Re: If Biden Loses Televised Debate, Can He Be Replaced?

In article <v5t66b$t7km$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On 6/30/2024 7:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:56:19 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

On Jun 30, 2024 at 3:40:41 PM PDT, "shawn"
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:32:34 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>

On Jun 29, 2024 at 2:57:55 AM PDT, "trotsky" <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>

On 6/28/24 10:49 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <i18t7jdt9idsgamt2nrt6dctolugp38s76@4ax.com>,
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:01:49 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>

Earlier this month, Business Insider offered these possible
replacements for Biden should he not be the nominee: Kamala
Harris, governors Gavin Newsom (D-CA), Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI),
Roy Cooper (D-N.C.), and Wes Moore (D-MD), and senators Amy
Klobuchar (D-MN) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.)

>
The knives are out already.

>
Gavvy Newsom and Hillary were probably watching the debate from
their respective lairs and whispering "Excellent" over their
tented fingers in their best Monty Burns voice.

>
What did they say after your guy Trump claimed (again) that Dems want
to kill babies after they're born?

>
Leftists like Hutt are calling what Trump said about "post-birth"
abortions and Ralph Northam a lie. Here's then-governor of Virginia
Northam in his own words. You tell me what he's talking about if
Trump was lying.

>
So that one guy represents all Dems?

>
Trump specifically said Northam wanted post-birth abortions. Leftists
went nuts and said that was a lie.
>
If it's a lie, what is Northam talking about there?

>
My point is Trump keeps saying Democrats want post-birth abortions.
It's not Democrats, but at most one Democrat that said such a thing.

 
Gavvy Newsom has also made similar remarks. He's talked about amending
the California penal code so that such post-birth abortions won't fall
under the definition of murder, which killing a living baby outside the
womb most certainly is.

The "definition of murder" is whatever the state says, by definition.

Not if it conflicts with the Constitution's guaranteed rights for all
citizens. You see, after the baby is born, there's no more "rights of
the mother" to be concerned about, and no more philosophical debates
about when life begins or whether it's a person or not.

The state of California can no more exempt the intentional killing of a
living, breathing baby from criminal penalties than it could make a law
exempting the intentional killing of moviePigs from the definition of
murder.

Both would violate a cornucopia of provisions in both the state and
federal constitutions.