Domspeak Forums Discussions Off Topic & Politics Vance's Liabilities

It is being reported that he described masturbating in an odd and creative way in his book. Most men in politics or, any walk of life, have probably done some crazy sexual things while alone. That gets a big so what from me. But, detailing it in a book? Poor, poor judgement. If he actually put that out there, how could the Trump campaign not have found this in the vetting process and decided it would be too much of a sideshow distraction.

His comments about the quality of women's lives if they don't have children were unnecessary. His pro family point could have been much better made. Some couples choose not to have children and some can't. It was not only wrong to make it sound as if a woman's life is meaningless without becoming a mother, it was stupid. The last thing people who don't want to be parents can do is to have children out of social pressure. The last thing that a political candidate can do is hand the other side ammunition.

Schumer calling for Trump to replace Vance rings hollow after his party covered for a senile man fumbling through running our country. I will agree that Vance is turning out to be a bad choice. But, Trump's stuck with him now or so it seems.

I didn't want Vance from the beginning....Not because of his book admission (which I didn't know about until you just posted it) but because of the shit he said about Trump....

I mean he said some unbelievably bad stuff about Trump......You just don't forgive that shit..

I also didn't want him because he Is too ambitious in my opinion...He is also a big time opportunist and he WILL BE a CAREER politician......

But then again Trump SUCKS at picking people.....He sucked at picking his 2 attorney generals, he sucked at picking his 3 SCOTUS justices, he endorsed people like Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney, he had people like Chris Christie working for him, he picked Mike Pence.....

The list goes on and on.......

The Worst part is that a LOT of people around the country are going to suffer if Trump doesn't win.......He will just go back to living his Billionaire Life.......But the American people will pay because we supported him....

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I'm in a same sex relationship that will likely result in marriage. It is a good possibility that we will not have children. But, we have very strong family values and are closer to the young people in our families than most aunts. For him to say that Democrats are anti family was a slap in the face to many types of people, including women in same sex relationships. For the first time, I was considering voting for a Republican. If Vance stays on the ticket it will probably have me sitting out of the election. His backhanded apology only made it worse. He has no place to make judgements on decisions that women make regarding procreation.

I liked him at first. Now, I think Trump should replace him. If the Democrats can replace Biden, Trump can replace the VP. Sarah Huckabee Sanders would be a safe pick. Trump does not know how to surround himself with the right people. Whoever he is taking advice from, he should stop.

Vance is a knob. But, elections shouldn't be decided on by the vice. Look at the bigger picture and why you had to leave a liberal city that you loved. It shouldn't be this way but it is all a trade off.

We spoke about this before he picked a VP.....At the time I said that Vance was not a good pick and that I could live with Rubio....(Trump could have used his New Jersey residence)

Now we are stuck with Vance.....It would look ridiculous if Trump replaced him now.....


Actually something like this only happened once in 1972.....McGovern replaced his VP pick (a guy named Thomas Eagleton) because he wasn't vetted and had a DWI conviction. He replaced that guy with Sargent Schiver and got crushed by Nixon.....

Personally I think Trump should have taken the hotdog vendor in Times Square.....I would have jumped for joy....(Not sure if he speaks English though).... Or maybe Trump could have taken one of his caddies......

Btw,

There is some interesting stuff online about that McGovern and Eagleton situation....

It would look ridiculous. But, in this day and age, with Biden stepping down, an assassination attempt, faulty security, a congress woman hanging another country's flag over her WH office, ect.....it is all crazy. It won't happen anyway. It is a moot point. But, gesh, someone should coach Vance on not stepping all over important voting bases.

A historian by the name of Allan Lichtman has successfully predicted every election since 1984. He's calling it an easy win for Harris. Let's hope this is the year that breaks his winning streak of correct calls. It is inconvenient timing as heck with family obligations in Ohio and Rhode Island but, I'm making a trip to the Florida house to vote in person.

I agree with F451 in that replacing him isn't an option. If masturbating on a coach while in college and believing that a woman's life is more fulfilled by having children is the worst they have on him, we are in good shape. The media will blow everything out of proportion.

Yeah I read that dumb story about that "historian" Allan Lichtman predicting every election since 1984.....

You know why its dumb?

Because if you look at every election since 1984 almost all of them were easy to predict except the stolen one in 2020.....

It wasn't too hard to predict Reagan both Bushes, Clinton, Obama and even I predicted Trump......

Don't fall for these bullshit Fox News articles...That network hates Trump.

Respectfully, Mistress, the story about Vance having sex with a couch is unfounded. It was not in his book. It was made up. Between the networks and the Democrats, he was referred to as weird 150 times last week. It is a smear. He should step up and defend himself. What is weird is that the Democrats came up with such a crazy thing.

You're not the only one to notice.
Creepy Leftist Journos Have ALL Agreed On What Word To Defame Trump’s Veep With
FTA:https://twitter.com/i/status/1818064256497238195

I am the first to jump in and research back to someone's full statements, interviews, written word, ect. When it comes to Vance, it appears big tech is, once again, interfering with an election. Short of purchasing and reading his entire book, it is very difficult to find first hand information. If you can share your sources, that would be great. I've been able to find what he said about women and his follow up remarks but nothing about the couch except what the media has put out there. As far as the left throwing his being "Weird" around, it is pure gas lighting. There is a promotional video of Harris dancing with a 7' foot tall drag queen who is dressed like a fruit salad....and she is calling someone else weird? Vance should speak up and address this.

Wasn't Eagleton more about him having suffered several bouts of clinical depression and having been hospitalized for it in the past?

Yes I think so....I also think he had a DUI too... Anyways it was a last minute VP change that MCGOVERN made.. And Nixon crushed him in probably the biggest landslide ever.....

Of course Nixons VP Agnew was a crook..

Either way I don't like or Trust Vance....I think Trump made a mistake....

~sigh~
Here we go again.
Stories are made up by leftists and then get repeated.
Frankly, I don't pay much attention to personality politics so I often miss topics like this.
Since my knowledge is mostly from your post and a Breitbart article, please state your source and also indicate if you disagree with any contentions in my link before I spend a bunch of time researching your claim.
FTA:
As to the "It is being reported that he described masturbating..." even the left wing Snopes addresses that claim as false:
No, JD Vance Did Not Say He Had Sex with Couch Cushions

*Sigh* I do my research. The left is scrubbing the internet for Harris right now. It isn't about believing a falsely reported story. It is about not being able to get enough facts quickly. With Noem, I was able to read entire paragraphs from her book. Big tech was not trying hide facts that even she admitted to. In my opinion, she did a lot of CYA and spinning tales that didn't make sense. I came to this conclusion on my own and was NOT influenced by the media mob. Next time, I will save the links, interviews and articles to share with you. It is understandable that you would want them. I wrongly assumed that as vested in the topic as you were, you would already read and watched them too.

Getting back to Vance, I can understand the less said the better about the couch fabrication. It is an awkward position to be in for the GOP. If they slam the left for making it up, the more talk there is about sex with couches. If they let it stand, the opportunity to reveal Harris's team as liars is lost. His comments about women are right out there. As the female vote is very important for Trump, I'm really disappointment that Vance said what he did. I'm talking about the exact words that came from his mouth in the commencement speech and his weak clarification of them.

Yet you came to your conclusions thinking that Noem didn't indicate she thought the dog was dangerous.
Your sources (what ever they are) either omitted or downplayed the fact that she did feel the dog was dangerous and you believed and posted a lie.
Your posts indicate you envisioned the situation one way and when anything challenges that vision, you dismiss it as spin.
(I.e. it doesn't support your perception and and therefore "doesn't make sense.)
I envision a woman who watched a happy playful puppy transform into a vicious animal that she could not control and had turned on her.
I can imagine her blood running cold as she thought about the times her children played with a dog that could turn transform so quickly.
My take does make sense of her narrative.

