Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So then you agree I may be right.He may lose to DeSantis
But we were talking about the SCOTUS rulings. The first was 49 years ago.
You are really not very good at this.
What weak pitiful reply to me saying I might go with DeSantis. I have posted nothing racist. You must have some pitiful need to lash out blindly. I was never a trump supporter, but that is not because of being anything close to a leftist. I could not support him as a Christian. Many did not take the teaching they grew up with into account, when they decided to dance with the devil.You leftist racist morons who just glide by the Dems losing their minds in leftist insanity who suddenly are worried about ... Republicans ... are priceless. Well, you're worth nothing anyway, racist
Along with nearly every trumper in this thread.You must have some pitiful need to lash out blindly
Like alcoholics having a lucid moment, than gladly reaching for the bottle again.Along with nearly every trumper in this thread.
Only one has even mustered the stones to say out loud that it is POSSIBLE Trump does not win the 2024 nomination.
And I expect him to stop posting or change lanes, now. I have seen it too many times... a Trumper has a moment of weakness and steps slightly out of line. Then he realizes his own error and falls right back in line.
What weak pitiful reply to me saying I might go with DeSantis. I have posted nothing racist. You must have some pitiful need to lash out blindly. I was never a trump supporter, but that is not because of being anything close to a leftist. I could not support him as a Christian. Many did not take the teaching they grew up with into account, when they decided to dance with the devil.
Maybe someone should start a thread about that.So in your mind who would a Christian support?
Maybe someone should start a thread about that.
A thread about how many evangelicals not just might support someone else, but in fact WILL support someone else for the 2024 nomination.
Then you could shed the embarrassing hissy fits, open that thread, and talk about it.
You might even find some posters giving names, like DeSantis.
Oh well. Maybe someday...
I don't speak for Christians, though I do at time speak out against hypocrites, as does the OP. At times, I have picked the lesser of two evils and may in 2024. At other times, both candidates by their own words and deeds were without good character or personal moral fiber, I have gone 3rd party, like I did in 2016.LOL, you quoted your post for the part that I didn't address and removed the part of your quote I did address.
So in your mind who would a Christian support? The last moral Republican or Democrat to run for President was Reagan. So you haven't voted for either major party since then?
“For Christian fundamentalists, being taught to suppress critical thinking begins at a very early age. It is the combination of the brain’s vulnerability to believing unsupported facts and aggressive indoctrination that create the perfect storm for gullibility. Due to the brain’s neuroplasticity, or ability to be sculpted by lived experiences, evangelicals literally become hardwired to believe far-fetched statements.With the ruling overturning Roe V Wade, the deal is now complete. I refer to the unspoken deal the Evangelicals had with the GOP, Mitch McConnell, and with Trump.
Mitch cashed in the Trump presidency for one more SCOTUS judge, and now the winnings have been paid out.
The evangelicals no longer have any use for Trump. They will now climb back up on their high horse, having fallen off for a few years to justify and ignore all manner of unethical and immoral behavior by Trump.
It will be like they never fell off. Trust me.
And they can stitch up the schism in their own churches practically overnight. Trump will not win the primary, and *poof*... schism gone.
The Evangelical Church Is Breaking Apart
Christians must reclaim Jesus from his church.www.theatlantic.com
www.psychologytoday.com
I don't speak for Christians, though I do at time speak out against hypocrites, as does the OP. At times, I have picked the lesser of two evils and may in 2024. At other times, both candidates by their own words and deeds were without good character or personal moral fiber, I have gone 3rd party, like I did in 2016.
You are wasting your time. Are you sure there is not some aspect of the OP's thread you would like to discuss?Exactly, so morality in candidates isn't really a thing for you. It comes and goes at your whim
Well, that's the brick wall.You are wasting your time. Are you sure there is not some aspect of the OP's thread you would like to discuss?
Just like this ^^Fake thread title
Fake it so you can make it
Lib 101
You still haven't quite worked up the brain power to understand what the topic of the thread is. Or, maybe its the courage you can't seem to muster to face the topic.You are going to have to do better. Biden sucks...
You are wasting your time. Are you sure there is not some aspect of the OP's thread you would like to discuss?
Oops, theres that bad habit you have of substituting your own mental sharts for reality.
In 1992, the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, stating that the test used to examine abortion laws should use an “undue burden” standard, arguing that a law was invalid if its “purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
Yet Casey actually conceded that Roe was not necessarily sound law: “We do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe’s wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe’s resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding.”
Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.
Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.
Problems with Roe v. Wade: Legal Scholarship – The Price of Roe quoting, John Hart Ely, Yale Law Journal, 82, 920, (1973). Note the year. Jump street.Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it . . . At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”
One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.
