Passion Versus The Establishment In Pennsylvania
It now looks like tomorrow's Senate primaries in Pennsylvania might just set up a very interesting race in November's general election. Because it is looking like we might wind up with two very passionate and non-conventional "from the people" nominees, one from the left and one from the right. So we will finally get to see a race in a very purple state (which could easily go either way in November) with a contest between a true MAGA and a real progressive, both willing to get down and dirty fighting for what they believe.
This is causing much consternation in both parties, it bears mentioning. Both the Republican and Democratic "establishment" wings are rooting for much more conventional candidates, ones that they see as far more electable than the wild cards. Right now it appears that this is a losing battle on the Democratic side, and on the Republican side it seems the contest is now between two separate MAGA candidates while the establishment choice seems to be lagging badly in third place.
To me the Democratic side is more interesting, at least for now. On the Republican side we have Mehmet "Dr." Oz (endorsed by Donald Trump) and Kathy Barnette battling it out for the MAGA vote, while establishment-backed David McCormick lags behind both of them. Barnette has come out of nowhere in the final weeks of the primary campaign, and could well score a rather astonishing upset. But there doesn't seem to be any ideological difference between Barnette and Oz -- both seem equally MAGA-infused. They'd have different weaknesses as a candidate, from the Democrats' point of view, but there will be plenty of time to delve into all of that once the general election campaign gets going.
Democrats, on the other hand, seem poised to nominate John Fetterman, who is currently the lieutenant governor of the state. To put this another way, even though he is unconventional, he has already proven himself to a certain extent by winning a statewide race. And he might be just the candidate Democrats need in the new Trumpian era of politics.
Fetterman campaigns in gym shorts and a hoodie. He's got a shaved head and tattoos and physically looks more like a professional wrestler than a politician (think: Jesse Ventura looks and attitude). He campaigns in the reddest areas of the state, reminding the Democrats who live there that he has not forgotten them and will not write them off in any way, should he be elected. This is a pretty unconventional way of campaigning these days, but it seems to be working wonders for him.
Fetterman is unashamedly progressive, as you would expect from the only Pennsylvania statewide Democratic candidate in 2016 to have endorsed and supported Bernie Sanders. Fetterman's 2016 race was for the same Senate seat he is running for now, but back then Republican Pat Toomey was running for re-election as an incumbent. Now that Toomey is retiring, it is an open seat (which improves any Democrat's chances). Fetterman is unapologetic about his progressive stances, which (of course) makes the Washington Democratic establishment very nervous indeed.
Their preferred candidate is Conor Lamb, a Democrat who became somewhat of a darling of the establishment when he won a House seat in a red district in 2018. He was heralded as the wave of the future -- a centrist who could attract Republican voters. To prove his centrist chops, once seated in the House he voted against Nancy Pelosi for the speaker's chair. Needless to say, she won this vote anyway.
Lamb cast one other notable vote when he voted against the MORE Act, which would have removed marijuana from the federal dangerous substances schedule. Fetterman is making this an issue in the primary, since he is solidly pro-legalization and has argued that the Democratic Party as a whole should champion the issue.
But the biggest difference between the two candidates might just be in how they see a Democratic senator from a neighboring state. Fetterman has made it a selling point that he would not be anything like West Virginia's Joe Manchin, and would eagerly vote to do away with the filibuster so Democrats could much more aggressively get some things done. Lamb, on the other hand, seems cut from a very similar cloth as Manchin -- a centrist who would not be afraid to throw a monkey wrench into any progressive agenda item that comes along that he didn't personally approve of.
Lamb has run a conventional campaign, raking in endorsements from establishment Democrats and acting as though he's been the frontrunner all along. His biggest selling point to the voters is how gosh-darned electable he is, which is not generally something that enthuses many people. It's a calculated political position to take, not an emotional one. Fetterman, on the other hand, presents himself as a fighter.
Which brings us to the current political atmosphere. As I mentioned, over on the Republican side it seems to be a contest with one candidate who is a celebrity with zero political experience, who has only recently moved into the state, and who only recently adopted all the ideological positions he now says he has. A complete phony, in other words -- but a Trump-endorsed phony. The other strong contender is even more of a wild card, since she came out of nowhere and nobody even bothered to take the time to vet her before now. She is a MAGA champion and has been a pro-Trump media presence already. So she's seen as a lot more authentic by the Republican base. The establishment candidate is lagging behind both of these MAGA candidates.
