The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[Schiff for Senate]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

[Schiff for Senate]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

This isn't "Posting Into The Thread".  The post directly above deserves a niche here all its own. In memory of my aborted grandchild, who would have been loved and cared for if he/she had been not been relegated to a "choice" that took his/her life.

You would have presumably had both the financial means and the care/love to raise that child had they been born. However, note that much of the time, women who want abortions cannot or don't want to take care of a child (the reason could be financial, it's because the know they simply don't want a kid and/or won't raise it correctly). You can't raise those kids, you can't take care of them. If their mothers are forced to carry them to term just for the sake for their being born...sure, you get your peace of mind that "babies weren't murdered", but have you considered what actually happens to those babies thereafter? They may well be abandoned or roadsides, in garbage cans, in orphanages. They may well be raised poverty-stricken and starving on the streets. They might well never be loved by anybody. So yes, they're born, but quality of life really is a thing. If you can guarantee that the fetus, if born, will be raised properly (if not by their birth parents then by the government or someone who adopts them), then I even understand the desire to force that fetus' mother to give birth and not abort. But if you cannot guarantee that child's well being, if their parents cannot or will not support it and you can't either, then why are you forcing that child to be born? If you've got, say, a drug addict living on the streets with 5 kids who doesn't want a 6th, and wants to get an abortion, but can't and gives birth to that child, then that child will likely have a very poor and painful childhood. In those cases, it may well have been better had the child not been born. It might make you feel good to think you've saved a child's life or whatever by not allowing an abortion, but what happens to the child after they're born is too often of very little concern to Republicans such as yourself, who are satisfied with the child being born but beyond that, don't give them another glance and let them lead lives that are often full of suffering. In many cases, the parent really is doing what's in the best interest of their would-be child in aborting them: if they know they can't raise their child and know that if born, that child will lead a painful life. I would even understand your desire to ban abortion if we had adequate programs and orphanages to make sure these kids have proper childhoods and aren't deprived of their basic needs. Sadly, that's not in place right now. And I'm weary of Republicans who support outright abortion bans because they're 'economic conservatism' and 'small government' never include adequate programs for these kids, and basically just leaves them to the wolves once they're born. In all fairness to you, I believe you’re more economically liberal than that. But the fact is that many of those kids who you force the birth of will not be raised right (they’ll almost certainly lack the two-parent model you insist is so essential for a child’s well being). Abortions almost always have good reason - the mother’s life is in danger (and should she die in childbirth, then the child has already lost their mother), the mother cannot afford the child, or the mother is not willing to raise it. Why forcibly bring life into the world if there is not much chance of it being raised properly and having its basic needs met?

1. He was willing to raise the child.
2. Why should financial situation or willingness to raise a child be considered a valid reason to kill an innocent human being? Do you support killing newborn babies if a mother's financial situation changes and she can no longer care for her child, or if for example, the mother experiences some form of mental health issue and is no longer willing to raise her child? If the answer is no, then why does the physical location of the child matter if you're claiming those are valid reasons to end another human's life?

Also, thanks for continuing to post in the thread for us.

1. I know. I don’t know about Fuzzy’s personal situation, but like I said, he presumably has both the financial means and the desire to raise a child. That’s not the case much of the time when it comes to abortions. Fuzzy can’t possibly raise all those kids when they're born, or ensure they are brought up properly and not in starvation and on the streets. Fuzzy's case is one thing, and abortions generally are another. I get his situation is different, and although I don't know all the details, it sounds like it wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea for ht child to be born and for Fuzzy to then raise it - but importantly, many cases are not like his. Of course a lot of the time a kid can in fact be raised decently, adopted, whatever. But the thing with banning abortion is that a lot of those kids who are born as a result of that ban live very poor lives - starved, on the streets, to poor parents who actually cannot give them a good life. I'm not saying that this is the case with all or even most abortions, but enough foetuses that get aborted would not have a happy childhood with their basic needs met should the be born. And that's what I'm talking about -- in many of those cases, it's genuinely perhaps better had that fetus been aborted.

