Biden signs order on abortion access, urges women to vote in November

[bver_hunter]

Right. Yet they keep him as a Democrat. Nice convenient excuse to do nothing. Oh its all his fault! Or her fault! But they still keep them in the party.

Not saying that it is right to keep him in the party. The issue is that his State's own Democratic Party should have fielded a candidate capable of beating him. But we have seen the Republicans also opposing their own party's bills that they have been trying to pass. Remember the brave Mitt Romney who made it his priority to get out of his hospital bed and march through the Senate to prevent the Republicans from scrapping the Affordable Healthcare. Do you not agree with Romney in this instance? Look at Cheney who is not afraid to get the full truth from this Jan 6th Insurrection, that is pissing off the Republicans, Donny Boy and the far right media!!

 

[bver_hunter]

We don't know because the Dems turned them down without getting a vote. But then again when they can't even get their own to come together why would there be any chance of them reaching across the aisle? Far better to send out fundraising letters than actually try to do something. Right?

Tits on a bull.....

Two Bills were passed through the House in this respect. One Bill permitting the rights of every woman to go out of state if she so desires. A few Republicans voted for this particular one. However, The Bill allowing the women to have the right to abortion has passed with no Republicans siding with the Democrats. Now let us see if these two Republicans Collins and Murkowski who are all for women's rights follow suit with their "conscience" for at least one of the two bills!!

 

[Frankfooter]

Two Bills were passed through the House in this respect. One Bill permitting the rights of every woman to go out of state if she so desires. No Republicans voted for this particular one. However, The Bill allowing the women to have the right to abortion has passed with a few Republicans siding with the Democrats. Now let us see if these two Republicans Collins and Murkowski who are all for women's rights follow suit with their "conscience" for at least one of the two bills!!

All republicans refused to say women have the right to leave a state if they want to?

 

[jcpro]

TikTok - Make Your Day

vm.tiktok.com

 

[Valcazar]

State laws allowing abortions will be struck down? California's law is unconstitutional?

You're making no sense.

I fully expect SCOTUS to strike down State laws they don't like as unconstitutional if they feel like it. (Not just on abortion - I expect them to strike down California's environmental laws next year saying that a state law can't be stricter than the Federal one.)
But Butler and I were talking about a national law protecting abortion, which will absolutely be struck down by SCOTUS as soon as they get their hands on it as infringing on the rights of the States.

 

[Valcazar]

Butler, if the Democrats were certain of passing that Law that Federally Legalizes Abortion then they would have dropped the filibuster.

No, Butler is right about this.
There are a handful of Democrats who don't want to make an exception to the Filibuster for this and Murkowski and Collins won't vote for an exception to the filibuster for their own bill.

Without replacing those Democrats with people who are better on this or (more simply) getting more Democratic Senators into office who are willing to do it (which is the position of the overwhelming majority of the party) it isn't going through.

Really?? Can you trust Murkowski and Collins with regards to the "narrower protections" that they are so called and "intending to support"?

Of course you can't, and they don't actually support those things in any meaningful way.

If you want to read their full bill, you can here. It's about one page long.

Text - S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

Text for S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

www.congress.gov

House Democrats on Wednesday advanced two bills that seek to bolster abortion rights, less than one month after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade.

[...]

So let's see where Murkowski and Collins stand on this particular Bill, and their so called Pro-Abortion stand!!

They will vote against it because it "goes too far".
You have to understand Butler's position here.
If the Democrats compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they were weak and watered down the bill because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.
If the Democrats *don't* compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they deliberatley made sure it can't pass because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.

That is why the Electorate have to vote more Democratic members in Congress.

No, of course not.
As Butler has made very clear, if you elect *fewer* Democrats, they will pass things that he supports once they no longer have the ability to pass anything at all.
It's all very logical and not gibbering nonsense at all.

Not saying that it is right to keep him in the party.

They can't kick him out.
You cannot remove someone from a political party in the United States system. There is no mechanism.
He ran as a Democrat and won, therefore he is one.
They could formally refuse to caucus with him, but then the GOP gets control of the Senate since they have 50 Senators in their caucus.

 

[mandrill]

Right. Yet they keep him as a Democrat. Nice convenient excuse to do nothing. Oh its all his fault! Or her fault! But they still keep them in the party.