Yet you led off your OP with it.
Granted, you allowed for the possibility of it being false, but anyone reading it and trusting your judgement will assume it to be true.

I haven't read his speech. Are your quotes the ones addressed in the article I linked to?

I really hate spending time addressing the wrong quotes.
For your reference, here is one of the quotes the article addresses:

It is NOT true that I came to my conclusion that way. I did not believe she said that in the beginning but later realized that she did. I clearly stated that I did not believe her and she was trying to cover herself from the local stories at the time. I was not able to find the local stories from 20 years ago. Were you? A dog of that breed and age would not be violently aggressive toward people unless there were very abnormal circumstances, such as blindness or serious abuse. Like anyone else who cares about more than stupidly believing a narrative, I delved in. I did more research than most from what I can tell. I admitted when I was wrong and kept looking.

I KNOW about dogs, rural life, animal rescue and farm life. I also KNOW what I saw of her interviews and own words, FIRST HAND. Too much does not add up. We clearly disagree. You are entitled to your belief that I am was blinded by the media mob, even though is NOT even remotely accurate. But, you are entitled to that opinion. Let's not rehash it again.

I did believe it was true of Vance AT FIRST. While I have nearly zero trust or respect for the DNC, I didn't think they would make up such an outrageous thing when there is published written word that disproves it. I do wonder if something in his book was taken out of context. But, really, I don't care enough to read the entire book. As I said, there were plenty of direct quotes, right down to entire paragraphs from Noem's book but I couldn't find any couch quotes from Vance's book.

Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were. He is free to believe what he wants. My concern is that his stated belief will harm Trump's opportunity to win.

I will never convince you that you unfairly condemned Noem and you will never convince me that your opinion is based on logic and not emotion.

And you posted it. As I mentioned above, those who trusted your judgement will believe it unless they stumble upon the truth later.
That's why knee-jerk posts make me angry. It illustrates how effective the left is at spreading lies and propaganda.

~sigh~
Like the Trump "pussy tape," the leftists again put forth their narrative despite what is actually said.
Please read the quoted text carefully. Vance is criticizing journalists on how they (the journalists, not Vance) treat women and that the journalists (not women) will be "sad, lonely, pathetic because of it.
Tell me again how horrible Vance's exact words were.

You refuse to look at a full set of facts on Noem, which is why we will never agree. I'd love to find the local reports from 20 years ago. Emotion, when someone boasts about killing a 14 month old dog and calling it a danger to people with no reports or facts to back that assertion up, is emotional for anyone who cares about dogs. That doesn't mean they can't decipher fact from spin. It make take a few minutes but, it can be done. From her own written words and interviews, she contradicted herself all over the place.

When the media came out with false reports about Nicholas Sandmann being hostile to a Native American, even Fox jumped on it. It was quickly retracted. When I get something wrong, I'm quick to admit it, for two reasons 1. I remain objective and listen to information others have. 2. I delve into researching beyond the media mob spin.

With Vance, I did believe it. What a crazy thing for the left to make up. There well may have been something in this book for them to take out of context. I haven't read it and have no intentions to so I can't say that with certainty. Yes_Goddess is a personal friend of mine. He asked before pointing this out on line. I told him to do it because it leads to good conversation. I'm not concerned for being called out. No one is right 100% of the time and it is getting harder and harder to find pure information. As I said, Trump's campaign is in a awkward spot. Continue to talk about unusual masturbation or just let it go?

I am not a journalist. If I was publishing something beyond a handful of posters, I'd have a team vet it. What I like about this site and miss about MF is that most of us share our views and do not hesitate to admit when we were wrong. I've changed my opinion on various subjects. Listen with an open mind is my motto.

The "Pussy tape" exonerated Trump. Anyone who listened to it, in entirety, with an open mind knows that. I sought it out and listened to it twice.

I found and listened to Vance's speech as well. He said what he did. I don't give a darn what he believes personally. I do not want him to bring Trump's chances down. Did you see the lame back peddling he did? It only made it worse. MY opinion and not that of the media mob.

It boils down to the fact that you don't believe her.
As you suggested, it's probably best we don't rehash this.

Like they have never made up anything in the past.
You attack Vance with the source: "it is being reported." I would hope you would take the time to source your material before posting a hit piece.
Saying "whoops" after the the damage is done doesn't do much to mitigate the damage of such accusations

I narrowed it down to a quote that you acknowledge: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
So finally we have a common source.
My question is: what part of that quote do you consider "horrible"?
Was it this part: "if you’re going to be the sort of person who asks women to talk about how they regret having children, you’re going to be a sad, lonely, pathetic person..." where he is taking on those who demean women who had children?

Why can't you just admit that Noem killing that dog WAS NOT going to sit right with a lot of people......She also has to be the dumbest politician ever to admit doing such a thing....

As for Vance:

I DID NOT want him from the beginning....(it's obvious you like him).....

My dislike/distrust of him has NOTHING to do with his book/movie (which I never read or saw) or anything that he supposedly said.....I see him as an opportunist who might eventually back stab Trump.....Oh yeah, I can see two years from now Vance trying to pull a 25th amendment tactic.....

And I am sick and freaking tired of hearing his rags to riches story....He sounds exactly like a politician...(ie: Scum of the earth)

Trump should have NEVER taken him....

Btw,

I hear his wife is an extreme radical leftist too....In fact most people who graduated from Yale Law School are leftists......You don't think his wife has any influence over him?

A hit piece? I share my views on this forum. If you consider it a hit piece, I don't know what to say about that. I'm not publishing it in the NY Times. It was being widely reported by multiple sources. Someone would have to be living under a rock not to know about it. I would still believe they took something in his book and embellished it or took it out of context. Frankly, I don't want to take the time to read his book. It doesn't matter to me aside from how it affects Trump.

I find it horrible that he made it sound as though women who don't have children will not have a good quality of life. His clarification shortly later that "Democrats are anti family," was not good either. Is the DNC anti family? I'd say some of their policies are, without a doubt. But, to refer to all Democrats as anti family was nearly as alienating as Hillary's "Basket of deplorable," comment. Again, I don't care what the man thinks. I care about Trump winning the election. I believe Trump could have chosen a better VP pick.

He didn't demean woman who have had children. He demeaned women who don't. If I said that the other way around, it was a typo.

I didn't put much thought into Trump's VP pick at the time. Someone like Tulsi Gabert might have been a better choice. He's fighting for female votes. There is a dark cloud of Trump having supported the overturn of Roe. Vance should have been more careful with his statements. If Trump does win, Vance will leave a Senate seat open. Ohio's Governor is on the RINO side from what I can tell. He could fill the seat with the same. It is a short time until the election. Let's all hope that Vance can hold his own the debate stage. This may be the rare election where the VP's make a difference for those for those on the fence.

Of course I admit that.
I object to inaccurate and unfair reporting about it.

Perhaps, but she's the only governor who didn't go crazy during the pandemic. Figure 49 others dumber than her.

I'm indifferent about him.
What rattles my cage is the ease the MSM is able to attack individuals with lies and distortions.

Chuck, I have a home in Tennessee, Florida and Ohio. In the midst of covid, I had to travel back and forth from California a few times. So, I saw a lot of how the Governors handled things first hand. California was crazy....science fiction novel crazy. It only got better there when Newsome was a short time away from a recall vote. As much dirty play as the Newsome crew did in the recall election, they still would have lost if they had not opened up when they did. The contrast between California and Florida was night and day. DeSantis did not lose his mind durning covid.

Tennessee was weird for a couple of months but nothing like California. Not even remotely close. Things got back to normal there very quickly. The Governor was just fine.

Ohio was odd...not nearly as bad as California but not as sane as Florida and Tennessee.