2. Whether or not you consider fetuses to be babies or 'unborn babies' inherently factors into any discussion of abortion and shapes your view of it. If you consider fetuses to be (unborn babies), as you, Fuzzy, and most pro-lifers do, you naturally are 100% opposed to most or all instances of what you consider infanticide. I'm not going to debate with you whether fetuses are in fact 'unborn babies,' all I'll say is that while I do understand where you and Fuzzy come from in believing that they are, I don't consider them to be that. Doesn't mean I'm totally cool with abortion happening, but I don't think having an abortion is infanticide (maybe partial-birth abortion kind of is, but in practice, that's really only carried out when the mother's life is in real danger). You might think fetuses are equal to "newborn babies". They pretty clearly aren't. Killing a newborn baby and aborting a fetus are two very different things. Fetuses are not the same thing as the babies they become when they're eventually born, and they should be treated differently. When they're still in their mother's stomach and a part of their mother, aborting it is acceptable sometimes. Killing a newborn baby is basically never acceptable. Once a child is born, if their mother gets a mental illness or the family can no longer or will no longer support them, you obviously are not going to kill a child. HOWEVER, if parents can preempt that and know in advance that they can't or won't be able to properly raise their child and/or meet the child's basic needs, they can abort it. Fetuses are not the same things as newborn babies, period. Though I can understand considering them 'unborn babies' or whatever, I'm unwilling to entertain a notion that is as crazy as it is obviously untrue. And given that they're not the same things, there are different standards. I'm not going to equate or entertain equating aborting a fetus with killing a newborn baby, because neither is abortion murder, and nor are fetuses newborn babies.

And I'd suggest you stop repeating the line 'ThaNk yOu FoR pOsTiNg ThAt DiReCtLy In HeRe'. It's gotten old.

If you're going to draw the line at a developmental stage, would you say that the life of a newborn baby has less value and it's more acceptable when they die vs say, a 5 year old child? After all, you are clearly only arguing here that they aren't the same because of their stage of development.

No. This is hardly the gotcha you think it is - it’s only a very stupid and brainless comment. A fetus in its mother’s stomach and a fetus once it’s actually born are two fundamentally different things in the way that a newborn baby and even a 50 year old are not. Try to realize that and stop comparing apples and oranges.

1. Fetuses are never at any point in the mother's stomach during development. 
2. You still haven't provided anything that either proves your argument nor disproved mine. As mentioned previously, the only real difference between a fetus and a newborn child you're pointing out is stage of development. It's completely logical to question your feelings on already born people in different developmental stages, since that clearly matters enough to you to consider whether one is worthy of not being killed. It's not comparing apples & oranges when we are literally talking about the same thing, in this case: humans.

1. What? That's literally the opposite of true (and therefore a good representation of what all you've argued so far).
2. No. A fetus is a part of its mother and cannot survive in the world, outside its mother's stomach. It has not been born and is literally connected to its mother. In contrast, babies once born - whether five minutes old or two years old - have been born and are not parts of their mother. Any baby (post-birth) should not be killed. Fetuses (which have not been born and are a part of their mother and 100% dependant upon her) can be aborted (not "killed"). Anyway, I'm done arguing with you here.

[fhtagn]

DeadPrez is an extremely far right troll who supports the CSA and opposes interracial marriage  (he says it’s okay for him to oppose interracial marriage because he’s black).

Yeah, I've long-doubted this. It's very obviously a cover so he can 'get away' with saying all of the blatantly racist, reactionary nonsense that he spews. He's as white as snow.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

We replied to this thread you made :

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=514054.msg8674161#msg8674161

[fhtagn]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

You have this really weird obsession with assuming my beliefs with absolutely nothing to back it.

[Schiff for Senate]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

If you think you shouldn't be replying, then you can simply not reply.

Unlike you, I'm not a science denier.

We'll see if that's true the next time a discussion on climate change comes up.

You have this really weird obsession with assuming my beliefs with absolutely nothing to back it.

