"I read a bit of the manifesto ... Guy just seems nuts. He's definitely the definition of a white supremacist. Weird part, he hated both the left and the right, but said he could consider himself both a socialist and a fascist at the same time."

Since Tarrant is his hero, I wonder if there isn't some ----------- going on:

[Tarrant's] manifesto was described by some media outlets as "-----------""trolling designed to engender conflict between certain groups and people.[116] Readers of the manifesto described it as containing deliberately provocative and absurd statements, such as sarcastically claiming to have been turned into a killer by playing violent video games.[117]

If it walks like a white supremacist duck, it's a ------- white supremacist duck:

Of his political views, he wrote that he was not conservative, saying, "No, conservatism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it." He continued,

Are you "right wing"?
Depending on the definition, sure.

Are you "left wing"?
Depending on the definition, sure.

Are you a socialist?
Depending on the definition. Worker ownership of the means of production? It depends on who those workers are, their intentions, who currently owns the means of production, their intentions and who currently owns the state, and their intentions.

... When I was 12 I was deep into communist ideology, talk to anyone from my old highschool and ask about me and you will hear that. From age 15 to 18 however, I consistently moved farther to the right. On the political compass I fall in the mild-moderate authoritarian left category, and I would prefer to be called a populist.

"Typical left wing misinformation. The article keeps mentioning that people like Carlson are all for this movement, then states even though he doesn't come right out and say it."

[T]his is the literal text of Stefanik's ad. Alleging a "plan" to "overthrow our current electorate" is classic replacement theory. Bizarre that you're insisting it's not.

One of the dark ironies of @EliseStefanik pushing the white supremacist Great Replacement Theory is that, a century ago, the exact same arguments were used against Polish immigrants, like her own ancestors.

Elise Stefanik, the third-ranking House Republican, was called to task last year by a local NY paper over the use of "replacement theory" in campaign ads:

Editorial: How low, Ms. Stefanik?
Times Union Editorial Board
Sep. 17, 2021

Back in 2017, white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Va., carrying torches and chanting, "You will not replace us" and "Jews will not replace us." Decent Americans recoiled at the undeniable echo of Nazi Germany.

Also a good link:

How Bad Government Policy is Fueling the Infant Formula Shortage

Trade restrictions and over-zealous FDA regulation are a big part of the problem, but there's more.

Is shouldn't surprise anyone that it was Donald Trump's administration, when they renegotiated NAFTA that banned imports of FORMULA from Canada. As always, and with #babyformula, too, #ETTD

Narcissistic buffoon pontificates on Buffalo shootings:

Trump: I think they had a tragic event in Buffalo. Tragic event in Buffalo with numerous people being killed. In 18 months in Afghanistan, we lost nobody.

GOP: Were any embryos or fetuses killed? No? Okay, then we're good. Thoughts and prayers.

#56 Reasonable people on both sides of the aisle could figure this out. For example, maybe say first trimester legal, then 12 to 16 weeks legal for rape and ------ survivors, who may need a little more time to get their acts together due to trauma. After that abortions illegal except for health of the mother or fetal disease/deformity.

"#50. Yet the most prominent leaders of your political party want it legal up to the removal of the umbilical cod with no restrictions that I've seen."

Really? I've haven't heard that. My own stance is that abortion should be legal in the first trimester, illegal in the third trimester, expect in cases of fatal fetal deformity/disease and/or to save the life of the mother. I'm not sure where the dividing line should be in the second trimester for legal vs illegal abortions. Somewhere around 16 weeks perhaps.

[P]reliminary data from the Guttmacher Institute's periodic census of all known abortion providers show that in 2020, medication abortion accounted for 54% of US abortions. . . . Currently, medication abortion is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy.

There is only one thing for women and men who oppose the end of Roe to do:. Vote all blue in 2022.

Democrats aren't the ones citing a 17th century misogynist as grounds for overturning Roe and Casey. Democrats aren't the ones lying under oath to Congress about stare decisis and settled law.

Democrats aren't the ones set to establish draconian anti-abortion laws in at least a dozen states.

Yep, a national Daddy DNA Registry is a must if a federal ban on abortion is passed:

"Draft Overturning Roe v. Wade Quotes Infamous Witch Trial Judge With Long-Discredited Ideas on Rape"

As has been said many times before about Republicans--the cruelty is the point:

When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, in a draft opinion obtained and published this week by Politico, detailed his justifications for overturning Roe v. Wade, he invoked a surprising name given the case's subject. In writing about abortion, a matter inextricably tied to a woman's control over her body, Alito chose to quote from Sir Matthew Hale, a 17th-century English jurist whose writings and reasonings have caused enduring damage to women for hundreds of years.

MFA:

For the really rich, it is true: Traveling to get an abortion and evading prosecution will more or less be a cinch. But the chasm between really rich and everyone else gets deeper every day, and it is simply not true that a suburban white mom of three in Missouri or the teenage daughter of well-off Christian conservatives in Alabama will be in a position to get the abortion she needs when she needs it with ease and without risk to herself, her family, or the people willing to help her. Even crossing to another state to obtain an abortion may entail legal jeopardy as states consider various means to prohibit and criminalize abortion travel.

It's going to be a shock. Precisely because of racial and class disparities in every area of American life, white middle-class women are used to having certain kinds of systemic support: hospitals where they can feel cared for, responsive physicians. Those supports can no longer be taken for granted. To consider even the most cynical caricature of white middle-class womanhood, the Karens who are used to calling the manager when they have a complaint, the reality is going to be that, in many places, there will no longer be a manager to call. And if there is, he might report you to authorities. The choices that people, even people of means, make about how to end pregnancies are going to require calculations they have rarely had to do before: about their own risks of criminal prosecution and about state-enforced systems that are there not to work on their behalf but to limit and punish their choices.

And don't be fooled: While scrutiny will be sharpest on poor and Black and brown people, women and people with uteruses of every race are going to be questioned not only about their unintended pregnancies but about the miscarriages of their wanted pregnancies. In states where post-Roe trigger bans begin at conception, various forms of birth control--including IUDs--could be considered abortifacients, and there will be strenuous attempts to make them inaccessible or illegal. For similar reasons, people undergoing IVF treatments may find that their embryos have been granted rights they did not previously have.

Those who live in states with fewer restrictions, even in states that have wisely strengthened protections in recent years, will certainly have an easier time. But their circumstances will be changed too, by the influx of patients from other parts of the country. Wait times and, with them, pressures on viability limits will increase. Moreover, resting easy on the idea of a patchwork of safer states assumes Republicans will not find a way to enact a federal legislative ban. For years, I've been told that will never happen. For years, I'd also been told that Roe would never fall.

In time, abortion's illegality is going to affect everyone: you, your friends, your loved ones, your community, your kids, and your parents. It's going to affect you if you or someone you know wants an abortion, and it's frankly going to affect you even if you don't.

Chilling video. Hard to imagine this is exactly what could happen in some states in our country:

Republicans are getting very upset people keep retweeting this ad so I figured I would post for any of you who haven't seen it yet and then I am going to retweet myself tonight.

"Especially since her body contains more potential future children that would never see life if she died for the sake of any particular unborn zygote(s)."

You have reminded me of a pet peeve I have with regard to the abortion debate. When I was 7 or 8, my mother gave birth to a stillborn baby. Years later I asked her how she felt about that dead baby. Did she still grieve for her? My mother said, "No, if that baby had lived, we wouldn't have Susie [fake name for my sister who was born when I was 9]." I have a friend who had two abortions when she was young and who then went on to have two children she gave birth to and raised. This notion that there have been 62 million abortions since Roe was passed means that 62 million children are now missing and can never be replaced is based on faulty reasoning. I believe there are many people alive today that wouldn't be here if those 62 million children had been carried to term. I don't think it is a one to one ratio, but I am certain there are millions of women who went on to have children they never would have had if they had not had an abortion at some point in their lives.

#3 Very good point.

If the state wants to increase the domestic supply of infants by outlawing abortion, then the state should support the mandated mother and her child with medical and child support until the child's 18th birthday:

Nobody likes abortion, even when safe and legal. It's not what any woman would choose for a happy time on Saturday night. But nobody likes women bleeding to death on the bathroom floor from illegal abortions either. What to do?

Perhaps a different way of approaching the question would be to ask: What kind of country do you want to live in? One in which every individual is free to make decisions concerning his or her health and body, or one in which half the population is free and the other half is enslaved?

Women who cannot make their own decisions about whether or not to have babies are enslaved because the state claims ownership of their bodies and the right to dictate the use to which their bodies must be put. The only similar circumstance for men is conscription into an army. In both cases there is risk to the individual's life, but an army conscript is at least provided with food, clothing, and lodging. Even criminals in prisons have a right to those things. If the state is mandating enforced childbirth, why should it not pay for prenatal care, for the birth itself, for postnatal care, and--for babies who are not sold off to richer families--for the cost of bringing up the child?

And if the state is very fond of babies, why not honour the women who have the most babies by respecting them and lifting them out of poverty? If women are providing a needed service to the state--albeit against their wills--surely they should be paid for their labour. If the goal is more babies, I am sure many women would oblige if properly recompensed. Otherwise, they are inclined to follow the natural law: placental mammals will abort in the face of resource scarcity.

They are already amping up the 2nd amendment rhetoric as if these state anti-abortion laws are being instituted by Republicans and only Republicans.

"The GOP wants Civil War"

Yes:

MFA:

The right won't be content to watch liberal states try to undermine abortion bans. As the draft of a forthcoming article in The Columbia Law Review puts it, "overturning Roe and Casey will create a novel world of complicated, interjurisdictional legal conflicts over abortion. Instead of creating stability and certainty, it will lead to profound confusion because advocates on all sides of the abortion controversy will not stop at state borders in their efforts to apply their policies as broadly as possible."

Experts don't know how these kinds of interstate battles are going to play out because there's so little precedent for them. If you're searching for close parallels, said Ziegler, "you're looking at fugitive slave cases, because there are not many times in history when states are trying to tell other states what to do in this way." The point is not that abortion bans are comparable to slavery in a moral sense, but that they create potentially irreconcilable legal frameworks.

Conservatives, of course, have a plan for reconciling clashing abortion laws--a federal abortion ban. Speaking to NBC News this week, Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota said he was concerned about women traveling across state lines to get abortions. "I don't find a lot of solace in that just because it didn't happen in my state," he said. "So yeah, I think you could expect that pro-life activists would push for federal protections." According to The Washington Post, Joni Ernst, a Republican senator from Iowa, plans to introduce a bill to ban abortion after six weeks.

It won't pass as long as Democrats are in control, but at some point, there will almost certainly be a Republican president and a Republican Congress. It's easy to imagine conservative activists demanding that their leaders jettison the filibuster in order to push through a national abortion ban. It's hard to imagine the Republican senators who've defended the filibuster putting procedural principle above one of their base's most cherished goals.