So, I've got to disagree with you that Noem was the only one who kept a cool head during covid. There are probably other states too. I can only speak to the ones that I frequented during that time.

That indeed is indicative of the power of those "multiple sources."
Where would those sources get that story if they were not from left wing contributors?

This indicates you still want to believe the story or "something else" that shows he's weird.

Again, show the source and quote.
There is no way to address your concern/point when you paraphrases or summarize without providing a reference to exactly what guided you to your conclusion.

How can I respond without having your source at hand?
Your paraphrasing and summations are useless without context

I don't see that in the quote I posted. Please explain.
In order to understand where you are coming from, please answer questions I ask, namely: What part of that quote do you consider "horrible"?

Chuck, you are completely misunderstanding where I am coming from. When something is being widely reported and X is on fire with it, there is nothing wrong in relaying this and bringing it up for discussion. I would like to know exactly, if anything, was said about the couch scenario. Do I want this to be true? God, no. Yes, I do believe there must have been something they could have greatly embellished or taken out of context. It is my gut feeling on it. Could I be wrong? Sure. It is totally appropriate for someone to speculate on a topic. I'm SO NOT demanding that or hoping that the left has any credibility on this. I don't want anything that will hurt or distract from Trump's campaign. I'm unclear why you find what I've said on this an arguing point.

The source you posted is a find place to start. Are you truly telling me that you did not listen to and or read Vance's words about childless women for yourself? It is the first thing that I went out to do. His original words and his lame retraction the next day. He's not denying that the said this. In fact, he did an interview to try to "Clarify" his comments. I watched that. He began by saying, "Look, I have nothing against cats," which I thought was a poor way to begin his "Clarification." Did you truly not watch Vance talking on the topic? Chuck, it is really getting insulting that you believe I'm such an idiot I'm going to accept the media mob's description of what someone else said. Look how many times they've taken Trump out of context. All it took was listening to his own words to see what liars the media is. I tracked down Vance's comments on childless women as well. Did you really not listen to commencement speech or watch his "Clarification" that came a few days later?

You are an informed man. I am stunned that you did not watch Vance's "Clarification" and see the words come out of his own mouth. If I need to spoon feed you what I'm assuming you've already seen before you get on fire about a topic, I will. But, please don't waste my time. Did you not see this for yourself already?

The quote I referenced is what you posted. I took your word for it that you pulled it out of the commencement speech and were quoting him. I did watch that part of the speech but I did not memorize it. Do you realize that Vance, himself, is taking ownership of what he said and even went on the air to explain why he said it? I don't mind quoting sources when the situation calls for it but if I have to track down things you've already seen for yourself, it is getting over the top. How can YOU have an opinion on what Vance said if you didn't watch it for yourself?

Of course there is nothing wrong with it if you trust your sources.
My point is how easy it is to get people to relay a lie and once it has been relayed, how difficult it is to undo the initial comment.

Yes. I told you that at the very beginning of this exchange.
I generally don't listen to political speeches or comment on the personalities of politicians.
I didn't feel the need to comment on your post--I just took your word for it.
It wasn't until I read the post by Yes_Goddess that I found out the couch story was false but I still didn't feel the need to comment on your post.
I was more concerned about the MSM tactic using "weird" to describe Vance and I did comment on that.
I wouldn't have commented on your post except a day or so later I came across the article I linked to with the headline: AP Reporter Called Out for Aiding and Abetting Kamala Harris’s Lies About JD Vance.
This sounded like the tactic of the MSM telling the listeners how to interpret what they hear such as they did with the "pussy tape."
Before I jumped in, I gave you the link to the article and asked if you found fault with it.
Did you even look at the article I linked to? You never indicated that you did so I finally resorted to taking a quote from it to have something solid that we could discuss.
You responded with: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
I then asked what you found in that quote that was so horrible.
Your response was that he demeaned women who haven't had children.
I didn't see that and asked for an explanation.
You responded with a paragraph that never touched on the requested explanation.

Unable to get you to support your impression of "horrible" I'll give you my impression:
He criticized journalists (and others like them) for implying women regret having children.

If you don't feel my impression is valid, then state yours and the reasoning behind it...PLEASE.

Well when I asked you to support your opinion and you failed, I'll go with the opinion of Hannah Knudsen, the author of the article I linked to.

Let me ask you something Chuck....

I am going to assume that you weren't born yesterday and that you have been on this planet for awhile now....(ie: You have been around the block; this isn't your first rodeo)

Don't you know by now that practically every single media outlet lies all the time? The media has always sold these politicians to the public....The same way that their advertisers sell you their cars, clothes and pharmaceutical drugs...They also sell you their wars and create every racial division.....

In plain English the Media is pure evil....From MSNBC to FOX....The hosts are ALL agents of evil....From Rachel Maddow to Sean Hannity....All of them are making millions preaching evil....

Almost all of these media hosts and most of these politicians capitalize some more with their books too.....

None of them care about the American people....They only care about their bank accounts.....

What I just said is fact...

Chuck,

All media lies. I agree with F451 on this one. It is why it is so important to listen to exactly what the person in question said, from their own mouth or get direct words from their own pen in a documented source. I was up front that I couldn't find this about the couch story. But, the Trump campaign had not denied or addressed. As it went on, I couldn't find anything from his book on line. It was blowing up X. As time went on, Yes_Goddess, who is a good friend of mine, called me and told me that he had managed to finally find out that it was, so far, unfounded. I was happy to hear it but remain concern that if this continues to follow Vance around, some type of shaming statement should be made to expose it as fabrication. It is what makes wonder...not claim...but wonder if there was some type of comment made that was wildly embellished. MSM did not suggest this. It is my own thought. The Trump is a racist lie that way too many believe, came from an incident many decades ago that was more about Trump's father than it was him, look how that blew up and spread. It seems they find something they can twist and take out of context...like Trump's Charlottesville speech. I've done nothing but discuss my thoughts on this here honestly.

As for the speech that Vance gave at a college commencement, I did seek that out. I thought for certain they had taken him out of context. I was disappointed, to hear with my own two ears, that they did not. When his clarification came out a few days later, I listened it, which in my own perception inflamed only more. It set the GOP back even further with female voters, in my own opinion.

As I listen to speeches and interviews, I will save them for you and post them here if the topic comes up. Again, I was wrong to assume that you were tracking down original words from someone's own mouth.

Yes, I did read your article and listened to the video. It was much better than the lame clarification that he gave earlier. But, it doesn't change the words HE chose to use in the commencement speech. He is back peddling now. But, we can't have a conversation about it if you don't watch speeches. It is like analyzing a football game that you didn't see.

What I find horrible is that there are people who do not want the responsibility of having children or can't have them. It doesn't mean they are anti family. It doesn't mean that they are influenced by the feminist Vance rants about it. What he said was horribly insensitive and flat out ignorant. I write this as the mother of six and being very involved in my grandchildren lives, as well as my niece and nephew's. I can't imagine my life without them. But, 1. I was lucky enough to have children with no problem. I also was more family driven than career driven. I enjoyed my careers, which took me down 3 entirely different paths in life. But, family was my priority. Not everyone is like that. They shouldn't be shamed. But, was is most horrible about his OWN words at the speech, was that at a time when Trump is struggling for the female vote, that made the fight A LOT harder.

With his retractions, although the one in this article is better than the first, it still digs him deeper in the whole of alienating both young and female voters. That is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. It is my own perception from all of what I've read and heard, which I've done my due diligence.

Again, the media mob are liars. I do NOT blindly believe anything they say, none of them, including Fox. Podcasts I'm finding to be better, especially Rogan's with live fact checks...but even then they have to be double checked and, depending on the subject triple checked. Even then, more information many not come out until later.