I said "we'll see." I didn't say "Well then explain your position on climate change." I suspect that you are right-wing on climate change, and perhaps I shouldn't and it's wrong to, but can you really blame me when, the Green avatar notwithstanding, you've taken the Republican position on everything as far as I've seen (and those last five words are key - you may well agree with Democrats/liberals on any number of things, but whenever I see your posts, they're either entirely unrelated to politics - i.e. posts in Forum Community - or agree with blue avatars and right-wingers).

[Schiff for Senate]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

So I lost credibility the moment I wrote something that I made sure to fact-check on multiple websites first? I didn't write anything till I consulted multiple credible websites and was in fact sure about what I was saying. The fact that you at this juncture just accuse me of having lost my credibility confirms what I thought all along: what you've been saying about fetuses has been demonstrably untrue all along. Fetuses are in the lower stomach. The lower stomach is part of the stomach, which itself is part of the digestive system. So no, what I'm saying isn't incredible. And if it is in fact that shocking, check out Weird but True. The truth can be difficult to believe sometimes (although I don't know why it would be in this case).

[fhtagn]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

So I lost credibility the moment I wrote something that I made sure to fact-check on multiple websites first? I didn't write anything till I consulted multiple credible websites and was in fact sure about what I was saying. The fact that you at this juncture just accuse me of having lost my credibility confirms what I thought all along: what you've been saying about fetuses has been demonstrably untrue all along. Fetuses are in the lower stomach. The lower stomach is part of the stomach, which itself is part of the digestive system. So no, what I'm saying isn't incredible. And if it is in fact that shocking, check out Weird but True. The truth can be difficult to believe sometimes (although I don't know why it would be in this case).

It's truly amazing that you keep helping me out here. I'm guessing they haven't gotten to sex ed yet for you in school, or anything about the reproductive system for you yet in biology class.

[Schiff for Senate]

-snip-

You lost any shred of credibility in your argument the second you argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system and continued defending it lmao

thanks for saving me the effort by posting in here again.

So I lost credibility the moment I wrote something that I made sure to fact-check on multiple websites first? I didn't write anything till I consulted multiple credible websites and was in fact sure about what I was saying. The fact that you at this juncture just accuse me of having lost my credibility confirms what I thought all along: what you've been saying about fetuses has been demonstrably untrue all along. Fetuses are in the lower stomach. The lower stomach is part of the stomach, which itself is part of the digestive system. So no, what I'm saying isn't incredible. And if it is in fact that shocking, check out Weird but True. The truth can be difficult to believe sometimes (although I don't know why it would be in this case).

It's truly amazing that you keep helping me out here. I'm guessing they haven't gotten to sex ed yet for you in school, or anything about the reproductive system for you yet in biology class.

a.) I did in fact study both those things, actually, but that's besides in the point.
b.) Yes, the reproductive and digestive systems are two different systems. The fetus is in the reproductive system. However, to quote from Stanford Children's Health: "The uterus, or womb, is a hollow, pear-shaped organ in a woman's lower stomach between the bladder and the rectum...A fertilized egg (ovum) becomes implanted in the uterus, and the fetus develops." That is all. I never "argued that babies are stored within and grow within an organ that is part of the mother's digestive system", I only repeated something that I found on a credible website. The fetus is inside its mother during the 9 months of pregnancy. Can we agree on that, and the fact that it has not yet been born? I consider there to be a fundamental difference between a fetus inside its mother that has not been born and a baby that has been born? Killing a baby that's been born - infanticide - is despicable and horrible and is never okay and is not what I'm arguing or what I've ever argued for. Aborting a fetus - which is still inside its mother and connected via umbilical cord - is however not infanticide or baby murder, because it's not a baby until it's been born, it's a fetus. Partial-birth abortion is another matter because at that point it's on the verge of being born. I can in a way understand calling that somewhat similar to infanticide, but it's really carried out only when the mother's life is in danger, and all but the farthest right-wing of conservative politicians oppose abortion to save the mother's life. In any case, I admit that some of what I've said wasn't entirely correct either. You are technically correct that "fetuses are never at any point in the mother's stomach during development", and I was wrong in calling that statement incorrect. But I believe the rest of what I've argued stands. Fetuses that haven't been born and babies that have are fundamentally different beings that have different rights, and abortion is not murder or infanticide.