What it all means for Democrats is that no matter who the Republican nominee turns out to be, they'll probably fight like a wildcat in the general election. And much like on the Republican side, a whole lot of Democratic voters are just completely fed up with Democrats who get elected and then never seem to fight for anything the party (or the voters) stand for. Which is probably why Fetterman is doing so well in the polls -- he seems like a candidate who would bring the same sense of ferocity and urgency to both the general election campaign and the Senate itself, should he win.
There's a message in here for Democrats, but it's not the message that many will draw or have drawn. The political pundits are seeing the whole race through the lens of "progressive versus centrist," but it may not be so much about ideology as personality. The candidates in each of these races matter, in other words, much more than their actual positions. If we are living in a post-Trump world of politics, where every political struggle is an all-out knife fight, then Democrats might just do well to start electing a few knife-fighters to their side. Rather than handwringing and pearl-clutching over the unseemliness of Trump and all his ilk, maybe it's time Democrats realize they could use some genuine passion on their side as well.
There is one late-breaking footnote to all of this, though. It was just reported that Fetterman suffered a minor stroke over the weekend, with only days to go before the primary. Medical problems are always a big negative in a candidate, but it seems so far that the stroke didn't do any damage to his cognitive abilities and he's going to fully recover. Also, it happened so close to the actual election that it may not resonate the way it might have if it had happened a month ago. But if the polling can be believed, Fetterman is so dominant right now (with a double-digit lead) that even losing a few votes around the margins may not change the dynamic of the race at all, at this point.
In any case, this is all just one primary race out of many. As I said, the candidates matter, so it would be wrong to try to draw any blanket conclusions from it. But I do have to wonder if Democratic voters in more places than just the Keystone State are ready at this point to vote for someone who will be a passionate champion for them in Washington, instead of some milquetoast moderate from Central Casting -- no matter how "electable" he may think he is.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
@cw,
All this horse race nonsense is be simply a distraction from big cake hegemony.
BAKE THE PASTRIES!
@m,
Episode 2 reminded me a bit of close encounters of the third kind, in a number of ways. Solid episode, a bit slow in developing, but the new uhura is smokin' hot.
Heh.
Let it be said that I would never laugh at pie.
FPC
[113] Michale wrote:
Can I assume from the lack of comments that ya'all are simply uber-discouraged that Democrats are taking hit after hit after hit after hit and there doesn't seem to be a bottom.
No. D'ya think just because Weigantia doesn't reply to your every comment means that we agree with you?
THAT would be an incorrect assumption. And USAF you know what "ass-u-me" means, amirite?
heh
Hiya Liz!
No need to go through my Ukraine stuff. I'ma leave you the info tomorrow that you need to have to know Joe is not responsible in the least for Putin's folly. It had nothing to do with him -- you'll see -- and you'll cut him some slack once I Caddysplain things to you.
Really, Joe has played this sorry assed stupid affair as well as any President would have. And don't get me going on how Trump would have rolled over!
No, really. Joe did his best...
FYI Michale,
That I pointed out the fallacy of BLM stats and got canceled link you sent me is something I'm digging in to. You're still a bleepidly bleep (yup, me too, right? :D)but stuff like this makes me glad I metcha!
You and I are gonna a productive conversation about law enforcement in Murica, K?
See you in the AM.
... are gonna have a productive...
Bwahahahaha!
You'll make me a better Libtard, me pretty!
I mean, Michale, that I'll be disappointed if'n you don't straighten this Libtard out on BLM/Police Reform etc.
No pressure here, Dawg.
Russ,
It sure looks like Sussmann was simply saying that he, personally, was wanting to talk to the FBI and was not speaking as an attorney on behalf of any client.
Except all the evidence that Durham has collected PROVE that Sussmann was working for clients at the time..
Joffe, who manipulated the data and the Clinton campaign..
Sussmann is going down..
The only question is who he is going to drag down with him..
Whether based on science or not, it's still bullying.
Really??
So, if I say, "Yer such a guy!!" is that bullying?? Or is it factually accurate??