I didn't fail to support my opinion. You are nit picking everything I say. But, now that I know you aren't watching or reading original sources, I will start saving the links for you. But, not agreeing with someone doesn't mean they somehow failed to support their opinion. It means you didn't agree with them.

I don't want to get in the middle of a back and forth. But, I do want to explain my post. Lady Cheyenne and I have been friends for many years. We haven't played or filmed in many of years but we talk on the phone often and, these days, often about politics and current events. When this stuff on Vance exploded on Twitter, I told her about it. Neither one of us could find a good source with exact quotes. Later, when I learned that it was unfounded, I mentioned it in one of our casual chats. She wanted me to post my findings here instead of her doing it. I can tell you first hand, she wasn't jumping on the msm band wagon. I regret that my post has lead to such contention.

I think your post was meant for Chuck....Not sure why you wrote it to me.

Chuck said Cheyenne was "jumping on the bandwagon" not me.

And for the record I said I didnt like Vance way before any of this stuff came out....I dont like him because I think he is a RINO, an oppurtunist and a career politician who WILL stab Trump in the back down the road...

Not to mention all the nasty things Vance said about Trump like calling him "The Hitler of America" and a "Sexual offender"

The post was meant for Chuck. Sorry about that.

What gave you the impression that I don't know that?

Because you seem amazed that people keep falling for the media lies and then spreading those lies themselves.....It's a never ending cycle with these people.....

But putting all of this aside, people should be more concerned with the CHEATING that is about to take place on November 4th.... It might be 2020 all over again....

Between the 20 million ILLEGALS voting, half a dozen states ALLOWING votes to come in a week after the election and over 29 million fraudulent registries (in 20 states) illegally on State Voter rolls we are screwed....

Btw,

Re: Those 29 million FAKE/FRAUDULENT voter registries

The States have 4 days left to clean them up or they stay.......The Republicans and Trumps team had 3 and a half years to do something about this....But they wait until now......A lawsuit was just filed yesterday regarding this issue but it's too late..


I have been following this situation for a month now.....



https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ng-election-integrity-lawsuits-multiple/

That is exactly what I asked of you.
You paraphrased and summarized but didn't provide the basis for your conclusions.
If I know exactly what text you are addressing, I can read it with my own perception.

In an effort to understand your point, I provided a quote that you said: "Yes, that is a quote from which I base my opinion on how horrible Vance's exact words were."
All I asked was for you to explain what was it he said in that quote that you thought was so horrible.
I gave you my interpretation and it didn't seem so horrible.
If you won't discuss a single paragraph, how do you expect to have a discussion on the bulk of his speeches and interviews?

Okay.
What exactly are HIS words that you object to?


I don't have to watch an entire football game to analyze a controversial play.

I think you misspoke here. If you didn't, I disagree with you 100 %.

No. I'm struggling to get you to answer my question and support your opinion. If you can't do that for one paragraph that you contend supports your position, then why should I believe your perception on the rest?

One last time concerning that paragraph (from my earlier post):

You have good taste in friends.
I've followed Cheyenne from her early blog when she first started to several discussion boards such as this one.
I wouldn't have participated in any of them if she wasn't there.
We both have similar family values; we both have similar moral values; we both share most political philosophies; and we both are agitated when she is wrong.

There have been several incidences where I have found right biased information sources when others could not.
My theory (unsupported but plausible) is that Google buries articles and sites that are positive toward conservative ideals under a sea of contrary liberal posts.
I use Duck Duck Go and I seem to get more results that support conservatives than those who use Google.

I never thought so. I feel like she got run over by it.

Your post had nothing to with "such contention."
As I mentioned in one of my posts, I didn't bother with the "couch incident."
What caused the "contention" was my concern with the more insidious issue of Vance being misinterpreted.
The couch incident got dragged in along with it.

Chuck, the article you posted about Vance with the video clip of him going on the offensive seals my belief that he is alienating voting bases and dragging Trump down. I base that on words from his own words. It is a moot point as the VP choice has been made. But, it was a bad one in MY opinion. I don't care for your dismissing views you don't agree with as someone being enough of an idiot to fall for the charlatans of MSM. Aside from that, thank you for your kind words. People don't always have to agree. Btw, my boyfriend loves that Vance is going on the offense. Some people might. But, I think it is self serving and stupid on his part. He's not winning anyone over that wasn't already going to vote for Trump.

Thanks for responding to my post directed to Yes_Goddess.
However, do you realize how frustrating it is to make a post and have it bypassed? (I'm talking about my post #1539)

Do you realize how frustrating it is to discuss an issue with you?
You state time and time again that you base your opinion on Vance's own words.
Vance has uttered many words in every speech and interview.
Is it really too much to ask which of those words and what context were relevant to your forming your opinion?
If I still don't see your point, is it too much to ask you to explain why those words are damning?
If I view a statement differently and offer my interpretation, is it too much to ask for you to tell me why you think I'm wrong?

When you don't support your views with anything more that paraphrases and summaries, I'm left to speculate on them and your sources.
I'm sorry if my speculations are offensive but they are honest.
I don't think you are an idiot but I do think you were blindsided.

Chuck, as I have explained, I follow things in real time. When I read about what someone said, I go out and find it immediately. Then, I watch the follow up interviews if there are any. Waiting on this often results in the actual speeches being scrubbed. I will try to find an organized way to save all possible content, that includes the original, unedited words coming from someone's own mouth. I remember Vance's speech from a few years ago in which he compares Harris, Mayor Peter and AOC to childless cat ladies. He also said, in the same interview, that he wasn't criticizing women who didn't want or couldn't have children. But, then went on to attack the Democrats for being anti family. When I try to find this interview with Tucker from a few years ago on youtube, all that comes up is a leftwing commentary and a small clip of Vance actually talking. So, I can't give you the source for my thoughts on the interview. I watched it when it happened. I thought it was clumsy and alienating to word things the way he did.

As for his commencement speech, I saw that as soon as it was being talked about. I can't find it now. I can give you MY opinion on what he said, which surprised and disappointed me. Trump was already struggling for the female vote. His support of overturning Roe v Wade set him back a lot. While I agree with some of Vance's opinions on the subject of family and the leading Democrat's policies, some of what I have heard him say is not good for Trump and, frankly, I find some of it offensive and too old school Moral Majority for my liking. Of course, the left is going to embellish it but I do agree with them to a certain degree.

It is as if you are trying to debate about a football game that you didn't watch with someone who did. I saw where you asked line item questions that I didn't get to just yet. I have a very busy today and am traveling tomorrow. But, I look forward to answering all of your questions tonight. As for responding to Yes_Goddess, Chuck, please understand I try to respond to everyone who posts on a thread that I started. I miss a few sometimes but do try to respond to everyone.

Oh, and one more thing I want to touch on, the leftwing media and big tech is over the top with hiding original content and replacing it with short clips and biased commentary. That is what I'm finding with Vance. What he said alone, I found harmful enough to the Trump campaign but the embellishment is off the charts. CBS actually brought in a so called gender expert to analyze his childless cat lady comment that was made a couple of years ago. My research skills could be better but I do try to go back and dig up original sources, many of which I watched, unedited, when it first came out. Although you may not see it, I despise MSM. I most certainly have not been run over by them or believe anything they say. I'd love to see the people who own the media outlets held accountable in a court of law for all of the lies, incitement and damage they are doing and marched off to prison. Then, the commentators who are nothing more than paid liars can have their turn in court. It will never happen but I'd be happy if it did. So, when you accuse me of believing these horrible people, it feels like a smack in the face.

I don't mean to interject. But, let me put this in my perspective. I grew in a Democrat voting household and going to Catholic Schools. I was being hammered by religion telling me, from a very young age, that something was wrong with gay people. I remember, at the tender age, of 10 making a decision to bury it deep and know that God didn't want me to suffer. By all appearances, I'm the most easy going person you'd ever meet. Deep in, that stuff is buried. The Republicans harped on the evils of gay marriage when I was a teenager coming to terms with a lot and coming out to my parents. Mike Pence had a history of being against gay rights. Now they give us Vance? I may never have children. I am not anti family. Is it so awful that my girlfriend and I have two cats? Vance is out of line in saying these things. Democrats are not anti family. My family is all about our children and each other. I was leaning toward voting for Trump, which I never thought I'd do. Now, my girlfriend would smother me in my sleep if I did.

I remember the left turned the 2008 election where Obama essentially ran against Sarah Palin. McCain was disproportionately bypassed.

Chuck,

We are beating our heads against a wall hear...both of us. I have answered all of these questions. You just don't like my answers. I disagree that you needs to watch an entire football game to discuss the outcome. There is more than one controversial play with Vance. His cat lady compassion and, when called on it 2 years later, his response was flip and alienating. As I've said, he started out with saying, "Look, I have nothing against cats," trying to downplay his remarks. Then he launched into the Democrats being anti family. In the quote you referenced, it came across that a woman's life would not be meaningful without having children. I've explained this to you before. You just don't like my read on it. Now part of a speech in which he says that people with children have more of an investment in the future of the country and should have more of a voice than people who don't have children is circulating. I don't like it when only part of a speech is presented. I'd like to hear the entire speech but can't find it. They are calling it an "Unearthed" speech. So, it is not recent. It just keeps looking worse and worse. Some of the look is spin and embellishment but he has handed them a lot to work with. Here is one of the links. If I find the entire speech on youtube, I will post it. It is better to listen to the entire speech for context.

Yes, I did misspeak. I find it horrible that Vance's comments singled these people out in a negative light.

I have provided my reasoning with detail multiple times. You just don't like it. I saw on a post you made to someone else that the media ran against Palin instead of McCain. To a large extent that is true. I see Vance as low hanging fruit who doesn't have much to bring to the ticket and is as eloquent as a can of paint. I liked the pick at first. But, it didn't take long of hearing him talk to change my mind. Again, my concern is that it will have a negative impact on Trump.

Cheyenne

It isn't the entire speech but it is pretty clear with words from his own mouth. Vance was advocating for people who have children to have more voting power than people who don't. I'd really like to hear the entire speech but haven't found it yet. I also can't find the commencement speech but next week when I have more time will keep looking. Vance is dragging Trump down. What a bad choice.

Of course not. That statement was obviously tongue-in-cheek.
However, I do often hear libs blaming the faults of our government on "old white men" -- and they say it seriously.

However, their party's leadership and policies are.
I watched the concept of traditional families be attacked from the "Great Society" on.
The idea that "it takes a village" has morphed into "give your child to the government."
Program after program exacerbates problems with traditional families thus allowing the government to control more and more of the child's upbringing.
As women have been made ashamed to be "just" housewives, they must limit their time with their kids and rely on daycare and extended schooling to raise them.
Daycare is expensive and the government is happy to jump in to help those families that can't afford it and instill the concept of institutionalization earlier and earlier.
As more and more control of our children transfers to institutions, we see the promotion of "inclusive" lifestyles that may be detrimental and potentially dangerous.
In extreme cases, this "inclusivity" is promoted by drag queens and teachers that come to class with Z sized bras.

That is the crux of my problem with this issue.
The left and the willing MSM are quick to divert attention from meaningful issues that they can't defend with petty red herrings -- and they avoid Trump altogether.
Is cat bashing really more important than inflation?
Is support of alternate lifestyles more important than unrestricted immigration that leads to crime and anarchy?
As more and more unvetted military aged men are allowed in, attacks on women increase.
Biden has brought the world closer to nuclear conflict than Kennedy did in the '60s.
The election of Kamala will result in the US being weaker and threat of world chaos will be a certainty.

Things have gotten so out of control under Biden, Trump may not be able to fix it.
However, he's the only one who has a chance to do so.
No one else has the financial capability and courage to try.

My advice: hide your pillows and vote for Trump.

I agree. For simplicity, I'm going to reply to just this post.
If I miss an important point in your other posts, let me know and I'll address it.

Mostly you talk around my questions.
For example:
I've repeatedly asked you to comment on my interpretation of the quote that we've agreed you feel is an indication of Vance's position.
You haven't even stated whether you agree or disagree, let alone justify your contention if you disagree.
It's as if I said Trump admitted to molesting women in the pussy tape and you explained how that is not the case.
My repeated response to your explanations would be: "Nope. I heard his exact words with my own ears," followed by "I've already answered that."

However, if you won't talk about the first controversial replay, why bother looking for more?

I appreciate your attempt to document your position.
However, to me the whole issue is moot so don't waste your time.
As I mentioned in posts in other threads, I'm indifferent to Vance.
If he is horrible, then I figure that it might be a deterrent for a potential Trump assassin who doesn't want Vance to be president.
If he is great, then great.
Either way, I'm voting for Trump because in the four years he had, he has shown he has the best chance to save the US (and perhaps the world).
That he is willing to put his fortune and life on the line to make the effort speaks well of his character.

As to my MSM remarks, I'm sorry they offended you.
It's just that when I see comments that divert attention from real issues to petty character attacks on red herring points, I feel frustrated because I'm sure they are directed by leftists in partnership with the MSM.
Isn't that just plain "weird"?

Hide the pillows! Ha. Good one.

I heard Vance's cat lady remark to be loud and clear. It wasn't a joke. I agree that the Democrat's if office have policies that are not supportive of parents. But, he said Democrats are anti family. Coming from a big loving family that has always voted Democratic, that didn't go over well with me. His avocation for people with children to have more of a voice than people who don't is loud, clear and inexcusable. It is because of people like him running our government that makes it difficult for people to have children. He is against expanding the child credit tax write off. He is against government funded parental leave. More than anything, his party is the one that has advocated against people, like me, from adopting children, marrying a same sex partner and creating a stigma for a child of gay parents to grow up in. I don't like what they are teaching the kids in school about sexuality. Let them figure that out on their own. But, he is of the party that helped make life for gay people more difficult than it should have been.

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I sold my condo in the Chicago area because the city had become too crime ridden for comfort. My girl and I have been talking about getting married and having a child. In the suburb we lived in, it would be accepted. Where we are moving, in Kentucky, it probably won't be. Neither of us want a child to be treated differently for having two moms. People like Vance contribute to the non acceptance. Taking a chance on getting mugged or not being able to have a child, while being criticized for not starting a family should a choice that anyone is faced with.

If a nuclear war breaks out, it is going to anyway. Covid happened under Trump's watch. People may call me a conspiracy theory but it was obviously a lab designed weapon. How did he not know that the US was funding the research? I don't trust the Dems or Repubs when it comes to national security in that regard. I care about crime rates, illegal invasion and inflation. That is as much as I can go with thinking my vote will matter anyway.

Vance is worse than Pence and his history of wanting gay people healed instead of accepting them and letting them be. Trump choice round two of discrimination against people who don't fit the procreation mode. For me, it is either vote for Trump or not at all. Thanks to Vance, it will probably be not at all. One thing I know for sure is that I will not vote for a Democrat unless they turn themselves around.

I've maintained for years that liberal policies are detrimental to traditional families.
Those policies have been implemented by the Democratic Party for decades.
Those Democrats who believe the anti-conservative rhetoric have consistently voted Democratic even though they support the concept of family.
Education, crime, services, opportunities, etc. all suffer as a consequence.
Sadly many, like yourself, seek to get away from the blue cities.

