beliefs on anybody else, period.
Which has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion..
Good work, peeps!
Abortion wasn't the focus of CW's column but there lots to like in your observations.
Yer welcome..
I am the Weigantian™ Freedom Fighter!!! :D
So, lemme ask you, cad..
How is wanting to stop Democrats from murdering babies about religion???
Can you answer that???
Since you are now obviously back to addressing my comments you should have no problem coming up with facts to support your claims..
Please explain how being against murdering innocent children has ANYTHING to do with religion...
Unless you are claiming that religion is everything...
Is THAT what you are saying???
'Cause you can't get a "good shoot" until after they are born...
Pretty much a universal truth with anti-abortion types, the unborn are sacred, the post born can go fuck themselves.
Pretty much a universal truth with anti-abortion types, the unborn are sacred, the post born can go fuck themselves.
Yea, JM tried that same bullshit argument... I shut him down too..
So, basically what you are saying that, since the GOP doesn't like kids after they are born (a claim you have absolutely NO FACTS to support which the events in VA and in schools today TOTALLY demolishes) that you are perfectly OK with killing kids BEFORE they are born..
Yea.... GREAT reasoning there, Bashi... :^/
OK Let's try something new..
Let's try a commentary discussion that has NO personal attacks.. Anyone else wanna try??
The real story of “Don’t Look Up”
Co-writer (and Academy Award nominee) David Sirota on what the movie is really about.
Look Up, the Netflix hit and now Academy Award nominee.
If you haven’t seen it, the movie is about a pair of astronomers who discover a planet-killing comet barreling toward Earth. When they try to warn the world, they quickly realize that no one cares. The government is consumed by petty short-term ambitions, the media by trivialities, and the population by entertainment and tribalism.
By almost any measure, the movie has been a massive success. It’s the second-biggest movie in the history of Netflix and it just earned four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. The critical responses to the film have been more mixed. Some thought it was too dark and fatalistic, some thought it was too preachy, and some thought it just missed the mark.
I haven’t stopped thinking about the movie since I saw it a month ago. The satire may be a bit broad and heavy-handed at moments, but there’s a critique here that leaves an imprint. It’s not that Americans are too dumb to solve climate change or any other existential crisis, a la Idiocracy. Rather, the movie is a lacerating indictment of our elites and corrupted institutions.
I reached out to longtime journalist David Sirota, who co-wrote the film — and can now add Academy Award nominee to his resume — for the latest episode of Vox Conversations. We discuss the critical responses to the film (and the tiffs he’s had over them), what he thought the movie was really trying to say, and whether he feels more or less optimistic about our situation after watching the world take the movie in.
https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/22922423/vox-conversations-dont-look-up-oscars-david-sirota
Anyone else see this movie??
It was actually pretty good.. The wife and I loved it.. It had some funny parts and, considering what passes for movies these days (Why, Bruce, why?? Did you just need a paycheck???) it was pretty enjoyable..
But as social commentary??
I hadn't put it in that context, but it IS pretty biting against elitists and such...
Anyone else's take???
Michale,
Getting a little sick from a vaccine is not the same as dying from an infectious disease.
I thought you knew that.
Liz,
Getting a little sick from a vaccine is not the same as dying from an infectious disease.
I thought you knew that.
And yet very few are dying from the infectious disease...
The VAST MAJORITY of the death toll is from pre-existing conditions..
This is documented as fact..
Further, Democrats hurt their own case by politicizing the whole thing..
As Democrats are finding out now..
Democrats' internal polling shows swing voters believe party went 'too far' on COVID
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is concerned that Republican attacks on the Democrats' handling of the COVID-19 pandemic have "alarming credibility," according to a slide deck obtained by SFGATE.
The DCCC, which is the main campaign arm for House Democrats and is currently chaired by New York Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, worked with outside consulting groups to conduct an online poll of voters in the 60 most competitive House districts for the upcoming 2022 midterms. The poll was conducted from mid-January to early February, had approximately 1,000 respondents and a 3.1% margin of error.
https://www.sfgate.com/national-politics/article/Democrats-polling-reveals-COVID-warning-16927032.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Premium)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
The simple fact is, Democrat exaggerated the danger of COVID solely for political gain...
And now they are paying the price for that...
As well they should...
It doesn't take much, does it ...
I see you haven't visited the WHO site, yet. ;)
I haven't..
They are a political organization that has politicized this pandemic..
As such, they are not trustworthy...
As in no longer worthy of trust..
All I can go by is personal experience..
And personal experience says that COVID ain't all that.. :D
Oh, pray tell, how has the WHO politicized the pandemic?
Really? Our legal system disagrees.
And, AGAIN, with the lack of reading comprehension..
Did I say LEGALLY?? No, I did not..
Let me repeat it slowly for you.. So you can understand..
MORALLY.... ETHICALLY... There is NO DIFFERENCE between killing a baby at 6 weeks gestation and killing a baby at 1 week after birth..
I thought you understood that our legal system and laws represent the moral and ethical beliefs that our country hold dear. Morality and ethics are the cornerstones upon which our laws are created.
You obviously didn't even bother to read the relative article did you??
Says the person who posts articles all the time that unexplainably contradict the argument he is trying to make! And I was responding to YOUR COMMENTS… Not a sentence in the article that — once again — seem to contradict the arguments you have been making up until this point. Seriously, you have changed the goal posts multiple times during our conversations regarding this topic; but each time you have done it I have neutralized your new arguments just as quickly as the others.
They pass a FETAL PERSON PROTECTION ACT which will define a fetus as a person under the law with all the rights and protections under the law..
Then what???
I mean, if you want to talk about the SCIENCE, I refer you to the DNA/HEARTBEAT/FINGERPRINT science above..
I finally get why you have insisted to constantly repeat that at 6 weeks, the unborn has a unique heartbeat. But it took you placing it with DNA and fingerprints to realize that because “unique” for them means it is a way to identify them as one of a kind… a “unique” heartbeat must refer to an individual’s heartbeat that identifies them and them alone.
Uhhhhmmmm.. no. A “unique” heartbeat means that the fetus has a detectable heartbeat separate from the mother’s… that is ALL! You don’t have a heart rhythm that is unique to you and you alone or that can be used to identify an individual, sorry.
They pass a FETAL PERSON PROTECTION ACT which will define a fetus as a person under the law with all the rights and protections under the law..
Then what???
Whoops, forgot to paste this in above before I hit submit comment:
So the FPPA “will define a fetus as a person under the law with all the rights and protections under the law”. Then what?
Here’s “WHAT”:
Any woman who rents a residence that restricts the number of people allowed to reside in the place could find themselves being evicted for violating their lease once they become pregnant.
Seatbelt laws will become much stricter as violations will basically be child endangerment.
If a pregnant woman has a miscarriage, the medical examiner will have to conduct an autopsy to make sure the mother is not responsible for the unborn’s death.
The sperm donor responsible for this new person can demand that he be granted immediate visitation rights since we are now treating the fetus like a baby that has been borne. Even in cases where the father is accused of sexual assault, they haven’t been found guilty by the courts…so they do have parenting rights.
Sex with a pregnant woman will bring about sexual assault on a child charges if you insist that the pregnant woman is actually two separate individuals in a single body.
but it'll be a lot easier to ride in the carpool lane!