Episode 2 reminded me a bit of close encounters of the third kind, in a number of ways. Solid episode, a bit slow in developing, but the new uhura is smokin' hot.
This episode was a bit to heavy on characterization and feelings for my taste.. Less Trek, more Dr Phil..
But it's not unexpected so I am not too worried..
The best thing about Trek pre-Discovery is that they didn't sacrifice the story, the action, the drama to make way for feelings..
I mean, there was ACTUALLY a line in Discovery where Hobert says, "We have to talk about these feelings!!" :eyeroll:
But, as I said.. I am not too worried.. These days, there always is the backstory and characterization... But the problem develops when the backstory and the characterization BECOMES the story..
Like they did with Tal and Gray in Discovery.. That is an example of how NOT to do it..
What they did with Pike in Episode 1 of ST-SNW was perfect.. A little bit of backstory to show why he is where he is and then... move on...
We'll see which way SNW goes..
I did like how the encounter with the shepherds went.. All too often in sci-fi these days, there is an effort to 'Weird Out' aliens.. Almost like a contest to see how far out and different the aliens can be made..
Again, Discovery with their 'Species 10' is a prime example of how this is done badly...
It was refreshing to see aliens with 2 eyes a mouth, a nose and could talk like normal.. "people"...
In summary... Ep 1 was a 10.. Ep 2 was an 8..
MC,
No. D'ya think just because Weigantia doesn't reply to your every comment means that we agree with you?
Now WHY would I think that?!?
I mean, it's not as if DEMOCRATS have made an ENTIRE COTTAGE INDUSTRY of SILENCE GIVES ASSENT or SILENCE GIVES CONSENT or SILENCE IS VIOLENCE eh??
Oh.. Wait.. Democrats HAVE stated such concepts completely, unabashedly and unequivocally...
So, yea... Ya'all are Democrats and ya'all are silent..
So, according to Democrat lore, that means you agree with me.. :D
THAT would be an incorrect assumption. And USAF you know what "ass-u-me" means, amirite?
Yes.. I know what happens when I make an assumption..
I make an ASS out of U... And UMPTION.. :D
I mean, Michale, that I'll be disappointed if'n you don't straighten this Libtard out on BLM/Police Reform etc.
No pressure here, Dawg.
I think, between me and Russ, we can gitcha on the straight and narrow, LEO wise.. :D
And, when we open the OH SNAP, THAT'S A BURN file...
Elon Musk slams Biden: 'The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter'
Musk also warned that if the US ignores the 'obvious' cause of inflation, it could end up like Venezuela
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/elon-musk-biden-real-president-teleprompter
The facts are unequivocal..
Biden is being handled...
MC,
Yes.. I know what happens when I make an assumption..
I make an ASS out of U... And UMPTION.. :D
Please accept that as the tongue-in-cheek good-natured ribbing it was intent as... :D
On the other hand, it's been my experience that a significant drop in Weigantian comments usually coincides with significant drops in competence, popularity and approval polls vis a vis Democrats.
In other words, when things go bad for Democrats, Weigantians are less inclined to comment..
The worse things are, the less comments here in Weigantia..
And I haven't seen such a large drop in comments here in Weigantia since the Uber Shellacking of Democrats in 2010.
And, from one of my favorite journalists, Glenn Greenwald..
Those who seek political benefit from tragedies are the lowest of the low..
And yes, I count myself amongst that group as my hands are not at all clean as well...
Another example of Democrat hypocrisy...
THOUSANDS, if not TENS of thousands, of brutal murders and violent attacks have been attributed to hysterical DEMOCRAT extremists..
But no one holds MadCow or Pelosi or Waters or any other Democrat responsible for such violent acts...
Which is as it should be..
Yet, any violence from Right Wing extremists is IMMEDIALY used to paint the entire Right....
Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature.
The hypocrisy of Democrats is blatant and nauseating..
Would anyone here venture to comment on this hypocrisy???
Or does Silence Give Assent??
It's actually ironic..
Because, from all the facts, this scumbag shooter (I have a policy of never naming these scumbags) actually more closely aligns with DEMOCRATS than any other group..
Right up to the fascist racism he espouses...
Yes, the facts CLEARLY prove that this scumbag was more closely aligned with DEMOCRATS than any other ideology..
Yet, somehow, this scumbag is a RIGHT WING extremist??