Even if true, it pales in contrast to other factors that are turning people off from the gay agenda:
-Gays redefine genders and are insulted if someone doesn't use the right pronoun (often with penalties involved).
-Giving gays the ability to force businesses to support their lifestyle.
-Promoting inappropriate actions and lifestyles in schools and libraries.
-Manipulating and even mutilating children -- often without parental knowledge or consent.
-Taking parenting rights away from parents.
-Mocking religion (i.e. Last Supper in Paris)
-Giving gays preferences in hiring.
-redefining traditional terms such as calling mothers "birthing persons."
etc.
These kinds of issues contribute more to the nonacceptance of the gay lifestyle than any rhetoric by a politician.

That's a dangerous, fatalistic attitude.
I believe with the weakening of our military (much of the weakness is caused by "woke" policies) our adversaries are emboldened to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.
Allow Iran access to funds allowed it to support terrorism (such as the Hamas attack) as well as fund their nuclear ability and delivery vehicles.
Trump made significant strides toward peace in the Mideast.
When Trump was in office, we had leverage to discourage the Russian invasion in the first place.
Now we have spent billions and there is the threat of nuclear exchange in the Ukraine conflict.
Faced with the costs of wars that we have incurred under Biden and the threat of radioactivity around the world in even a limited use of nuclear weapons, dumping Trump because you don't like the vice-president seems ludicrous.

Good question.
We now know the federal agencies (FBI CIA DOJ IRS,etc.) are actively against Trump.
Trump threatens their power and income.
Whether launched purposely or accidentally, the Covid pandemic was weaponized to destroy the economy on Trump's watch and allow the means to steal the election if the crippling of the economy wasn't enough to keep him from being re-elected.
The government agencies fed him false, misleading, and/or incomplete information on how to handle the pandemic.

The sad part is, even if you do vote for Trump to rectify the horrible mess the Biden/Harris administrations left, your vote may be switched by a machine or cancelled by an illegal vote.

It's too bad more Democrats didn't come to that decision decades ago.
As it is, I fear Fahrenheit451's prediction of civil war may soon be a reality.

As I've shared here, I find some of the Democrat's policies to be anti family. But, long time Democrat voters are not.
Gay people are not a monolith. The representation that the entire gay community supports restriction of parental rights and gender affirmation at tender ages is repulsive. I'm a nurse and would not refuse anyone care. If I was a caterer, I wouldn't accept an event that I didn't feel good about. No one should have to. The push to divide people based on sexual orientation is causing harm in the alternative lifestyle communities. Please, don't count me on that one. I can't think about wars and hypotheticals. I can only focus on what impacts my daily life. After Harris choice a running mate that supports the very issues that have been fracturing my beloved fetish community, I won't have to hide the pillows from my girl.

I believe that many Democrat voters vote for Democrats because they are sold on the misconception that Republicans are evil.

I believe that many gays vote out of fear (rational and irrational) that Republicans will support anti-gay legislation.
That fear blinds them to the drawbacks incorporated in much of the extreme agenda promoted by Democrat elites.

The push to divide people is intentionally facilitated by those who want the US to be weakened.
Sexual issues, being emotional and personal, are the perfect vehicles for dividing one against another.

That's good.

I believe there is some truth to people voting Democrat because they believe Republicans are evil. In that there is some legitimate concern. Republicans have a history of being too harsh on limiting social benefits and imposing religious beliefs. I don't care for the nanny state ideology. But there needs to be a degree of compassion in any civilized culture for people who truly need help.

I've seen members of the gay community voting out or irrational fear and a healthy, rational concern. There were leading members of the Republican party that fought hard to prevent us from being able to marry the person we were in love with. They wanted to collect our tax money but not allow us to have the same rights as everyone else. That went on for years. It doesn't get washed away easily. After dismissing Roe, I'm not comfortable that they won't go a lot further. It is a healthy caution for the gay community to have.

Agreed on their dividing us over sexual issues. It should backfire on them. Whether it will or not, I can't say. I'm not a bitter person but I am over having to leave my home state over the Democrat's policies and pause my family plans by moving to a safer, more affordable conservative state. Both parties are getting me from both sides. It isn't right. I pay my taxes like everyone else.

Yeah, it will probably be one more vote for Trump in Kentucky this year. I changed my voter registration two days ago. I still can't believe my girl and I, both born and raised in Chicago, are living the country life now. From big city to the burbs to 3 acres and a farm house.

That has been true as long as I can remember. Sixty years ago, a liberal I just met casually look perplexed as she knew I was a conservative Republican. She said something like "you are actually nice" as if a Republican being courteous and/or polite was unthinkable.

Thinking that Republicans/conservatives lack compassion is a myth that Democrats have been able to sell for decades.
Conservatives generally feel personal responsibility should be encouraged and irresponsibility should be discouraged.

Opposing "The Great Society" was sold as an example of Republican indifference to those who suffer.
Yet, as time has shown, the Republican predictions of family breakup, government dependency, higher crime rates, etc. have come to pass.
The poverty rate was not reduced and the compassion was misplaced.

The Democrats sold the concept that they were the civil rights champions and Republicans are the racists.
If Johnson hadn't led Senate resistance to Eisenhower's 1957 Civil Rights Act that gutted it, the 1964 Civil Rights act would not have been necessary.
When Johnson found it politically expedient, he flipped and signed the 1964 act with 80% Republican backing.

As to compassion, years ago I pointed out that conservatives give more to charitable causes in both amount and percentage of wealth.
They donated more time to charitable causes including donating more blood.
My theory for this is conservatives tend to personally take action where liberals feel that is the government's responsibility.
Yes, I suspect the numbers reflect a higher percentage of church participation, but the results are compassionate.

I opposed gay marriage when it came to a vote in California.
My feeling, that the tradition of marriage shouldn't be compromised and that gays should have the ability to enter a partnership that would be legally similar, was only part of my reasoning and probably would have been overridden by the arguments supporting gay marriage.
However, my biggest concern was that once gay marriage was approved by the state, they would have a tool to incorporate and promote their lifestyle in schools where children are too young to come to grips with emotions they have yet to feel.
Obviously, the concern has been proven to be correct--much more than I had feared.

I hope you enjoy the country life. I hope the obstacles for you to have a family are not so formidable that you can't fulfill your desire.

When it comes to Republicans and lack of compassion, I'm referring to acting members of the government. I have found some of their positions to be inhumane. No child should be hungry in this country. No pregnant woman should be told they can't have an abortion and try to find help from a local church. If they want people to be responsible they should help them recover from mistakes they've made and be able to support themselves instead of families going without basics like housing, food and daycare. Although I do not like the current illegal immigration polices of the Democrats, no one should be arguing against feeding the children that were brought here. They are here now and they should be be cared for or returned home promptly and safely. They should not be separated from their parents.

I'm sorry to hear that you opposed gay marriage. The irresponsible and divisive push from lawmakers to teach children age inappropriate material in school did not come from the gay community. We should not have to suffer for it or be treated like second class citizens. I'm appalled by what is going on in public schools in states like California. That does not, however, mean I should pay the price for it.

Thank you for your nice wishes on country life. So far, it has been refreshing. There is a lot of work and adjustment to do. I hope we find the area suitable to raise a child in a same sex marriage. We've got a few years to get a good read on that. So far, everyone has been friendly with us. I'll be working in a large hospital and coming into contact with a lot of people. You'd be surprised how much of a feel you get for the local area from being in a busy hospital environment.

I was referring to the perception of Democrats about the average "deplorable" Republican.
Outside personal gain and political expediency, Republican policy generally favors the producers where Democratic policy favors the takers.
The fact that when production is discouraged, the resources available are reduced.

That is not the function of the Federal Government.
The Federal Government should be concerned with foreign relations, security, and regulating interstate commerce.
Providing framework to prevent monopolies, predatory capitalism, and Constitutional violations is also in the federal domain.

