I wasn't talking about fed elections.

If this gets more woman who want abortions to vote in Arizona in November this is very bad news for Trump. Very bad. We need Arizona to be red.

(04-09-2024 08:38 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  I wasn't talking about fed elections.

then how we doin' in the 'sip, Ja?! ... ...

(04-09-2024 08:41 PM)No Bull Wrote:  If this gets more woman who want abortions to vote in Arizona in November this is very bad news for Trump. Very bad. We need Arizona to be red.

@>270EVsBlueBakedInn(440) and/or moo-moo-chelle (aka big mike) if all else fails by Aug. 22, 2024 ... (AM)


check their mail-it-inn regs ... get back to me ... just don't write #McCain on the envelope .... that's a 2 for 1 oppo 'casting' ...

(04-09-2024 08:41 PM)No Bull Wrote:  If this gets more woman who want abortions to vote in Arizona in November this is very bad news for Trump. Very bad. We need Arizona to be red.

why trump will be incentivized to pair off w/ a more subdued female ...

KNIVES OUT

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

Then lose.

Do you draw a line anywhere, ever?

(04-09-2024 08:08 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 08:05 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 06:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Arizona has enacted other abortion-related laws in the 21st century. Unclear to me why the 19th century law takes priority.

I don't understand that either, has anybody read the decision and saw how they addressed that? I would think the recent 15 week ban passed by the state legislature would be viewed as implicitly repealing the near-total ban from territorial days.

Toughski shitski
Change the law.

Prattle on little tiger, inane rhymes are more your speed and you clearly don't understand what NG and I are wondering about. Many if not most judges would say "change the law" is exactly what the Arizona legislature already did in 2022 by passing a 15 week abortion ban. No legislature can restrict a future legislatures ability to change the statutes they have passed, and commonly new legislation that directly contradicts old legislation (like no abortions vs. abortions only before 15 weeks) supersedes and implicitly repeals the old. We're wondering what justification the AZ Court gave for elevating a law from the Civil War era territorial legislature over one passed by the legislature and signed into law two years ago. Obviously the legislature can now repeal the 1864 law if they choose, but it's a weird ruling that there must be some reason for.

Politically though, it's the equivalent of finding the Lost Dutchman's Mine in a critical swing state. You know it's bad when even pretend-Governor Lake has changed her tune on this law she liked so much 2 years ago. Thanks AZ Supreme Court!

(04-09-2024 09:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

Then lose.
Do you draw a line anywhere, ever?

Yes. I draw a like at stupid stunts that lose elections.

(04-09-2024 09:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

Then lose.
Do you draw a line anywhere, ever?

Yes. I draw a like at stupid stunts that lose elections.

So no. Compomise a core belief to win.

Wanna know whats that is called?

LOSING

LOSING with no honor .

(04-09-2024 09:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

Then lose.
Do you draw a line anywhere, ever?

Yes. I draw a like at stupid stunts that lose elections.

(04-09-2024 09:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

Then lose.
Do you draw a line anywhere, ever?

Yes. I draw a like at stupid stunts that lose elections.

So no. Compomise a core belief to win.

Wanna know whats that is called?

LOSING

LOSING with no honor .

I'm in his camp on ~15 weeks ... it's political suicide to go any other route...

I'm probably more pro choice than any other con on this board ... that A word gives me a little wiggle room ...

I wish it was different, but it's not...

the macro point is DJT's team has fired Ronna and coalesced on 10A as 'pointing the fickle'...

that's the win of all wins from this Karnak...

(04-09-2024 09:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So no. Compomise a core belief to win.

It doesn't happen to be a core belief of mine, or of about 70% of the USA population.

Two questions:

How do you get live birth abortions legalized? By electing democrats.

How do you elect democrats? By insisting on my way or the highway on "core beliefs" that 70% of USA voters oppose.

If that's what you want to do, I can't stop you. But it strikes me as incredibly stupid.

(04-09-2024 08:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 08:02 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 07:55 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm sorry but this is stupid. To win elections republicans need to run on 60-40 issues, not 30-70 issues. And if you don't win elections, nothing else matters, because you can't do anything without winning elections.

remember when nuts zongo explained to the board why muh sha-ronna should be muh fired (like muh #fireFraudci) and the message today should be a canned, "it's a state issue now, ya dipshite peices o' fk?"
I'm sorry, you may have missed those 'too many to count' posts ...

Stink, I understand where you are coming from. But political reality is political reality. This is exactly the kind of thing that republicans do NOT need to be doing if they expect to win in 2024. And if they don't win, it may be time to stick a fork in the USA.

Right. Its not an issue we should be choosing. That said----its the same thing that happened in Texas. The Republicans didnt choose this law---its the same law that was always in place. The standing law (total ban) was just nullified when Roe vs Wade became law and the total ban law returned to being the standing law of Arizona when Roe vs Wade was reversed. While I cant ethically find any logic to allow abortion before 24 weeks or before a heartbeat is heard----thats still where I think a the most viable reasonable compromise of the political "center" probably lives. While a total ban is the only ground that makes sense if you believe abortion is murder---I dont think enough people share that view to elect a president in a nationwide election. I suspect there are not even many states where a total ban would win a majority of the voters. If you are a Republican pro lifer---your probably going to have to be happy with reducing abortion over banning it--otherwise that single issue will prevent Republicans from winning enough elections to get any other conservative issues addressed.

(04-09-2024 06:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Arizona has enacted other abortion-related laws in the 21st century. Unclear to me why the 19th century law takes priority.

Because they intentionally wrote into the law stating that if Roe is overturned the 1860's law takes precedent over the I believe ban after 15 weeks.

Quote:The buried lede with Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs statement on Arizona's Supreme Court abortion ruling is that she's openly admitting she will defy the ruling, suggesting her EO takes priority over the state's highest court. You don't have to like the law, you can work to change the law, but you don't get to pick and choose when you follow law...unless you're a Democrat.

(04-10-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 06:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Arizona has enacted other abortion-related laws in the 21st century. Unclear to me why the 19th century law takes priority.

Because they intentionally wrote into the law stating that if Roe is overturned the 1860's law takes precedent over the I believe ban after 15 weeks.

Hmmm. I would like to read that recent law.

I guess I’d honestly like to read the 1864 law, as well, but especially the more recent one.

(04-10-2024 12:29 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:The buried lede with Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs statement on Arizona's Supreme Court abortion ruling is that she's openly admitting she will defy the ruling, suggesting her EO takes priority over the state's highest court. You don't have to like the law, you can work to change the law, but you don't get to pick and choose when you follow law...unless you're a Democrat.

Sounds like prosecutorial discretion to me. If we want to switch to a system of justice with compulsory prosecution then there would be no choice but to enforce and prosecute it.

(04-10-2024 12:32 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-10-2024 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 06:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Arizona has enacted other abortion-related laws in the 21st century. Unclear to me why the 19th century law takes priority.

Because they intentionally wrote into the law stating that if Roe is overturned the 1860's law takes precedent over the I believe ban after 15 weeks.

Hmmm. I would like to read that recent law.

I guess I’d honestly like to read the 1864 law, as well, but especially the more recent one.

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/b...b1164p.pdf

The relevant portion regarding the old law.

Sec. 2. Construction
15 This act does not:
16 1. Create or recognize a right to abortion or alter generally
17 accepted medical standards. The Legislature does not intend this act to
18 make lawful an abortion that is currently unlawful.
19 2. Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona
20 Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or
21 restricting abortion.

Section 13-3603

https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03603.htm

A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.

(04-09-2024 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-09-2024 09:31 PM)shere khan Wrote:  So no. Compomise a core belief to win.

It doesn't happen to be a core belief of mine, or of about 70% of the USA population.

Here we are in another discussion about how to lose

If 70 pecent dont care....how does that beat you.

Its not illegal and its a states right.

Feed the fire though.