Manchin actually votes Dem on numerous issues, except those which affect coal and resource fuel extraction and taxes on the very wealthy. It's almost as though he blocks only that legislation which would personally disadvantage him.....

He was previously challenged by a left wing Dem and ate her up in the primary. WV just don't like progressives.

So they either grimace and put up with his disruption on energy and taxation issues, or they lose WV and Manchin sits as an indy or a GOP. The latter is NOT how you win at politics. It's how immature, impractical people rant about "Bernie" and "being progressive" and "please don't vote for Hillary" and fuck away elections and America's future.

 

[Butler1000]

No, Butler is right about this.
There are a handful of Democrats who don't want to make an exception to the Filibuster for this and Murkowski and Collins won't vote for an exception to the filibuster for their own bill.

Without replacing those Democrats with people who are better on this or (more simply) getting more Democratic Senators into office who are willing to do it (which is the position of the overwhelming majority of the party) it isn't going through.



Of course you can't, and they don't actually support those things in any meaningful way.

If you want to read their full bill, you can here. It's about one page long.

Text - S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

Text for S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

www.congress.gov

They will vote against it because it "goes too far".
You have to understand Butler's position here.
If the Democrats compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they were weak and watered down the bill because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.
If the Democrats *don't* compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they deliberatley made sure it can't pass because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.



No, of course not.
As Butler has made very clear, if you elect *fewer* Democrats, they will pass things that he supports once they no longer have the ability to pass anything at all.
It's all very logical and not gibbering nonsense at all.



They can't kick him out.
You cannot remove someone from a political party in the United States system. There is no mechanism.
He ran as a Democrat and won, therefore he is one.
They could formally refuse to caucus with him, but then the GOP gets control of the Senate since they have 50 Senators in their caucus.

Two points

I actually in a post to bver said that at this point just getting protections for rape and incest would be a start and a win. But in fact Pelosi and Schumer said no to the two GOP Senators. And went with the no pass bill. So once again you are dead wrong.

And I never said don't elect Democrats. Just stop electing DINOs and shitty ones. Stop fighting progressives in primaries with Corporate cash. They won't though, so really the only alternative is independent and third party candidates. If the Dems stopped encouraging right wing politics then I would have no issues with them in office.

But they don't. They want the cash too. Just like the GOP.

 

[bver_hunter]

No, Butler is right about this.
There are a handful of Democrats who don't want to make an exception to the Filibuster for this and Murkowski and Collins won't vote for an exception to the filibuster for their own bill.

Without replacing those Democrats with people who are better on this or (more simply) getting more Democratic Senators into office who are willing to do it (which is the position of the overwhelming majority of the party) it isn't going through.

I am 100% right as to what I stated. Once again if the Democrats were confident of passing the Bill in the Senate with Manchin and possibly Murkowski as well as Collins on Board then no doubt that they would have gone ahead with dropping the filibuster, something that the Republicans have used twice as many times as the Democrats when they were in opposition. The Democrats cannot rely on the three individuals named and dropping the filibuster would have set a dangerous precedent for future Republican Bills if they were in control of the Senate. Moscow Mitch is the Kingpin of using the filibuster to block every Biden Bill possible.

Of course you can't, and they don't actually support those things in any meaningful way.

If you want to read their full bill, you can here. It's about one page long.

Text - S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

Text for S.3713 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Reproductive Choice Act

www.congress.gov

I have read the Bill, and one big reason that Murkowski and Collins are not interested in supporting it is that they do not want taxpayers dollars to fund it anyway. Something that contradicts butler's views as he claims that being a "supporter" of Bernie Sanders, who would be insistent of imposing the Government funding in the legislation.

They will vote against it because it "goes too far".
You have to understand Butler's position here.
If the Democrats compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they were weak and watered down the bill because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.
If the Democrats *don't* compromise on a bill to get it passed, then they deliberatley made sure it can't pass because they are secret Republicans and right wingers and neoliberal shills and fail to fight for things they claim to believe in because they only want to fundraise off of it.

Certainly as it display's butler's true colours in this respect!!

No, of course not.
As Butler has made very clear, if you elect *fewer* Democrats, they will pass things that he supports once they no longer have the ability to pass anything at all.
It's all very logical and not gibbering nonsense at all.

Well, no doubt in his mind that the Democrats are the ones responsible for overturning Roe v Wade, even if the Supreme Court have given the Red States the right to decide to impose their extremist legislation to outright ban it and criminalize those seeking to undergo the procedure out of state. There will be no exceptions in some States even for child rape and incest cases. Blows everyone's minds that a State can impose such severe restrictions that criminalizes the rape and indicts the victims!!

They can't kick him out.
You cannot remove someone from a political party in the United States system. There is no mechanism.
He ran as a Democrat and won, therefore he is one.
They could formally refuse to caucus with him, but then the GOP gets control of the Senate since they have 50 Senators in their caucus.

Well when Manchin's opposite number called McCain conducted himself in a similar manner when blockading the Repeal of the Affordable Healthcare, without an alternative replacement, we saw the right wingers on this Forum were blasting him to the fullest extent. Of Course even Murkowski and Collins helped to kill that Legislation when they voted with the Democrats to protect the Affordable Healthcare much to Trumpty Dumpty's annoyance!!

 

[HungSowel]

If you posit that life begins at conception then there should be no exceptions for rape and incest because the fetus is innocent. If there is an exception for rape and incest then it should also be ok to kill anyone you know who is the product of rape or incest, you could legally murder half of the population in the south.

 

[Dutch Oven]

But Butler and I were talking about a national law protecting abortion, which will absolutely be struck down by SCOTUS as soon as they get their hands on it as infringing on the rights of the States.

As they should. But that won't do anything to prohibit abortions in most states (including the states where the greatest number of abortions are currently performed).

And such a SCOTUS decision will in no way prevent people in any state from lobbying/organizing to cause state legistlation allowing abortions to be passed.

 

[Dutch Oven]

You do not allow people to kill other human beings and yet we are seeing guns that easily kill multiple human beings being sold with practically no restrictions in many states.
Now if the mother's life is going to be compromised during that pregnancy and the only solution is to terminate the pregnancy, then it is considered a crime especially if both the fetus and the mother pass away. So your take is, it is fine if the mother passes away with the fetus and it will be crime if she is kept alive by terminating the pregnancy. Wow!!
What about this ten year old who has been raped and has to go out of State to terminate her pregnancy? Yet some Fundamentalist groups state that the ten year old should have the baby. Do you agree with that statement? Are they democratically determined rights according to your dictionary?

Nothing illustrates your confusion better than your own posts.

 

[bver_hunter]

Nothing illustrates your confusion better than your own posts.

Obviously, you do not have a sensible response left in your shell!!

 

[Frankfooter]

Nothing illustrates your confusion better than your own posts.

ummm

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548743299531476996

 

[bver_hunter]

ummm

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1548743299531476996

Maybe that priest has his masturbation sessions as it is just "a sin" and you cannot legislate against it. So what you cannot do in a legislation trumps the seeds of the bible.
But abortion on the other hand needs the Roe v Wade to be overturned as it is also in the seeds of the bible and can be legislated according to him.
Wow, whatever next!!

 

[Valcazar]

Two points

I actually in a post to bver said that at this point just getting protections for rape and incest would be a start and a win.

That's because it isn't what they are doing right now.
You would be against it if they were.
We've seen this dance from you before.

You also fail to note that the bill you say you support because of Murkowski and Collins does not offer protections for rape and incest.
So it wouldn't give you what you say you are for.
The only reason you are saying they should have done it is because they didn't.

so really the only alternative is independent and third party candidates.

Yup.
"If the only people who might be convinced to support what I want are kept out of power, then I will get what I want."
Brilliant as always.

 

[Valcazar]

I am 100% right as to what I stated. Once again if the Democrats were confident of passing the Bill in the Senate with Manchin and possibly Murkowski as well as Collins on Board then no doubt that they would have gone ahead with dropping the filibuster, something that the Republicans have used twice as many times as the Democrats when they were in opposition.

No.
There is no "the Democrats will drop the filibuster".
There is only "will 50 senators vote to drop the filibuster".
There are many Senators who will vote for a bill but not vote to drop the filibuster or make a carve out for that bill.
It isn't like Schumer can just say "we're dropping the filibuster for this one".
That's not how it works.