Using abortion as a birth control method should not be encouraged.
Selling body parts gives financial incentives to perform late term abortions.
The fetus does experience pain and the methods are excruciatingly cruel.
Increase the penalties for rape and provide an environment where a girl is not pressured to "put out" because "everybody does it" and she fears losing the the love of her life if she says no.
It's her body until she conceives. Then it is a shared body.

Again the emphasis should be on preventing the mistakes in the first place.
Programs should be tailored to provide a helping hand, not dependency.
Democrats are notorious for keeping people in poverty and dependent on the government.
They are the root of the problem but take humanitarian credit for the benefits they offer to alleviate the problems they perpetuate.

The MSM is quick to demonize any actions taken by Republicans and overlook the actions by Democrats.
For example, the "cruel cages" they showed when criticizing Trump were actually photos from Obama's term.
The cruel fact is that while Trump built walls to keep people and families from making the dangerous trip, the Democrats tore down the walls and welcomed them with open arms.
Again, conservatives try to stop the problems before they get out of hand, the Democrats need to produce victims so they can acquire the reputation of being benevolent and win votes.

I'm sorry my reasons were so devastatingly affirmed.

The push was facilitated by using the gay movement whether the gay community approved or not.
The social concept of traditional family is constantly under attack.
It is not that non traditional families cannot provide a loving and strong foundation; it's just that traditional families generally have fewer challenges.
This is particularly true of single parent families.

I don't know about the people in your area, but I would not be surprised if you find conservatives more accepting than you fear.

I believe there is some legitimacy to viewing people who support the reduction, if not elimination, of social benefits to those who actually need them. It should be the function of the federal government to use tax dollars to help people that are truly in need, however that needs to be worked out with the states.

We are not talking about using abortion as birth control. I am presenting that if a woman finds herself in an unexpected pregnancy and needs help that her family is unwilling or unable to provide, tax dollars should assist. I'm an RN who has worked in a busy hospital all of my nursing career. We are constantly short staffed. Training young women to fill in positions, be it as simple as a janitor, whatever they are capable of, would be of great help to society. It is wrong to burden a young woman who made a mistake of bringing a child into the world when she has no means to provide even a very low quality of life. There should be early term options for termination and then help of preparing to be a single parent for those young women who keep their baby. I have the benefit of a big, loving family. My parents took in my cousin when she got pregnant in high school and tension was too high with her parents at that time. They helped her and even cared for the baby as she finished school and mended bridges with her parents. Not everyone has that. As a tax payer, I am strongly rooted in the belief that we should have a solid voice in where our dollars go.

I'm aware that Obama built the cages the msm ran with. This country, with all of the technology and resources, can prevent illegal immigration. As it is out of control on a record breaking scale, people will keep coming in volume. They need to be returned promptly but safely. That means emergency medical care when needed, compassion, shelter and food. on a temporary basis. Who is at fault for the young children being brought is aside the point of not separating them from their parents. My belief is get them safe, comfortable and back to the country they came from in short order.

It has not been confirmed that gay marriage lead to the woke policies that are being pushed in schools. That is as true as the arguement against gun ownership. I don't support what is going on in schools and should not have to suffer the consequences of the idiotic political agenda of it. I'm not a supporter of extreme protests but, if there should ever be one, parents need to stop supporting this and flood the streets. They need to get off their butts and run for school board positions. Just as responsible gun owners shouldn't be punished for a few idiots or mad men, either should responsible gay couple who value family and the innocence of children.

Thank you for the words of encouragement about being accepted should my girlfriend decide to start a family. I'm not so optimistic. Growing up different, even in a liberal city, I've seen and experienced a lot that would predict otherwise. We are keeping an open mind, however. Things have changed over the years. I just don't want to bring a child into the world for them to be "that kid," who's friends aren't allowed to come for play dates. Remember, this is the same state a country clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples even when it was the law. On top of that, a leading Republican who was gearing up to run for president made a special trip to support her in that effort.

And the states should work things out with the cities.
I believe the smaller the entity responsible and able to do a function, the better.

I'm talking about a fetus that is painfully ripped from the only environment it knows.
Personally, I would support very early abortion (i.e. morning after pill).
After a heartbeat and/or brain waves, the rules change.
As I indicated before, the female has the right to say no.
That is the control she has on her body. When with child, she shares that body with that child.


Trump tried and was fought and stymied by the left.
In contrast, Biden actually invited them.

That assumes you can get the resources to do so without diverting resources from citizens who may need services.

It was a tool that was already being used in Massachusetts when Prop 8 was passed in California.

There are several policies on these issues (both good and bad) that are worthy of their own thread.
I'm just trying to make the point that Republicans/conservatives are generally compassionate when taking their position.
Liberals usually focus on having the government help the victim cope with their plight while conservatives focus on reducing the number of victims--hence would-be victims don't have a plight to cope with.
An indication as to the benefits of one philosophy over the other is the migration from blue dominant states is usually to red states.

However it is handled, it should be mandated by the federal government. Any civilized society should help people who need a hand. I'm not talking about welfare as a career path for people who are capable of working. No child should be hungry in this country.

The problem with the abortion laws is that some states make no exceptions. I support first trimester and second only if there are rare, documented and clearly exceptional conditions, such as serious birth defects or life of the mother in jeopardy. I say this as someone who wants children and may not be able to have them. I'm pro family. I'm also pro common sense. Making a woman carry a child who is doomed to a low quality of life due to a defect or where the mother's life is threatened by a clear medical condition is inhumane.

Agreed on illegal immigration. It was deliberate under Biden's stint in office. It is part of the reason that I won't be voting for Harris.

Again, gay people should not be punished because of radical members of the government and elected school board members. More parents should stand up and run for school board positions. People should vote out members of the government who are jeopardizing this country's youth by radical way of radical agendas. Gay people, who are not in support of this, should not be punished. I take great exception that anyone would deny a fellow American of the right to marry because of the flaws in our government.

This country has allowed illegal immigration for many years. As you point out, the current administration invited it. It is our duty to return those who illegally cross safely and promptly. As a civilized society, this means emergency medical care, food and shelter, without separating children from their parents. As the saying goes, you made the bed now lie in it. We voted in Biden. Voters tolerated and even benefited from illegal immigration. Now, we've got to deal humanely with the consequences as we stop it.

If you don't mind me chiming in, I've got to say there is some logic in coming in with a compromise on abortion. As you've probably picked up on in the years we've been posting together, I'm very much pro life. I started volunteering for pro life efforts when I was just 20 years old. It took a long time for me to come to my stance on abortion policies but, after watching the battle over it for years, the pro life agenda is better off with a middle ground compromise. I also strongly agree with Mary that there needs to be help for women who want to keep their baby but are not in a financial position to do so. In that, I mean help getting on their feet and becoming self sustaining.

When Roe v Wade took place in the early 70's, abortion was not a political issue. But, after the court case, politicians took notice and realized they could make it one. Both sides have become so extreme. Planned Parenthood is the epitome of evil. When they get exposed for selling fetal organs, the people exposing them are the ones prosecuted! In all of this, coming to the center with term limits and requiring the agencies that receive federal funds offer prenatal care instead of abortion only options, I believe is the route to go.

Before Clinton's bipartisan welfare reform bill in the 90's, welfare was a fairly comfortable career path for single women with children. That is no longer the case and, it shouldn't be. But, there needs to be help. Btw, in the reform bill the GOP insisted that women who received help during their pregnancy had to live with their parents. That is the insanity of the religious right. A 17 year old gets pregnant, her parents kick her out and she can't get help when she needs it the most. How much sense did that make? It has probably been overturned by now. It makes more sense to help people get some type of education or job training, provide day care for a certain amount of time and enable them to become contributing members of society.

Just my thoughts on the subject, as the mother of six and long time pro life supporter.

We are in agreement on the obligation to provide help but disagree on where it should come from.
I think federal control leads to waste and inappropriate disbursement where local assistance is in a better position to access what assistance is best.

...and some states allow "abortions" after a live birth.
A lot of the controversy at the federal level rests on the definition of human and human rights.
That aside, if it is an overriding issue, then one has a better chance of changing a local law than a federal law.
Having a federal law locks out those in disagreement with the very-difficult-to-change federal government.
At lease in the US, one has 50 choices to select what issues one can live with or try to change.
This is true on many issues, not just abortion.

...and straight people shouldn't be "punished" by the policies implemented to satisfy the gay agenda.

I have to admit, I'm becoming less and less tolerant of gays promoting and imposing their lifestyle on society.
Their public demonstrations, such as pride month, impress policy makers of the voting impact of this block.
We've seen the White House lit up by "gay colors" and the "gay flag" flown over some of our embassies.
By presenting themselves as perpetual victims, they gain sympathy of straight people and enjoy minority status.
This political clout is used by radicals to implement the agenda we are witnessing today.

They change our language, change the meaning of "gender," and then invent new genders.
There are very real penalties if we don't use preferred pronouns.
It started out with the change of the definition of "marriage."
It used to be pretty simple: the combining of two differing entities to make something better.
The difference of the entities is key. The marrying of a bolt and nut is a physical example.
As I mentioned before, the change of the concept of marriage being recognized by the state has given the radicals the tool they needed to bring about the implementation of their agenda.
If gay people wanted the rights bestowed on married couples, they should have lobbied for a 'companion contract" to cover the appropriate needs.
Instead, they have hijacked, changed, and diluted the traditional concept of marriage.

You may have. I didn't and frankly, I don't believe the majority of legitimate voters did either.

However the funding is handled, I'd like to see it required for all states to do this. The federal government finds money to send to foreign countries, with no assurance it is even benefiting citizens in need. They can find a way to help the citizens of this country who are in need of a helping hand.

Late term abortion is tragic and should never be an option as along as the baby is alive. The remarking about allowing a baby to die after birth probably got the former Governor of Virginia bounced out of office, which was a good thing. The problem with abortion regulation coming from the state level is that some have gone completely overboard with no thought to exceptions and rational term limits. Moving based on state laws is not an option for everyone, due to employment, family, fiances. Moving out of state and uprooting one's life isn't cheap and it isn't easy.

You are getting fringe gay advocacy groups and people with a political agenda confused with the average gay person. Most of us want the same rights, no more and no less, than anyone else. I couldn't disagree any stronger about gay marriage. The pronouns are a joke. What is happening with youth and the gender game the government is playing is terrible. Gay and alternative lifestyle people are not a monolith. Many of us do not support this. Most of us are not imposing our sexual orientation onto anyone else. I simply find it unacceptable to be treated like a second class citizens. I'm not looking for special treatment. It has not been good for gays to have been thrown into the divisive DEI agenda. It has set back acceptance of allowing us to live normal lives by portraying in the light that you describe.

Yup. I've got to own that I voted for what turned out to be a very poorly functioning administration. It won't be the case this November.

On most issues, we differ on how a policy should be addressed and administered, not the end result.
You want the federal government responsible for implementing solutions.
However, If a program is flawed, it is next to impossible to change or eliminate it.
I believe local people are best suited to implement policies that cater to the local environment.
Locally, those responsible are not insulated or restricted by layers of bureaucracy inherent in big government.
They are accountable and have more flexibility to adapt.

As to gays being second class citizens, they may be different, but they are not second class.
They have parades and even a "pride" month where they declare they are sexually attracted to same sex.
To me, sexual preferences and actions are private, not something to wave a flag to boast about.
Unless there is a reason for me to know, I don't want to know how one gets their rocks off.
The gay community has political clout and have allowed themselves to be used to implement radical policies.
They have hijacked our language from "gay" to "marriage" and changed the definition of gender.
Who would have guessed that not using the proper pronoun coined by gays would get you into trouble.
They feel free to ridicule and mock religion such as with the Last Supper display at the Olympics.
They enjoy minority status privileges.
To me, second class is a girl denied the chance for an athletic scholarship by a male thinking (or pretending) he is a female.
You and many others in the LGBT+ community may not approve of the direction the gay movement has taken, but you have enabled it.

Agreed. However, it is even harder to move out of country if the federal government passes intolerable laws.

Respectfully, it is becoming offensive that you insist upon putting all gays into the same category. You think most of us support the mockery at the Olympics? You are right about trans being allowed in female sports. What makes you believe that, by sake of sexual orientation, most gays support the lunacy of that? I have no problem with gay pride parades any more than any other type of celebration. I've not enabled anything. I want to live a full and happy life with the same rights that anyone else has, no more and no less. I'm done with this conversation. You seem to be a nice, reasonably minded person. But, this is getting personal and offensive. Every time a straight white Christian male does something stupid, that is on the individuals involved, not the entire demographic.

Let's move on to another topic.

I'm sorry my posts seem to indicate that.
I tend to speak of gays and the gay radicals with the same or similar terminology.
I did not mean to imply you, or the bulk of the gay community support the radicalization of the gay movement.
I sincerely appreciate your patience and tact throughout this exchange.
I don't have many gay friends and we tactfully stay away from political conversations.
This exchange has given me a chance to express some ideas and concepts that are "touchy" at best.
As I mentioned before, my view of the gay movement has become more negative over the past years as the radical policies have exploded.

My view of pride parades has changed.
My wife and I came close to participating on a float in one when we lived in San Diego.
Now I look on them as political tools to manipulate legislation.
Do all those who participate in parades support the radical policies? No, of course not.
However the radical element has used the political capital generated by such displays to push their agenda through.
That's what I was referring to when I said the radicalization was enabled.

My generalization of gays as a group is they are inclined to be artistic (music, attire, theater, etc.).
They are above average in intelligence and fun to be around.
(I can say with a misleading but true statement that I believe I have physically danced with more gays than most gay guys have.)

I haven't had that much experience with gay people so my perception is based on limited input.
I would be interested in knowing the obstacles gays face on a personal level, particularly in regards to social acceptance and ability to have and raise a family.
I hope you will share your experience and thoughts either on the board or in PM.
Unless requested, I will keep my thoughts to myself. I think of you as an online friend and I would hate to jeopardize that.

Again, I have enjoyed this exchange, Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Gay pride parades may be different depending on the location. The ones I've participated in were all just silly fun. There would be protesters in certain spots of the parade but no one paid much attention to them. I have seen a fracture within the fetish and alternative lifestyle groups I was involved with in Chicago. In some cases, the group disbanded altogether over the political divide that DEI caused. Inclusion doesn't count when someone doesn't agree your standards of family values and protecting our precious youth, sadly enough. So, it wouldn't surprise me that your experience with a gay pride parade was much different that mine.

I'd like for you to share your thoughts and am glad that you acknowledge we all don't fit the mold that is commonly displayed in the press. Monday my girl and I start our new jobs in Kentucky. She's a vet tech and I'm an RN at a large hospital. You can always get a good read on the community through large medical settings, I found from the early days as a traveling nurse. So, far so good, in the neighbors we've met in our new country home. Maybe being in the boondocks won't mean people won't be accepting. Actually, people have been noticeably friendlier than in our Chicago burb, which could be pretentious.

Actually, I don't have any experience with gay pride parades.
Despite the fact that most of the clips I've seen are of the bazaar ones, my impression remains "just silly fun."
My primary objection to them evolved when I saw (or imagined) the political punch they provide for the radicals to use.

I can only guess at the reception you will experience when people become aware of your lifestyle.
However, I'm betting that you will be subject to more curiosity than condemnation.
And yeah, you may be a prime topic of gossip.
From your posts, you seem like a person who does not take offense when none is intended.
I think that trait will do much to win acceptance of your lifestyle with those who have had little exposure to it otherwise.