Yea... And Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist. :eyeroll:
By definition, "moral reasoning" that is applied only in one direction has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with crass, exploitative opportunism.
-Glenn Greenwald
And THAT fits Democrats to a 'T'....
I refrained from quoting more of the article as I know that is annoying to some people... Not to mention the Weigantian administration..
But I highly recommend ya'all read it..
It's chock full of FACTS that show just how despicable the Democrats are when Crowd Based Mass Shootings such as these happen..
PolitiFact Is to Fact What Pravda Was to Truth
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2022/05/17/politifact_is_to_fact_what_pravda_was_to_truth_147609.html
Word....
PolitiFact is nothing more than a Democrat propaganda outlet...
[18]
Accepted, of course.
I refrained from quoting more of the article as I know that is annoying to some people... Not to mention the Weigantian administration..
It annoys me, too, Michale. And, the longer the quote the less likely I am to read the article. Truth be known, I don't come here to read articles or long quotes posted by commenters. That's called wasting my time.
It annoys me, too, Michale. And, the longer the quote the less likely I am to read the article. Truth be known, I don't come here to read articles or long quotes posted by commenters. That's called wasting my time.
Well, then I guess it's a good thing I didn't quote a lot from the GG article, eh? :D
Biden transgender health mandate blocked by federal court in Christian alliance's appeal
Judge says no government agency should evaluate 'sincerity of another's religious beliefs'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-transgender-mandate-blocked-christian-appeal
And the Democrats record of losing continues.. :D
What's it going to take for Democrats to realize that their positions are fundamentally and morally WRONG for America and Americans??
What part of **NO** do Democrats not understand??
Liz,
But how do you feel about the subject discussed??
Biden’s American Rescue Plan worsened inflation. The question is how much.
Was it a minor contributor or a major factor in the US’s inflation woes?
https://www.vox.com/23036340/biden-american-rescue-plan-inflation
If one wants to look for a "cult of economic failure", one needs look no further than the Democrat Party..
And FLORIDA leads the way!!
DeSantis Signs Bill That Bans Residential Protesting
https://realclearflorida.com/2022/05/17/desantis_signs_bill_that_bans_protesting_outside_a_persons_home_832719.html
Protesting outside of people's residencies is abhorrent and SHOULD be outlawed..
@m,
prager's illogic is mind-numbing. he's provided a list of 20 or so anecdotes where he claims racism was instigated by the purported victim, then uses these anecdotes to support a vast generalization he should never have made, and paint a fact-checker as politically motivated hacks for disputing that claim. there are between 2 and 3 thousand of these types of incidents a year, and it's not anyone else's responsibility to nitpick each and every one of them. if the anecdotes he cited are the only ones he can find, that makes about 1% of the total incidence.
if he had been able to support his claim factually, prager would have done so.
he did not.
JL
And yet, Politifact couldn't find any examples of these types of incidents that actually were white supremacy..
Well, there WAS the Jussie Smollett incident.. Oh wait.. That was ALSO a hoax...
And if you look at Prager's actual statement, it's definitely not a FALSE statement..
At WORST, Prager's statement is equivocal...
Further, when it's compared to alleged "factual" statements made by Democrats of this nature that PolitiFact allows without comment??
The bias of PolitiFact is well documented..
there are between 2 and 3 thousand of these types of incidents a year,
Are there???
Show me.. :D
if he had been able to support his claim factually, prager would have done so.
he did not.
And if PolitiFact had any facts to support the claim that Prager's claims was false, they would have provided those facts.
They did not..
Ergo, with NO FACTS to support that the claim is false, Prager's claim stands as valid..
That's called a 'burden of proof' fallacy. Prager made the initial claim, so it's his job to support it. Not yours, not mine, not politifact's. The fact that he couldn't do it and then resorted to individual anecdotes (another fallacy) doesn't interest me.
I really like the new uhura.
That's called a 'burden of proof' fallacy. Prager made the initial claim, so it's his job to support it.
And it was Politifact who made the claim that Prager's claim was false.. Politifact is obligated to support that claim..
Prager listed more than a dozen incidents that fit his claim.. I added another one..
Where's Politifact's data to support their claim that Prager's claim is false??
No where to be found..
I really like the new uhura.
She seems a bit too young...
And I agree with Spock that her attitude of "Well lemme try this and see if I like it" rubs me the wrong way...
People would give their right.... arms... to serve in Starflet on the Enterprise..
She should step aside and give someone who really wants to be there a chance..
I would also point out that the timeline is not believable...
M'benga looks way too old in ST-SNW. In TOS, M'benga was much younger than McCoy... Based on what M'benga looks like in SNW, he would have been older than McCoy in TOS..
Backlash builds after Dems vote to legalize abortion up to birth
The Senate failed to pass the measure, but it would have given health care providers the 'right' to provide abortions with few limitations
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/backlash-builds-after-democrats-vote-legalize-abortion-until-birth
Up to 80% of Americans, likely 100%, do NOT support baby-killing right up to the point of birth..
And, since no one here has claimed that they DO support baby-killing at birth, I am going to assume everyone here is part of that 80%(100%) of Americans..
Silence Gives Assent..
hogwash gives bacon. a woman has the right to be parted from an organism growing inside her at any time she wishes. if that organism can survive outside her body, it is entitled to that chance. if it can't, her choice still stands.
Michale,
Maybe we would be more open to your comments on how wrong it is to blame an entire party and their messaging for leading to the disgustingly violent actions of one person if you were not doing exactly that every single day! I mean, you couldn’t help yourself and by the end of your rant on how wrong it is to place the violence on the head of one party, you were claiming it was the Democrats’ messaging — not the Republicans — that led to the white 18yo shooting and killing 10 people in a mostly black neighborhood!!! Seriously, you cannot argue the point that you’ve been previously arguing against and think that no one notices!
Michale [45]
Does not reading the actual bill count as giving assent?
(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.
I'm fine with that language...
hogwash gives bacon. a woman has the right to be parted from an organism growing inside her at any time she wishes. if that organism can survive outside her body, it is entitled to that chance. if it can't, her choice still stands.
But we're not talking about that, are we?
We're talking about KILLING the baby.. Not trying to deliver the baby...
The failed legislation authorizes KILLING the baby..
Are you still fine with that???
Russ,
Maybe we would be more open to your comments on how wrong it is to blame an entire party and their messaging for leading to the disgustingly violent actions of one person if you were not doing exactly that every single day!
For example...???
Bashi,
As I pointed out to JL.. We're not talking about saving a viable baby..
We're talking about a law that allows the woman SOLE discretion to KILL her baby, viable or not, up to the point of actually delivering the baby..
JL has stated he is fine with that..
Are you stating the same??
What did you say i said i was fine with?
To be fully honest i think there should be a new legal category for preemies. Infant and fetus don't really work considering the chasm in public opinion.
But then reasonable adults aren't the ones making policy
But then reasonable adults aren't the ones making policy
Troo dat!!
What did you say i said i was fine with?
hogwash gives bacon. a woman has the right to be parted from an organism growing inside her at any time she wishes. if that organism can survive outside her body, it is entitled to that chance. if it can't, her choice still stands.
This is an inherent contradiction..
If the baby can survive outside the body (IE on the way to delivery room) you seem to indicate that you support the woman STILL being able to kill that baby..
If that's NOT what you support, then congratulations..
You agree that baby killing restrictions SHOULD be in play..
Russ,
"OK, let's brass some tacks here.."
-Metatron, SUPERNATURAL
Let's lay it out..
Do YOU believe that any Right Wing activist/politician/whatever is responsible for the Buffalo shooting??
Do YOU believe that any Right Wing activist/politician/whatever is responsible for the 6 Jan riot??
It's a simple YES/NO question...
Looks like Jean Claude Damn is not having an easy time of it.. :D
New White House press secretary blasted for botching answer to inflation question: ‘Excruciating to watch'
'Big yikes," remarked The Heritage Foundation's John Cooper.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/white-house-press-secretary-botching-answer-inflation-question-excruciating-watch
We're talking about a law that allows the woman SOLE discretion to KILL her baby, viable or not, up to the point of actually delivering the baby..
Bullshit. That is the right wing talking point that completely ignores the medical reality of late term abortion. If this is an actual problem, please post the numbers of abortions done in the last two weeks of pregnancy...
But I do support the choice of abortion up to birth if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is likely to be born with extreme birth defects...
