Deep State Rat Lindsey Graham Trying to Throw 2022 Elections to Democrats with Abortion Move

[James_Madison_Lives]

I was thinking the same thing. And he has always been a Deep State rat. Pro-life? Sure. But why this? Why now?

Gateway Pundit

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...onnell-behind/

Is Lindsey Graham Trying to Throw the Midterm Elections to Democrats?… Was Mitch McConnell Behind It?

But Lindsey Graham wants to change the subject. Lindsey Graham wants the 2022 midterm election to be all about abortion.

Earlier this week Lindsey Graham announced legislation to ban abortion in the US after 15 weeks.

[Anti Federalist]

That's precisely what the little fagggot is doing...I thought the same thing as well.

The establishment GOP turds know goddamn well there is a tidal wave of anti-establishment GOP representatives lined up to take DC this fall.

They also know that the best way to to de-rail those campaigns is to get women and leftists agitated about abortion.

Even without Graham's sabotage, that was why the GOP was going to lose its bid to take majorities in the house and senate.

[donnay]

I think people are smarter than that. Lot's of people have woken up (in a good way) to the RINO's and know their bag of tricks. This is precisely the reason many of the RINO's have been booted out of primaries throughout the US. They are getting nervous, and this is why they are throwing money at all their establishment cronies. NH just proved that.


Edit to add:

[CaptUSA]

I think people are smarter than that. Lot's of people have woken up (in a good way) to the RINO's and know their bag of tricks. This is precisely the reason many of the RINO's have been booted out of primaries throughout the US. They are getting nervous, and this is why they are throwing money at all their establishment cronies. NH just proved that.


Edit to add:

What a slimy little punk! How many times does Lindsey need to sabotage the messaging before SC realizes that's what he's there for??

Pure evil pretending to be pious.

[nobody's_hero]

It would take an amendment to make it a federal issue. I am pro-life but I understand that simple legislation would have the same flaw that R v W had which was to usurp the issue from state control.

[Snowball]

It would take an amendment to make it a federal issue.

Untrue. It can be a federal issue, indeed it was a federal issue and they made it so.

[Invisible Man]

It would take an amendment to make it a federal issue.

If the Constitution were followed this would be the case, and it would similarly take an amendment to make a whole lot of federal laws that are on the books right now federal issues.

But the way the Constitution currently works leaves all kinds of loopholes for the federal government to restrict abortion with laws that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. The majority opinion written by Alito in the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade practically invited Congress to do exactly what Graham is proposing by saying that federal abortion laws should be a matter of legislation passed by the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

[Snowball]

If the Constitution were followed this would be the case, and it would similarly take an amendment to make a whole lot of federal laws that are on the books right now federal issues.

But the way the Constitution currently works leaves all kinds of loopholes for the federal government to restrict abortion with laws that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. The majority opinion written by Alito in the recent overturn of Roe v. Wade practically invited Congress to do exactly what Graham is proposing by saying that federal abortion laws should be a matter of legislation passed by the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

Indeed, and Roe v Wade was not only a bad ruling for what it made legal, it was a case that should have been dismissed and unheard by the SCOTUS entirely.
By hearing the case and ruling, Federal oversight began. Unconstitutionality is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation in this country.

I don't know if I would accuse Graham of wanting Dems to win, though. It's the voters and their representatives that decide on abortion, because this country doesn't legally protect morality. The evils this country is capable of have no limit, by law.

[nobody's_hero]

Untrue. It can be a federal issue, indeed it was a federal issue and they made it so.

. . . By acting without regard to the constitution when they even took R v W into consideration.

IMO leaving it to the states is not only the correct constitutional approach, it is also the most pragmatic. Smaller battles can be won on a state-by-state basis but I doubt in this political climate that a federal ban on abortion would last very long.

[Snowball]

. . . By acting without regard to the constitution when they even took R v W into consideration.

IMO leaving it to the states is not only the correct constitutional approach, it is also the most pragmatic. Smaller battles can be won on a state-by-state basis but I doubt in this political climate that a federal ban on abortion would last very long.

Nothing is built to last long in the USA. Laws change when the majority selects law changers. There are no real absolutes, merely opinions.

[Invisible Man]

I doubt in this political climate that a federal ban on abortion would last very long.

