Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

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**
Post Reply
Taco
Posts: 621
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2022 9:55 am

When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Taco »

... 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: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by km1125 »

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: 2201
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by craig11152 »

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 Rate This :lol
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by km1125 »

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: 12065
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 2:41 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by TC Talks »

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
For Kristian Trumpers are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people.
-Romans 16:18

Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16585
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Rate This »

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…
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Mike
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Mike »

km1125 wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 11:09 amAnd 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: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by km1125 »

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: 414
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2015 10:53 am
Location: Fishing somewhere

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Circle Seven »

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: 16585
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Rate This »

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.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
kager
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:10 pm
Location: GPS lost

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by kager »

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)...
"Enjoy every sandwich."
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16585
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Rate This »

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…
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

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: 11506
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Home of the National Champions

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Matt »

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.
This is a pro-Harris/Walz account

"I have to admit - Matt is right." ~bmw
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16585
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: When I see Tudor Dixon

Unread post by Rate This »

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.
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
Post Reply