His approval is down 10% points. If the Dems lose more of the Black and Hispanic vote that has been their base for so long, there could be a major political realignment.
Depends on who the candidates are.
Curious you’re so interested in approval ratings lately. You guys didn’t seem to care Trump never moved into the positive once in his Presidency.
But, you can hope…click your heels together. Rest assured, they aren’t annoyed with the old white guy because they want a more right wing old white guy. Then again, you can hold your breath if you want.
While you keep trying to convince yourself the populace is on your side, remember, you’ve lost every national popular vote except 1 since 1988. All this crazy, right wing nationalism, fascist talk…from crazy Qanon to the burning of books is just a dying gasp of the old ways as the demographics shift. We talked about it was going to happen ever since I was in college in the 90s, but figured it would start in the middle of the 2020s, not the late teens.
It’s just a poll. And not a right wing site.
You can’t deny that Trump got the most Black and Hispanic vote in decades in 2020. Still wasn’t a majority by any stretch, but if you shave off 5%-10% for Dems that rely on those voting blocks you can see a real change.
Maybe the Republicans finally get it and realize you can’t just ignore entire voting blocks?
Think so? Is there a single policy you can think of that the GOP is pushing that benefits black people? In fact, can you name a single red state that isn’t openly fighting even the idea that racism existed in the US under the guise of fighting CRT? Even more so, open white supremacist arguments are regular things on right wing news, like the great replacement theory. Maybe so, though. I am usually of the mindset of “let em and see what happens.” You want to overturn Roe vs Wade, let em. You want Republicans governing? Let em. Republicans have proven time and time again they just can’t govern. The party, post Gingrich, is a destruction party, not a governing party.
I’d have voted for a post it note over Trump, but I don’t think Biden has done much. I was in favor of Pete Bubbletits.
Am I missing something? It says 76%.
You are correct. Edited above
I can only hope. But the bigger one is planned parenthood.
I still give to them monthly, have for years. They’re a phenomenal organization and I’m proud to support them.
But, you can hope and pray all you want for Roe v Wade. The mobilization on the other side if that occurs will be mind-blowing. I think women are a bit fed up with being considered brood mares.
Outside of abortion, I have no problem with planned parenthood.
And the left can take their familiar smoke and mirrors position that the right considers women brood mares and that this is about a woman’s body. But the truth is that it’s never been about that. This is about the rights of another human to be given a chance to live.
The left won’t even ever use the term “baby” because they don’t want that guilt of condoning infanticide to enter their mind.
1 Like
Another example of using semantics to justify something that is terrible. People that were allowed to go full term want to stop others from having that same opportunity.
1 Like
Well, the term baby isn’t used because baby has a definition and you need to be born in order to fulfill that definition. That’s why we have a term “fetus.” Use your words, learn your words.
“Infanticide” means killing is the killing of a newborn/infant. It has a definition. One has to be born in order to fulfill that term as well.
Do you make things up because you don’t have a viable position or just too emotional to care about the reality that words have definitions?
Words do have meanings. That’s why we have them and Dictionaries. Want to justify your position? Learn your words, first.
Yes, words have meanings. There are some cases that a single word will have more than one meaning/definition. Then said word is clearly defined by the phrase/sentence to which it is being used.
And what’s sad is that you use this line of thinking to support and justify the murder of a “fetus” that would be completely viable outside the womb without intervention, as well as an unviable “fetus” that would otherwise become viable, without intervention. And that you think a perfectly viable, 9 month “fetus” is not officially human until it passes the few inches through the north canal is appalling.
I understand why you have to think this way. Because the truth is too horrible to face.
The truth is the truth. Life begins at conception.
And unfortunately, around 70 million of those lives have been ended, a vast majority of which were done for convenience purposes. It’s insanity.
Murder, again, has a definition and this doesn’t match up with it. The fetus has to turn into a baby, hence, to be born in order to be murdered.
You are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape, you have the option to save either a five-year-old child who is pleading for help, or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.
“Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos?“
Only from a religious interpretation. BUT, not a Christian perspective if you believe in your Bible. In the Bible, at several instances, it relays life begins at breath and this birth.
"The human egg is a single living cell and it becomes a one-cell embryo if it successfully combines with a live sperm. No new life is formed — the egg and the sperm were already alive — and fertilization is not instantaneous. Nearly 48 hours pass from the time sperm first bind to the outside of the zona pellucida, the human eggshell, until the first cell division of the fertilized egg. The two newly formed cells then have the potential to give rise to a human being, but only if they are appropriately nurtured so that they continue to divide and then successfully implant in the uterus.
As women age, the proportion of eggs with chromosomal abnormalities increases dramatically. If such eggs are fertilized, they implant rarely, or result in a miscarriage. In vitro fertilization has shown human reproduction to be a highly inefficient process. Even a chromosomally normal embryo will successfully implant and result in a live birth only about half the time. This is true whether fertilization takes place in the body or in the laboratory.
The multicellular pre-implantation embryo cannot be equated with a human being. It is a collection of stem cells, each of which has the capacity to grow into any part of the placenta, as well as fetal tissues and organs, but it is not itself a new human life. It is also potentially more than one individual, since identical twins are the result of a single implantation.
From a scientific perspective, life doesn’t begin at any one point, it is a continuum. For HHS to define it as beginning at conception is a transparent attempt to justify restrictions on certain contraceptives as well as abortion. It may also have an unintended consequence: the restriction of infertility treatments, especially in vitro fertilization.
Now nearly 40 years old, IVF has revolutionized infertility treatment. More than 7 million babies have been born worldwide as a direct result of this technology, though it fails as often as it succeeds. If a pre-implantation embryo were to be considered a human being, then its lack of implantation during IVF would logically have to be considered a human death. Fertility clinics would not be able to function if they could be accused of harming human life in the process of trying and failing to achieve a successful pregnancy.
A preimplantation embryo has the theoretical potential to become a human life, but it cannot be considered on the same moral plane as a human life. We should insist that the Department of Health and Human Services be driven by science and data, not faith-based belief."
https://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Why-life-doesn-t-begin-at-conception-12320582.php
How the fuck would you know?
You weren’t here during his presidency