That climate is also not there right now. And Graham knows that.

It's a classic politician trick. Look like a hard liner by proposing legislation you know will never pass and that you don't honestly even want to pass.

[Snowball]

That climate is also not there right now. And Graham knows that.

It's a classic politician trick. Look like a hard liner by proposing legislation you know will never pass and that you don't honestly even want to pass.

You may be right, but his proposal was 15 weeks which is 3 weeks into the second trimester, so we're not talking about an aggressive policy that is in any way more Pro Life than what other Western nations already have in place.

If the American voter wants the right to terminate the unborn post-15 weeks then we can't stop them. It's not his fault if that's what the people want, as expressed by majority opinion in democratic elections. If we don't accept the process then we don't accept this form of government so perhaps we should start disavowing it entirely. (I already have).

[Invisible Man]

If we don't accept the process then we don't accept this form of government so perhaps we should start disavowing it entirely. (I already have).

Practically speaking, what does that look like for you?

I suppose I could truthfully say that I too have already disavowed it. But for me, this takes the form of something no more impactful than when Michael Scott declared bankruptcy.

[Snowball]

Practically speaking, what does that look like for you?

I suppose I could truthfully say that I too have already disavowed it. But for me, this takes the form of something no more impactful than when Michael Scott declared bankruptcy.

Nothing to affect change, as that's not an option anymore. Change will only come from another party to restrain all this, one or more with the ability to do the work we can't do. It is what it is.

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1570214797227999232

[Brian4Liberty]

https://twitter.com/JohnFetterman/st...35177343598598

[Brian4Liberty]

Democrats are making the most of it...

https://twitter.com/CarlosGSmith/sta...75655426080768

[CaptUSA]

Democrats are making the most of it...

Of course! This is part of the Establishment's plan.

These guys are worse than the democrats. And it's why the establishment has remained in power through every populist movement.

The system has a defense mechanism in place to ensure establishment power over us. The best you can hope for is to have a new movement that can catch them sleeping for awhile. That defense mechanism often takes a little while to kick in after a threat has been revealed. No one wants to panic and trigger the plans earlier than needed - but they are there. Every government has one. This year, the threat to the Establishment is on the right. So better to have democrats remain in power than people who you can't control. Democrats in control are good for fundraising, too!

[Brian4Liberty]

The question still stands:

Is The Neocon-Establishment Right Trying To Reconstitute and Co-opt Social Conservatism?

[Voluntarist]

Yeah, Democrats are having a great time with it. But they say all politics is local, and the GOP within South Carolina's legislature recently went through a failed attempt to put a near total ban on abortion in Graham's state. Might there any connection between the two?

South Carolina Senate fails to pass near-total abortion ban after GOP lawmaker filibuster

The South Carolina Republican-led Senate was unable to pass a bill Thursday that sought to ban nearly all abortions at every stage of pregnancy without exceptions for rape and incest, instead choosing to amend the state's already restrictive abortion law, after a handful of GOP senators joined with Democrats to block the bill.

The failure of the near-total abortion ban spoke to the divide among South Carolina Republicans -- and the chasm among Republicans in general -- over whether abortion restrictions should include exceptions for pregnancies that were the result of a rape or incest.

The abortion debate has been re-opened and is being fought in 50 different state battles, each of which is going to bubble up and cause impacts at the federal level. And it's no longer the absolute pro-life/pro-choice debate - because neither of those can prevail. It's going to be about the murky, unprincipled middle: how long after conception can they be performed, rape exceptions, incest exceptions, life of the mother exceptions, how much can the state muddle in your medical affairs. And each of those 50 debates will be heard and reacted to nationally. The butterfly wings flapping in South Carolina and Indiana are going to impact the races in Ohio and New Hampshire and everywhere else. There are now 50 times as many opportunities for the discussion to get started as there used to be - and each started discussion is going to snowball into a nationwide debate. Voters in New Hampshire are going to be debating what those horrible Republicans did in South Carolina (and we have to keep them out of office here, or they'll do the same thing).

[Madison320]

It would take an amendment to make it a federal issue. I am pro-life but I understand that simple legislation would have the same flaw that R v W had which was to usurp the issue from state control.