Let's say you completely believe that Murkowski and Collins will vote for their own bill if it gets to the floor.
They have not - as far as I know - said they would in any way vote to exempt that bill from the filibuster.
So unless they have 8 other Republican Senators willing to vote with them, the only purpose that bill serves is to let Murkowski and Collins fundraise off of being "moderate on abortion".

Well when Manchin's opposite number called McCain conducted himself in a similar manner when blockading the Repeal of the Affordable Healthcare, without an alternative replacement, we saw the right wingers on this Forum were blasting him to the fullest extent. Of Course even Murkowski and Collins helped to kill that Legislation when they voted with the Democrats to protect the Affordable Healthcare much to Trumpty Dumpty's annoyance!!

And none of them were "removed from being Republicans" because you can't actually do that in the US system.
Liz Cheney is still a Republican. They can't remove her.
They can only vote her out.

 

[Butler1000]

That's because it isn't what they are doing right now.
You would be against it if they were.
We've seen this dance from you before.

You also fail to note that the bill you say you support because of Murkowski and Collins does not offer protections for rape and incest.
So it wouldn't give you what you say you are for.
The only reason you are saying they should have done it is because they didn't.



Yup.
"If the only people who might be convinced to support what I want are kept out of power, then I will get what I want."
Brilliant as always.

As the Dems are incapable of doing anything due to their refusal to drop the filibuster why should anyone trust them?

They are the ones who people like you said would be the only ones stop this from happening. Then they didn't. And its due to their prefering to fundraise from it and use itcas a sword of Damacles then actually resolve it

Time for a change. They just aren't up to the job.

 

[Valcazar]

Time for a change.

And once again Butler throws his support to the Republicans.
Or is this you announcing you are going to start arguing for real decades-long work into a third party or multiparty system that might be viable in 2050?

 

[bver_hunter]

No.
There is no "the Democrats will drop the filibuster".
There is only "will 50 senators vote to drop the filibuster".
There are many Senators who will vote for a bill but not vote to drop the filibuster or make a carve out for that bill.
It isn't like Schumer can just say "we're dropping the filibuster for this one".
That's not how it works.

Let's say you completely believe that Murkowski and Collins will vote for their own bill if it gets to the floor.
They have not - as far as I know - said they would in any way vote to exempt that bill from the filibuster.
So unless they have 8 other Republican Senators willing to vote with them, the only purpose that bill serves is to let Murkowski and Collins fundraise off of being "moderate on abortion".



And none of them were "removed from being Republicans" because you can't actually do that in the US system.
Liz Cheney is still a Republican. They can't remove her.
They can only vote her out.

Remember that the Republicans used the "Nuclear Option" to drop the filibuster that actually resulted in Trump's 3 Supreme Court Judges being nominated.
The issue is both Sinema and Manchin are not on board with this "Nuclear Option" despite if being used by the Republicans twice as many times as the Democrats in the past.
But what I had subsequently stated is what you are repeating:

The Democrats cannot rely on the three individuals named and dropping the filibuster would have set a dangerous precedent for future Republican Bills if they were in control of the Senate. Moscow Mitch is the Kingpin of using the filibuster to block every Biden Bill possible.

Yes, if they do drop the filibuster with the "Nuclear Option" then this will set a dangerous precedence for Mitch, as he had no problem doing so with the 3 Supreme Court Appointees of Trump. He also has several other extremist bills that he wants to pass in the Senate, even without the prior approval of the House of Representatives. One that would benefit the only elitists like himself and the rest of the cronies in the USA!!
I know that Schumer would drop the filibuster for the Abortion Rights as the majority of Americans are definitely in favour of it. But he knows that he won't even get Manchin's or Sinema's backing in this respect. If the Republicans can exert the Nuclear Option just to please Trump, then remember that the Democrats could have done the same for Obama's nominees but choose not to do so then. But Butler knows that it is not what the Democrats want to do, but cannot as they have two rogue Senators who are not on board with something that the majority of Americans want. That is why he blames the Democrats although we all know that the Republican appointed Supreme Court Judges are 100% RESPONSIBLE for the Roe v Wade overturning!!