Bashi,
We're talking about what the failed Democrat law WOULD ALLOW..
But I do support the choice of abortion up to birth if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus is likely to be born with extreme birth defects...
As do I..
So, do you support a woman's right to kill her baby right up to the point she is actually delivering that baby??
YES or NO...
JL,
hogwash gives bacon. a woman has the right to be parted from an organism growing inside her at any time she wishes. if that organism can survive outside her body, it is entitled to that chance. if it can't, her choice still stands.
OK, so NOW you are back to the viability argument..
You are saying that, if a baby can survive outside the womb (22 weeks +/-) then you SUPPORT a law that restricts the woman from being able to kill that baby..
OK, fine.. We are in agreement that baby-killing restrictions SHOULD be in place..
We only differ as to WHEN those restrictions come into play..
I say 6 weeks.. You say 22 weeks..
I am fine with that distinction..
Common ground.. :D
So, do you support a woman's right to kill her baby right up to the point she is actually delivering that baby??
Prove it's an actual problem and I'll answer...
If you need to view it as an anecdotal example, by all means..
But the fact that you are not wanting to answer is actually the answer I expected.. :D
Only a MONSTER would be OK with a woman having the right to kill her baby at the moment she is delivering that baby..
And, despite our differences, I know you are not a monster.. :D
So, like me and JL.. You DO support baby killing restrictions..
You are simply shy about stating where your line is... No harm, no foul.. :D
But you obviously DO have a line..
Which is basically agreeing with me that baby killing restrictions DO have a place in this country..
Prove it's an actual problem and I'll answer...
You cannot prove that terrorists getting ahold of nuclear weapons is an actual problem..
Does that mean you don't support nuclear weapon restrictions??
:D
OF COURSE you support nuclear weapon restrictions.. Only a MONSTER would NOT support such restrictions..
We're talking about what the failed Democrat law WOULD HAVE ALLOWED..
It's called The Democrat Party Casey Anthony Law..
And only a MONSTER would support it..
And I know for a fact that no Weigantian is a monster..
Michale,
After more than a decade and a half I'm well familiar with your hysterical hypotheticals and the motivation behind them. This one happens to be sillier than most as medically, they don't perform abortions anywhere close to birth. They can induce labor and see what happens or do a full Hysterectomy, even if the mother's life is in danger.
After more than a decade and a half I'm well familiar with your hysterical hypotheticals and the motivation behind them. This one happens to be sillier than most as medically, they don't perform abortions anywhere close to birth.
And yet, THAT is the right that Democrats are fighting for..
You are preaching to the choir here, Bashi..
*I* agree with you that saving the baby SHOULD be a priority..
But the sad thing is the Democrat Party that you support DOESN'T WANT that option..
They want to be able to KILL the baby without ANY restrictions..
Unfettered and unrestricted baby killing.. AKA abortions.. THAT is what Democrats are fighting for..
You don't agree with that..
JL doesn't agree with that..
*I* don't agree with that..
So, we are ALL in agreement that there SHOULD be restrictions on baby killing.. AKA Abortion..
Why are you trying to ruin the moment??
We are ALL in agreement..
THAT calls for a beer.. And a beer is so ordered.. :D
Trial revelations show ex-Clinton campaign lawyer, others wanted 'October surprise' to sink Trump
Michael Sussmann was previously employed by the powerful Perkins-Coie law firm
https://www.foxnews.com/media/michael-sussmann-trial-revelations-show-rank-and-file-agent-knew-trump-allegations-were-baloney
And, for Democrats...
The Hits Just Keep On Comin! :D
And yet, THAT is the right that Democrats are fighting for..
No, that's the right you are fantasizing about. It has little to do with actual laws passed or not dealing with abortion.
They want to be able to KILL the baby without ANY restrictions..
And yet, you can't demonstrate this is a problem. Why is that?
Unfettered and unrestricted baby killing.. AKA abortions.. THAT is what Democrats are fighting for..
No, just your weird fantasy again. Which after reading, I agree I need a beer...or two...
And I agree with Spock that her attitude of "Well lemme try this and see if I like it" rubs me the wrong way...
So kinda the same thing that you did when you joined the military? Isn’t what she said what everyone actually does when they sign up to serve — do their job and then decide when it’s time to recommit if you want to stick with it for life?