I'm pro choice and think the same thing.

I'd like to know how many politicians claimed "states rights" in supporting the decision to overturn Roe vs Wade and now support "federal power over states right's" which is what this Graham thing does. It seems like it was most of them. What a bunch of weasels. This is why I can't vote democrat or republican.

[Anti Federalist]

They are already running ads against the NH GOP senate candidate regarding this.

Almost like they had them waiting in the wings, ready to go...

That turd from SC just lost the NH Senate race for the idiot GOP.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, Democrats are having a great time with it. But they say all politics is local, and the GOP within South Carolina's legislature recently went through a failed attempt to put a near total ban on abortion in Graham's state. Might there any connection between the two?

Certainly, it might be popular in certain regions. It may be popular in Graham's state. But Graham is not up for re-election right now, and the timing is highly suspect.

Thus, the reasoning likely has more to do with other agendas than just his re-election. I would dare say that he is helping Democrats in swing states, which mostly have Trump supported GOP candidates. The neocon-establishment cabal is known for this kind of sabotage. It reeks of Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell. It doesn't take Watters to point this fact out.

Additionally, my personal hypothesis is that the neocons have a longer term plan, and this action by Graham would be consistent with that:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...l-Conservatism

The abortion debate has been re-opened and is being fought in 50 different state battles, each of which is going to bubble up and cause impacts at the federal level. And it's no longer the absolute pro-life/pro-choice debate - because neither of those can prevail. It's going to be about the murky, unprincipled middle: how long after conception can they be performed, rape exceptions, incest exceptions, life of the mother exceptions, how much can the state muddle in your medical affairs. And each of those 50 debates will be heard and reacted to nationally. The butterfly wings flapping in South Carolina and Indiana are going to impact the races in Ohio and New Hampshire and everywhere else. There are now 50 times as many opportunities for the discussion to get started as there used to be - and each started discussion is going to snowball into a nationwide debate. Voters in New Hampshire are going to be debating what those horrible Republicans did in South Carolina (and we have to keep them out of office here, or they'll do the same thing).

And all the totalitarians want their own rules imposed nationwide, globally and universally. So much for states rights.

[Brian4Liberty]

They are already running ads against the NH GOP senate candidate regarding this.

Almost like they had them waiting in the wings, ready to go...

That turd from SC just lost the NH Senate race for the idiot GOP.

I have no doubt that's the intention. In the eyes of the neocons and establishment, a Democrat is preferable to a Trump Republican, a libertarian Republican or a true small government fiscal conservative.

[nobody's_hero]

Nothing is built to last long in the USA. Laws change when the majority selects law changers. There are no real absolutes, merely opinions.

That's why there's a process for making amendments to the Constitution, and there's a reason why it isn't meant to be a simple majority.

[Snowball]

That's why there's a process for making amendments to the Constitution, and there's a reason why it isn't meant to be a simple majority.

The super-majority principle applies to that procedure, every step along the way from 2/3 to 3/4, and it's all performed by majoritarian politicians.

[nobody's_hero]

The super-majority principle applies to that procedure, every step along the way from 2/3 to 3/4, and it's all performed by majoritarian politicians.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing, so I'm gonna withdraw from this debate based on the premise that you're either missing my point, or your being deliberately obtuse.

I'm saying that it should take more than a simple majority to decide something like this, which is all that passing a law requires. If they want to amend the US constitution so that the federal government can consider the topic of abortion, then they will need more than a simple majority because they will need to amend it first, otherwise it is left to the states.

[Snowball]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing, so I'm gonna withdraw from this debate based on the premise that you're either missing my point, or your being deliberately obtuse.

I'm saying that it should take more than a simple majority to decide something like this, which is all that passing a law requires. If they want to amend the US constitution so that the federal government can consider the topic of abortion, then they will need more than a simple majority because they will need to amend it first, otherwise it is left to the states.

It's not automatically up to the states. It can be a federal law. There are over 30,000 federal laws passed by Congress and active.
If you need an example just look at Prohibition. Federal alcohol ban.

[Cleaner44]

Lindsey Graham is a RINO turd that only wants to protect DC.

[Anti Globalist]

I would greatly apppreciate it if Graham can kindly fuck off and never show his face in public.