Florida State Seminoles

[innocentbystander]

wish more would have kept their promise to leave

i remember

[sardis]

Billy, you can still get your abortion in California.

[Jungle Rat]

That November rain in Canada is a lot colder I'm betting.

[eCat]

[Jungle Rat]

Long way to go till 34. It was 41 in Jan.

[Jungle Rat]

And suddenly, MSM Polls were cool again.

5c9364a8dd086123a06a7603.jpeg (69.53 KiB) Viewed 427 times

[eCat]

hard to imagine a worse setting for Democrats at the moment

country is on fire over guns and abortion, both of which they are on the losing end of, and even though they can rally their base around it, the hot button issues of the economy and inflation will drive voters to go to the republicans

[eCat]

A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.

But nowhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump’s Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.

--------------

they had two chances to elect Sanders and rejected him for moderates. In Biden's case they thought electing an inept old white guy was the solution, god knows why, to be the alternative to Trump. I guess it worked in it got him elected but he's the George Custer of Democrats

In 12 months times he's manage to swing voters back to Trump who declared they were now never Trumpers.

Not that they'll want to vote for Trump, they won't, but they'll vote for a more polished Trump with DeSantis.

[Jungle Rat]

Losing.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/25/11076260 ... safety-law

[eCat]

yea, that's earth shattering, expanded background checks.

I suspect Red Flag laws will be shot down by SCOTUS in whatever time it takes to work up to them.

[Jungle Rat]

The National Rifle Association says it opposes the bill.

"This legislation can be abused to restrict lawful gun purchases, infringe upon the rights of law-abiding Americans, and use federal dollars to fund gun control measures being adopted by state and local politicians," the NRA said in a statement Tuesday.

[Jungle Rat]

You suspect a bunch of things e. None ever come true.

[eCat]

the NRA opposes a gun law? man, that is Woodward and Bernstein stuff you are posting now

[Jungle Rat]

They lost

[eCat]

On a national level, the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind its decision also calls into question key provisions of the Senate's bipartisan bill to curb gun violence, including one that provides state funding to implement “red flag” laws, said Winkler and Igor Volsky, executive director of Guns Down America, a gun violence prevention group.

The bill cleared a critical procedural vote two hours after the Supreme Court's decision landed. While proponents have lauded it as the first major action by Congress to address gun violence in nearly 30 years, some aspects of the package might now fall under new scrutiny, experts said.

"The court says that only those gun regulations that are consistent with historical gun regulation are constitutionally permissible," Winkler said. "So that means any gun law today that is not very similar to a gun law in the 1800s is unconstitutional."

Red-flag laws, such as one New York enacted in 2019, empowers school administrators, law enforcement officials, prosecutors and family members to pursue court intervention when they believe they know someone who is at high risk of harming themselves or others.

Under the law, a judge could “very quickly” issue an extreme-risk protection order, which could order someone, a minor or an adult, to surrender any firearm, as well as not to try to have or buy any.

Winkler said that while it's a life-saving measure, it's also a "modern invention" that has no historical precedent in the eyes of the nation's highest court.

"If it’s going to be sincerely applied in the future," he said, "those laws will be unconstitutional."

[DooKSucks]

hard to imagine a worse setting for Democrats at the moment

country is on fire over guns and abortion, both of which they are on the losing end of, and even though they can rally their base around it, the hot button issues of the economy and inflation will drive voters to go to the republicans

Abortion choice isn't a loser for the Democratic Party, but it's not the universal game changer many on the left think it is. Suburban housewives care about it, but they are more worried about inflation and the economy.

If Democrats don't get carried away and stick to Brady bill type rhetoric / proposals, guns aren't a loser either, but they're not a winner.

If Trump doesn't get the GOP nod, there's no excuse for the GOP losing -- as of today -- this side of a dead woman, live man or a naked child in DeSantis' bed. However, there is a political eternity until the mid terms much less the presidential race.

I think the midterms will be a red wave not so much as a function of a massive swing but because a shift of a few points in terms of votes alters the house makeup drastically thanks to gerrymandering.

[Jungle Rat]

Times are changing e. People today are growing tired of the Constitution being written by people who would freak out at a dishwasher. Or ever imagined people in tubes flying over your head. Or for you, porn on your phone. Things are gonna be different now. It might get ugly. But change is coming. That's why I moved to the beach. Might as well watch the next Civil War from here.

[hedge]

"Or ever imagined people in tubes flying over your head."

IIIEEEEE! Iron bird! IRON BIRD!!!

[Jungle Rat]

[eCat]

I do agree DS , DeSantis has a target the size of Texas on his back and shit is going to come up on him , truth or fictional, in an effort to try to take him down

Also Trump will very quickly turn on DeSantis once it becomes clear he is a Ted Cruz level threat to him.

I was reading up on abortion as I was wondering how it was deemed a constitutional right, and abortion itself is not of course, its the right to privacy that is, and honestly that is a pretty fucked up way to work legalized abortion into being deemed a constitutional right.

You can argue about the legitimate wording of the second amendment as to whether it was really meant to allow an American the right to own a gun and carry it for protection (although its hard to imagine any founding father being against an American citizen owning a weapon and using it for self defense given the time of Indians, no centralized law enforcement, war with England, France and Spain in the air at any given time and towns the size of 1200 people living on the edge of wilderness.) but there is zero wording for legalized access to abortion.

I think its easy for the progressives to say this is a separation of church and state issue, but I think that is too fine a point. I'm an atheist, or at least a Deist, and I have serious concerns about when life begins. The way abortion is written, we aren't even consistent about it because until a child exits the womb, its not considered a person under the definition of the law, yet I think everyone except the most extreme would agree that an unborn child at some point has a right to life and protections from external threats to his life. The question has been and will always be when that moment is.

Conception requires a man and a woman and at some point a woman, IMO, becomes a host with limited options to not carry the child to term unless it does endanger her life. I've seen many arguments that try to muddy the waters on this such as all the children in foster care , child abuse of children born to women who didn't want them, child poverty to single moms - all valid issues but have zero to do with the right to life of an unborn child.

There is just so many dishonest arguments being made to justify abortion. And abortion will never have a federal law for protection until someone somewhere writes a compelling argument to when a fetus is in fact a person and can get agreement to act on it.

I personally believe its when there is a heartbeat, but I could be swayed if there is no brain activity or an active nervous system. Regardless, while I try to understand a pro choice woman's perspective on this, all I hear from them is their right to murder a child if they do not want it.

I can't get past that no matter how open minded I try to be, and with many progressives, their absolutism on this topic is what is undermining their ability to get support on it.