User

Yes you are. I am glad you agree with me, that as long as the choice is lawfully done BEFORE a woman gets pregnant, that is within the law and to be respected. The one I just said. Because its a circle.

I am not the one confused as to what a woman is here... you are.

Logic, reason...

I am glad to know you think my posting is holier than yours.

Perfection or infallibility is not a prerequisite to loyalty.

Nope. You are the one constantly saying you respect their right to an abortion... but you don't when you say only to 24 weeks. You only kind of respect it. I already made it: "but just not enough to care to do anything. " All you had to say was, yes. This is all circular. What if we change that to 1 week? Then that is the lawful timeframe. You respect that too?

Go back and look again... Is that what you like to do with these dudes fake vaginas?

This is circular logic and a strawman. Not sure who is arguing the Constitution is "infallible" and if the Constitution includes a process for amendments... then that means it is part of whatever "infallibility" argument you are making.

Science is just a methodology comprised of numerous fields of study. You neither trust it or not, that is the entire point. You test and observe. Just because one thing in one field went wrong doesn't somehow mean science if flawed. It just means that particular study was.

Do you think Michael is willing to admit his position here was purely subjective and he can't show the connection between Trump and Project 2025?

We had already moved on to your use of the fake vagina by then.

This is such a lame argument, it is the you agree 100% with all and everything or nothing. That is not how anything works in life. When a restaurant hires someone to bus their tables, they are hiring them to bus their tables. That doesn't mean the busser can now implement all his own plans and thing the restaurant never dreamed of. Just as when a President is picking people to help run the administration, they are picked for particular reasons. Well, the alternative is for the person trying to say 3+3=7 to just admit they can't actually prove that out or that they were wrong... that is always an option too.

Was the discussion point or title of this thread: Does Trump work with the dude on executive orders? Nope. Huh? The Amendment process is part of the Constitution...

No, it is like you coming here saying 3+3 = 7. I ask you to explain how, and you just keep insisting that it does. But yeah, totally, it is just that someone has to have the last word...

Anti-vaxxers certainly do not help, but it is when those medical professionals lie and exaggerate that pushes more folks into the skeptic camp. This pandemic did not help the cause at all, and that was not the fault of the anti-vaxxers. They just exploited it.

You brought up gay. So, which is it? Are transwomen really women or not?

What if they want an abortion at 25 weeks? Oh, well, you didn't really mean it when you said: "I don't like the idea of abortion." Not at 25 weeks. Not at 25 weeks.

Yes, humans make mistakes. The science was not the problem here, nor "science" in general. They had the data that those O-rings were not rated for the temperatures that it got down to... and they ignored it.

Trump is not President. This was not created by his cabinet member. You are having a real problem here understanding that disconnect. Yeah, you keep showing how Trump is associated with one of the dudes who created Project 2025, but you don't even show the connection to Project 2025. Ah yes, classic. You want to make the assertions, just not defend them.

Gay? Wait a minute... you don't really think the dudes you like with fake vaginas... are really women?

You are not extrapolating anything, you are just making stuff up. You were the one who wanted my opinion here, I gave it to you. You started this thread ignorant of the Republican position and I helped you out. You don't deserve reciprocity of friendly debate when you make up crap I never said to argue against.

That is an assertion, with no reasoning. How is it that someone is associated to a policy document just because someone they associate created it? Oh, that is funny. So, you want to argue Trump has something to do with Project 2025 because someone he associates with on occasion created it... but you want to claim you have nothing to do with the content of the posts you routinely like.

Dod you already forget your 24 week thing? That is your stance, not mine. But you are here saying you don't like abortion... but just not enough to care to do anything. That is not what I said. I was pointing out you don't support a woman's right to an abortion either. You support a very narrow timeframe and then oppose it.

You can disagree, but have no real argument. What you post here, what you like here.

It doesn't have to. When it says all restrooms, that includes both boys and girls. This is pretty basic logic. Also, Democrats who passed the bill acknowledged this and opposed any opposition that amended the law to specify only girls.