ex-President Trump

Coz they have a sky friend and a baby jesus friend ldo.

People feel like having kids was the wrong decision all the time too man.

In my experience they are mostly Pascal's wager christians. They are scared so they go through the motions, but they don't actually believe it. It also conveniently gives them an excuse to act on their bigotries.

Women had lots of abortions before Roe v Wade and they still have them now even tho abortion isn’t a right

The 9th amendment disagrees.

The Supreme Court has found that unenumerated rights include such important rights as the right to travel, the right to vote, the right to keep personal matters private and to make important decisions about one’s health care or body.

I'm in the Chappelle school of thought that abortion should be legal until age 5. Can we keep this the Trump/Trumper thread plz

Project 2025's ‘unhinged’ wish list for a Trump 2nd term: Criminalize porn, ban birth control.

Pornography should be outlawed and the people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned.

Republicans transitioning into the Christian Taliban was really the inevitable outcome

I am defining progressive in the way that it is usually defined in this country.

I get the sense that you think I am naive in the way that I think about politics. I disagree. I rate myself as among the more cynical people here in terms of how I think about politics.

If you are a politician, my starting assumption is that your primary goal is to win elections. After you are in office, your primary goal is to remain in office. Everything else -- governing effectively, pleasing the donor class, enriching yourself, etc. -- is secondary and often in service of this primary goal. (FWIW, I've known a fair number of people who have been involved at a high level in city, state, and national campaigns, and I think they would all agree with my starting assumption.)

It doesn't follow from my starting assumption that politicians invariably pursue the preferred policies of their constituencies. Not all issues are voting issues. In some cases, a politician is insulated in part due to a combination of name recognition and overwhelming party affiliation. In some cases, there may be tension between fundraising and pursuing the preferred policies of the hoi polloi.

But it also doesn't follow from my starting assumption that politicians have complete freedom to ignore the policy preferences of their constituents. Those preferences act as boundaries on the policies that you can can support without damaging your chances of winning elections. This is exactly why you see more politicians advocating for progressive policies in strongly liberal states and districts and exactly why progressive politicians fare much, much better in those states and districts.

As an aside, my personal ideal is far from the cynical world I am describing. If I ran for office, the overarching theme of my campaign would be as follows:

"I want you to elect me because you believe in my integrity and because you believe in my judgment about policy. Here are the policies I support. [INSERT POLICIES.] If elected, I promise to continue to be transparent about the policies that I support. If elected, there will be times where I have to compromise in order to achieve policy goals. I promise to be transparent about what those compromises are, and why I made them. If elected, there will be times where my judgment about policy differs from the judgment of some or even a majority of my constituents. In such cases, I will continue to pursue the policies that I believe are best, without regard to my personal political career. If, at the end of my term, you conclude that there is a candidate either from my own party or from the opposing party whose judgment and integrity you trust more than mine, I want you to vote for that person rather than for me."

That probably wouldn't be a winning message, but I like to believe that it would be my message.

Such a republican thing to do

For once they are now huge favorites in the election even after Dobbs. How can we **** this up? Here you go

Big story on Trump having relations with a 14yr old with Epstein. I don’t wanna say rape but I think they raped a girl together and she sued them in 2016 but Florida just released the grand jury testimony and it’s baaaaaaaaad for Trump

Do the pro Trump people care that Trump was raping kids with Epstein?

not one bit

This is an old story. The filing in 2016 was public. It's just going around social media again.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-ka...

Odds that this develops into anything that affects the election are near zero.

Yeah, I just saw that. Not sure that moves the needle at all.

The post was shared after about 150 pages of transcripts related to a 2006 grand jury investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's rape and sex trafficking of teenagers was released to the public on Monday.

However, the document included in the X post isn't connected to those papers, but actually comes from a lawsuit filed in the months leading up to the 2016 election by an anonymous plaintiff using the name "Katie Johnson."

That lawsuit, filed in federal court in Riverside, California, in April 2016, named Trump and Epstein, the late convicted sex offender, as defendants. It claimed the men held Johnson as a "sex slave" in 1994 when she was 13 and forced her to perform sex acts.

Correct. Bolded was my point.

which is why I said

"Florida just released the grand jury testimony and it’s baaaaaaaaad for Trump"

I could be wrong tho

U damn know that facts is not relevants for them 😀
It’s all about the brand tag .
The rest is meaningless .

I don't understand. Does the grand jury testimony add anything to the lawsuit, which was already public.

The official, accurate to a tee, worldometers. Cot damn their reporting of China, India, N Korea, Africa, is SPOT ON.

The right to bodily autonomy, according to the Supreme Court, is protected there.

It doesn't get much better. You might want to read this before you go too far out of line on this train of thought.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronaviru...

That page is heavily sourced. If you want to poison that well, you would need to do just more than handwave it away. It requires a substantive rebuttal as to its reliability. Good luck with that.

Yes evrything u disagree with is fake .

I think a lot of dem/repub nominees develop a small cult like following. For example, the Bernie bros & Biden has a group that are so devoted to him that they truly believe he doesn’t have dementia. I agree these groups of people are weird.

I think what is new with trump is that there is a cult like group that exudes hatred for trump, anyone who votes for trump and anyone that says anything nice about trump. I don’t recall ever seeing this level of hatred towards a politicians followers ever.

Example: