Why NOT to vote Republican

[Alan]

Thank you for confirming that states rights only matters if it’s a topic with which you agree.

You're confusing the right to an abortion with the right of a human being to live. One is outside the federal government's purview and the other is not.

[jp1]

You're confusing the right to an abortion with the right of a human being to live. One is outside the federal government's purview and the other is not.

And you’re confusing the rights of actual existing human beings with the rights of a blob of cells that may one day become a human being.

The fact that you prioritize the blob of cells over me, a living, breathing human being tells me all I need to know about your priorities.

[frugal-one]

I think Mr Graham is trying to protect human life at the point where the rest of the civilized world recognizes the difference between a mother's unwanted tissue and a human being. Sometimes individual civil rights are contradictory, there needs to be a balance acknowledged across the board and I support his efforts. Plus, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is another founding principle, I think the Federal government has an interest in protecting life regardless of jurisdiction.

Another reason NOT to vote republican!

[Alan]

The fact that you prioritize the blob of cells over me, a living, breathing human being tells me all I need to know about your priorities.

Yes, I guess it does.

[LDAHL]

Unlike those of your ilk who have no empathy.

I think empathy is a virtue better demonstrated than talked about.

Another problem with using “empathy” to advance a narrative of ethical superiority is that it fails to balance the moral equation. Forty-four hours of would be immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard is of great consequence, but years of the same in Brownsville or Del Rio need not be mentioned. The interests of student loan borrowers are a big deal, but the that of less affluent people who will have the burden thrust open them is not. People in safe neighborhoods will talk endlessly about a relative few cases of police violence or dismiss certain crimes as not worth prosecuting, never giving much thought to tens of thousands of victims of common, everyday crime.

That why my ilk and I tend not to give too much credence to virtue signaling or accusations of callousness stemming from such thinking.

[JaneV2.0]

Nature isn't as enamored of zygotes/fetuses as Republicans pretend to be, given the high percentage of natural abortions/miscarriages that occur as a matter of course. And Republicans drop the pretense as soon as the fetuses turn into actual human beings at birth. (You're on your own, kid!)

[iris lilies]

Nature isn't as enamored of zygotes/fetuses as Republicans pretend to be, given the high percentage of natural abortions/miscarriages that occur as a matter of course. And Republicans drop the pretense as soon as the fetuses turn into actual human beings at birth. (You're on your own, kid!)

Is there some special program for Republicans to drop out of income taxes paid toward social services? I would like to know about that program. I’m not saying I would drop out, I’m just saying I would like to know about it.

Now realistically, your broad brush theme that Republicans don’t pay taxes that support social welfare programs is silly. And then add on all of the faith-based programs out there (and if you think they do not exist, you arent looking) there certainly is societal support for children.

You could argue that it’s not enough and on that argument we could talk all day about what is “enough “but at least that is a rational conversation.

[JaneV2.0]

Republicans are famous for voting against social programs--at least in recent history--for example, the expanded child tax credit, which lifted a lot of children--albeit temporarily--out of poverty.

I don't know how faith-based programs work for children who aren't members of the congregation in question, or how sustainable they are, but it's clear they can't meet the nation's needs by themselves.

[jp1]

So apparently Abbott and DeSantis' ugly stunt wasn't even a new idea. They just dragged it out of the racist playbook from 60 years ago and updated it for modern times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Freedom_Rides

[frugal-one]

I think empathy is a virtue better demonstrated than talked about.

Another problem with using “empathy” to advance a narrative of ethical superiority is that it fails to balance the moral equation. Forty-four hours of would be immigrants on Martha’s Vineyard is of great consequence, but years of the same in Brownsville or Del Rio need not be mentioned. The interests of student loan borrowers are a big deal, but the that of less affluent people who will have the burden thrust open them is not. People in safe neighborhoods will talk endlessly about a relative few cases of police violence or dismiss certain crimes as not worth prosecuting, never giving much thought to tens of thousands of victims of common, everyday crime.

That why my ilk and I tend not to give too much credence to virtue signaling or accusations of callousness stemming from such thinking.

You have just proven the point ... you have no empathy. This diatribe proves it.