Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

When I see Tudor Dixon

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues in the State of Michigan. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
Taco
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2022 9:55 am

When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Taco » Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:11 pm

... I can't help but to see a MAGA Republican. We don't need another Marjory Taylor Green or Lauren Boebert. She seems pretty extreme with her stance on abortion. I have voted mostly Republican for a good while but I can no longer do so in good conscience. The MAGA Republicans, extreme righties, and QAnon wings of the party are well, quite terrifying. The Trump presidency and the January 6th insurrection has really changed my political views and perspectives. Whatever that was, I don't want it ever again. Politics are more decisive than ever before. Seems to be so much radicalism/extremism. As far as I am concerned, QAnon are domestic terrorists. All that said, Whitmer gets my vote and I will be voting in favor of abortions.


Woe to you, oh earth and sea
For the Devil sends the beast with wrath
Because he knows the time is short
Let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast
For it is a human number
Its number is six hundred and sixty-six

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by km1125 » Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:09 am

Has she actually advocated to change the law to a total ban? Isn't it possible for her to have HER beliefs and HER opinions and not actually want to foist them on the rest of the populace but rather come to some meaningful agreement on what is the correct thing to to for the state??

And if you believe that " voting in favor of abortions", means passing Prop 3, I got some news for you. It does not actually do anything to make abortions restrictionless. In fact, there is language that specifically allows the legislature to regulate abortions beyond "viability", which can be argued down to 6 weeks (or maybe even less). If this passes, I'd bet the legislature sees that language as a GREEN LIGHT to push through some appropriate legislation that you probably won't agree with.



User avatar
craig11152
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by craig11152 » Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:48 pm

I'm not sure how anyone could argue viability down to 6 weeks.
Can you clarify how that could possibly happen?


I no longer directly engage trolls

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by km1125 » Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:07 pm

craig11152 wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 12:48 pm
I'm not sure how anyone could argue viability down to 6 weeks.
Can you clarify how that could possibly happen?
That'd be a different thread. You can certainly argue it's longer than that, but no way is it all the way up to 40 weeks.

But don't you agree that just passing Prop 3 doesn't just "make abortion legal"??

That's aside from all the things it breaks.

Changes to the state Constitution should be well thought out and argued matters and only those most basic to the functioning of society within the borders of the state. Making willy-nilly changes makes a mockery out of the process and voting based on marketing dollars is a sure way to get there.

Perhaps we really need to consider pushing the 2026 Constitutional Convention proposal if we REALLY want to make changes.



User avatar
TC Talks
Posts: 10104
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by TC Talks » Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:28 pm

Taco wrote:
Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:11 pm
... I can't help but to see a MAGA Republican. We don't need another Marjory Taylor Green or Lauren Boebert. She seems pretty extreme with her stance on abortion. I have voted mostly Republican for a good while but I can no longer do so in good conscience. The MAGA Republicans, extreme righties, and QAnon wings of the party are well, quite terrifying. The Trump presidency and the January 6th insurrection has really changed my political views and perspectives. Whatever that was, I don't want it ever again. Politics are more decisive than ever before. Seems to be so much radicalism/extremism. As far as I am concerned, QAnon are domestic terrorists. All that said, Whitmer gets my vote and I will be voting in favor of abortions.
She is, bought and paid for by Betsy DeVos... Dick got his face rubbed in the dirt a few years ago, and this is Betsy's new plan.
POLITICS
Michigan governor’s race could cost $100 million as billionaire DeVos family spends millions to oust Gov. Gretchen Whitmer
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/michiga ... itmer.html


“The more you can increase fear of drugs, crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.”
― Noam Chomsky

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Rate This » Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:50 pm

km1125 wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:09 am
Has she actually advocated to change the law to a total ban? Isn't it possible for her to have HER beliefs and HER opinions and not actually want to foist them on the rest of the populace but rather come to some meaningful agreement on what is the correct thing to to for the state??

And if you believe that " voting in favor of abortions", means passing Prop 3, I got some news for you. It does not actually do anything to make abortions restrictionless. In fact, there is language that specifically allows the legislature to regulate abortions beyond "viability", which can be argued down to 6 weeks (or maybe even less). If this passes, I'd bet the legislature sees that language as a GREEN LIGHT to push through some appropriate legislation that you probably won't agree with.
Viable means needs no mother present… I think that’s 25 weeks or something. It essentially has to be a really small definite human by that point… It can’t be something that looks like there’s an off ramp to a small mammal or a lizard…



Mike
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Mike » Mon Sep 19, 2022 3:05 pm

km1125 wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:09 am
And if you believe that " voting in favor of abortions", means passing Prop 3, I got some news for you. It does not actually do anything to make abortions restrictionless. In fact, there is language that specifically allows the legislature to regulate abortions beyond "viability", which can be argued down to 6 weeks (or maybe even less).
After fetal viability, not before. Which puts it at ~25 weeks, as Rate This said.



km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by km1125 » Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:01 pm

Rate This wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 2:50 pm
km1125 wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:09 am
Has she actually advocated to change the law to a total ban? Isn't it possible for her to have HER beliefs and HER opinions and not actually want to foist them on the rest of the populace but rather come to some meaningful agreement on what is the correct thing to to for the state??