[Badger]

Next time an unborn baby commits felony murder let me know.

Wait until they are born and grow. A lot of them do turn out to be felons and murderers. Especially when the conditions for proper upbringing are considered and found lacking.

Sometimes it's better kids not be born than be born to parents who don't care about them at all and will just abandon them or treat them like garbage or leave them in foster care, or who don't have the resources (financial and otherwise) to support another child.

Thanks for posting it in this thread for me.

Kids shouldn't be born just for the sake of being born or to appease people who will do nothing to take care of them and cannot guarantee they'll be brought up properly. Are you going to be the one who takes care of them? Do you have some guarantee that they will be brought up properly and not neglected, starved, and/or abused? Because that quite possibly could happen if a family doesn't want a kid or can't afford a kid but is forced to have it. I'll give you an example. If you've got a homeless drug that can't afford to feed anybody, she gets raped, and is forced to have the kid...what do you think happens? You really think the child leads a good life? Spoiler alert, they don't. Right-wingers like you want as many babies as possible to be born just for the sake of it...and at the same time, you oppose programs and safety nets to help poor families raise them properly and feed them and take care of them.

uh, no?

At least, you support defunding them (and giving the richest of the rich tax breaks instead).
And on the off chance that you don't - interesting, you're actually not a conservative on this issue.

1. once again, no. wtf are you talking about?
2. cool story

Did you hear what Blake Masters recently said? It's just one of many examples...the GOP doesn't support helping the poor (or even the middle-class - they don't even pretend to care about the poor, but no matter what they might say, their concern for the middle-class is also negligible at best) - they care only for their top donors. You might as well clarify. Do you support programs to aid the poor, things like Medicaid and free school lunches? If you do, good, but know that most conservatives don't. If you don't, you're like most conservatives, but you're proving my earlier point.

idk if this is just some poorly executed attempt at a gotcha but

Ah. The inevitable Point in any discussion with ftghn where she stops being able to put a single coherent sentence together to defend her argument and resorts to memes like a 12-year-old. Always a good sign to know that you've proven your point.

You really need to get over this weird obsession you seem to have with stalking my posts. It's kind of creepy and can't be all that healthy for you.

What can I say? I call stupid BS wherever I see it, and your posts)are one of the top producers on Atlas. (Shrugĺ

[Badger]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

We've been through this. Your argument as to why a fertilized egg instantly becomes a so-called human being it is basically "because reasons".

I mean, as your theology obviously holds this to be true, more power to you. Kindly don't Yammer on incessantly about science and biology when you are basically discussing what the nuns taught in Sunday School.

[fhtagn]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

We've been through this. Your argument as to why a fertilized egg instantly becomes a so-called human being it is basically "because reasons".

I mean, as your theology obviously holds this to be true, more power to you. Kindly don't Yammer on incessantly about science and biology when you are basically discussing what the nuns taught in Sunday School.

We get it, you believed your children were a completely different species while they were in your wife's womb.

Doesn't make you right by any definition, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

[Badger]

What does it say about a Forum that has no sympathy for my unborn grandchild that died in an abortion, or for myself and my wife, but who has all the sympathy in the world for convicted murderers and THEIR families?  There's kind of a disconnect here, is their not?

It says that you fundamentally don't understand how we view abortion.

Why would there be a 'disconnect' if we don't believe that a fetus is morally equivalent to a human being?

Then at what point does it become a human being,  and why that point?

It becomes a human being when it is born. Nobody can dispute that.

Someone who believes a single celled zygote is a person probably shouldn't be posting any take they disagree with here.

Someone who doesn't understand basic biology and human fetal development shouldn't be replying.

We've been through this. Your argument as to why a fertilized egg instantly becomes a so-called human being it is basically "because reasons".

I mean, as your theology obviously holds this to be true, more power to you. Kindly don't Yammer on incessantly about science and biology when you are basically discussing what the nuns taught in Sunday School.

We get it, you believed your children were a completely different species while they were in your wife's womb.

Doesn't make you right by any definition, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.

Swing and a miss you self-righteous pomposity. I merely believe that a fertilized egg isn't a citizen.

[Badger]

Context needed.

Now we know why abortion is a crime in Oklahoma.

doesn't sound like anything was going on here that would lead to pregnancy.

[Badger]

There's time when b r t d and his obsessions are merely just part of posting on Atlas. And then.....

LOL it's pretty funny considering that hot single mother hipster Christian emo fan from that Facebook group is literally the best person I can think of to ever come out of Ireland.

Wait, you don't like James Joyce?

Not hot (not female), nor an emo fan, nor a hipster Christian.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Just a note I know it's a 303 map and Rs are favs to win control of the H but I put NC, FL especially in my map due to they are the first states up and don't want to be wrong on EDay in case Nikki Fried and Demings and Beasley win and I am supporting Ryan for Prez in 2028 Newsom isn't the right person to go against Harris he would get crushed against her in Cali since he is polling 5% it's Buttigieg or Ryan as the alternative to Harris and Ryan isnt LGBT


But these polls of 33% are silly because he is leading Trump 44/41 in a National.poll, only Bush W had 33 when Ds win 255 H seats and 59/41 Senate Seats


NY isn't a liberal state like Cali it's a Secular state when has NY elected a real progressive like Obama to the state or Lisa Madigan real progressives that's why Rs are winning some key H seats, Hochul isn't a real progressive, I didn't want her to win the Primary I wanted Suozzi to win why is she winning by a Landslide and D's are losing key H races in NY, WHY, Max Rose is behind in his NY district if this was Cali or IL he would win

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Personally... i'm going with Penny here. I still think Keir is a douche who isn't a true leftist, and Penny appeals way more to me, and is to the left of Keir. Also her background is way more appealing to Starmer's background, so i'd support Penny here.

[Politician]

Safe Kemp, Republicans are just going to rig the election again.

Shameful how democrats are dropping the most promising Democratic contender of the new generation. Abrams is literally running the best campaign ever done and, on account of her being black and outspoken, Democrats don’t like her. When a Stalinist t-34sexual is the only one who sees reality in the genius of some boogie randroid, you know peoples priorities ain’t right.

[President Johnson]

Yes. Don't have an issue with abortions at any point in the term. Country is overpopulated.

[BG-NY]

Yes. Don't have an issue with abortions at any point in the term. Country is overpopulated.

Is the issue with the abortion up until delivery point, or the overpopulation one? I guess both are questionable.

[Hammy]

All BLM and 1/6 protestors should be pardoned.

LOL no. Much of the BLM rioting was straight up terrorism.

Why bother having words when people render them void of any real meaning

[Politician]

Just the opposite. They will be swept, adding to the misery of a night that was supposed to be theirs, but they blew it badly across the board with woeful candidates.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's not a red.wave yet plse stop calling it a red wave we still have to vote stop preempting the election we vote in Oct in Early vote where the bulk of the urban vote goes first and R votes come in on Eday


I won't vote because I am still register in Cali buut in 2024 I will vote and Pritzker and Newsom are safe anyways

I m donation to one candidate only like I did in 2020 I donated to Joe Kennedy and this time Tim Ryan be cause he has Kennedy appeal

I was EDay judge pre pandemic it's gonna take a long time to count provisions ballots 300 K extra D votes we don't win all of them but Rs don't win 80/20 military. Ballots we win 65/35 provisions ballots and Rs win 65/35 Military ballots due to mire female in the military it balances out to a 303 map not an R nut map


Guess what Ron Johnson won by 300K the exact margin of provisions ballots, D's are gonna get ever last provisions ballots but Johnson isn't gonna get the same vote as he did last time his support has eroded to some degree since 2016, D's win 55. Percent of females and Trump due to Hillary broke into female vote and Hillary got 51 not 55 in 2016

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

There was a poll out in AR Gov that says Jones is down 49/45 that is nice

It's nice to make AR like pink in a blue tsunami 🤩🤩🤩