And if you believe that " voting in favor of abortions", means passing Prop 3, I got some news for you. It does not actually do anything to make abortions restrictionless. In fact, there is language that specifically allows the legislature to regulate abortions beyond "viability", which can be argued down to 6 weeks (or maybe even less). If this passes, I'd bet the legislature sees that language as a GREEN LIGHT to push through some appropriate legislation that you probably won't agree with.
Viable means needs no mother present… I think that’s 25 weeks or something. It essentially has to be a really small definite human by that point… It can’t be something that looks like there’s an off ramp to a small mammal or a lizard…
You know what? The proposed amendment does not define that. It can be argued that "In biological terms, viability is the ability to survive successfully". regardless whether the fetus is dependent on the mother or not. You could also argue the other direction, that many kids these days (even over 21) are not viable because they likely could not survive without the mother present. :D



Circle Seven
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:53 am
Location: Fishing somewhere

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Circle Seven » Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:44 pm

I'm waiting to see what Tudor Dixon has to say on the campaign trail. Her comments being repeated in the attack ads are dated when she was like 10th in line to even have a chance. Before all the ballot disqualifications. Now she is the nominee.

It's a whole new ballgame.
Let's just see what she handles it now.



User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Rate This » Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:48 pm

Circle Seven wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 4:44 pm
I'm waiting to see what Tudor Dixon has to say on the campaign trail. Her comments being repeated in the attack ads are dated when she was like 10th in line to even have a chance. Before all the ballot disqualifications. Now she is the nominee.

It's a whole new ballgame.
Let's just see what she handles it now.
She’s gonna do what all the other Republicans are doing… deny having said what’s clearly on tape. She will probably try to tack to the center. The same is true of Election denial… Don Bolduc out in the New Hampshire senate race was denying the results of the 2020 election until he won the nomination. Within 48 hours he “had seen the light” and Biden was the legitimate president however begrudgingly… it’s being repeated endlessly this cycle. Words matter whether she’s a shoo in or the 1000th in line.



kager
Posts: 1387
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:10 pm
Location: GPS lost

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by kager » Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm

Are either candidate's campaign ads directly attacking the other candidate?

I see TONS of attack ads on Dixon, but Whitmer is literally a shiny happy person in all of the ones her campaign's paying for (directly)...


"The problem with communication is the illusion that it has occurred."

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Rate This » Mon Sep 19, 2022 9:36 pm

kager wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm
Are either candidate's campaign ads directly attacking the other candidate?

I see TONS of attack ads on Dixon, but Whitmer is literally a shiny happy person in all of the ones her campaign's paying for (directly)...
The PAC is doing the dirty work… it’s one strategy…



MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 6408
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by MotorCityRadioFreak » Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:15 am

kager wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm
Are either candidate's campaign ads directly attacking the other candidate?

I see TONS of attack ads on Dixon, but Whitmer is literally a shiny happy person in all of the ones her campaign's paying for (directly)...
Republicans are running attacks ads against Carl Marlinga.

I am sure that the Republicans are saving their attack ads until after the debate so that they can misquote Gretchen.


They/them, non-binary and proud.

Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.

Matt
Posts: 9852
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Matt » Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:18 pm

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:15 am
kager wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm
Are either candidate's campaign ads directly attacking the other candidate?

I see TONS of attack ads on Dixon, but Whitmer is literally a shiny happy person in all of the ones her campaign's paying for (directly)...
Republicans are running attacks ads against Carl Marlinga.

I am sure that the Republicans are saving their attack ads until after the debate so that they can misquote Gretchen.
Misquote??? How about pointing out how badly she fucked up as a covid dictator. Anybody that supports her is either a partisan hack or an idiot.


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 13966
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Post by Rate This » Tue Sep 20, 2022 9:05 pm

Matt wrote:
Tue Sep 20, 2022 8:18 pm
MotorCityRadioFreak wrote:
Tue Sep 20, 2022 12:15 am
kager wrote:
Mon Sep 19, 2022 5:09 pm
Are either candidate's campaign ads directly attacking the other candidate?

I see TONS of attack ads on Dixon, but Whitmer is literally a shiny happy person in all of the ones her campaign's paying for (directly)...
Republicans are running attacks ads against Carl Marlinga.

I am sure that the Republicans are saving their attack ads until after the debate so that they can misquote Gretchen.
Misquote??? How about pointing out how badly she fucked up as a covid dictator. Anybody that supports her is either a partisan hack or an idiot.
Then apparently 55% of the state are idiots.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic