Right now if you're a Republican, good luck in your primary if you support any form of amnesty, any form of gun control, any form of tax increase. I think those are the big ones. Therefore, if you are a Democrat, good luck if you don't support any form of amnesty, any gun restrictions, and tax increases.

Can a Republican win a primary being in favor of a 15 week ban or rape/incest exception vs. the hard no Republican. Likewise can a Democrat win being pro-choice to a limit vs. Colorado type rule?

What races are still holding primaries?

I don't disagree with the premise of what you're saying, just curious if there still are any primaries remaining. Same for runoff.

Never compromise with these people

Not if I have any say in the matter.

No, not anymore.

Dan Scott said:

---

Right now if you're a Republican, good luck in your primary if you support any form of amnesty, any form of gun control, any form of tax increase. I think those are the big ones. Therefore, if you are a Democrat, good luck if you don't support any form of amnesty, any gun restrictions, and tax increases.

Can a Republican win a primary being in favor of a 15 week ban or rape/incest exception vs. the hard no Republican. Likewise can a Democrat win being pro-choice to a limit vs. Colorado type rule?

---

Can't afford to compromise anymore because it never stops.

Never compromise. Only fight.

Abortions for some, small miniature flags for everyone!

I doubt it. It went form Women's health to certain states allowing abortion up to viability. That's ****ed up.

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

What races are still holding primaries?

I don't disagree with the premise of what you're saying, just curious if there still are any primaries remaining. Same for runoff.

---

I believe half the states still have primaries upcoming

It is like compromising on slavery. We didn't say " why don't we free everyone above 15".

It is much more polarized than the other issues that you listed.

Quote:

---

Right now if you're a Republican, good luck in your primary if you support any form of amnesty, any form of gun control, any form of tax increase.

---

Only the third is true.

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

Why would you wait 15 weeks after being raped?

The status quo was the "compromise". Then someone in Mississippi wasn't satisfied with first trimester limitations and forced the hand of the SC.

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

If the "pro-choice" (lol) groups would stop firebombing pregnancy centers, maybe we could get a head start on supporting them.

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

I think there are religious charities already doing that work, assuming they don't get burned down by the goons on the Left. How about people beginning to take responsibility for the pregnancies they cause?

One Louder said:

---

The status quo was the "compromise". Then someone in Mississippi wasn't satisfied with first trimester limitations and forced the hand of the SC.

---

Sounds like "legislation from the bench". Thought texags was against that.

Give us the difference between compromise and concession.

cmag said:

---

One Louder said:

---

The status quo was the "compromise". Then someone in Mississippi wasn't satisfied with first trimester limitations and forced the hand of the SC.

---

Sounds like "legislation from the bench". Thought texags was against that.

---

Nice try. Mississippi passed a law

BMX Bandit said:

---

cmag said:

---

One Louder said:

---

The status quo was the "compromise". Then someone in Mississippi wasn't satisfied with first trimester limitations and forced the hand of the SC.

---

Sounds like "legislation from the bench". Thought texags was against that.

---

Nice try. Mississippi passed a law

---

Yep. Roe was poorly-decided law ("legislating from the bench") and then a disgruntled party in MS allowed the court to correct it.

Gov should provide free tubaligation to any one thats is in favor of abortion. Solves more than one problem.

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

No. Thinking reasonable people understand that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Babies conceived in rape or incest are no less worthy of protection than any other baby. "Harm" to the mother is no restriction at all because it can very easily be argued that any and all pregnancies carry risk of "harm" to the mother to one degree or another.

Doesn't matter what they think on a national level. It is a state issue. On the state level the people can decide who has values closest to them overall.

Pinche Guero said:

---

Never compromise with these people

---

Agreed. There is no common ground anymore. These people are evil.

And this is why this country will split soon enough.

And it should.

For decades your side used those exceptions to demand unlimited abortion access.

You used dreamers to demand total amnesty and unlimited illegal immigration.

You created sanctuary cities and states instead of following federal law.

You used the courts and cherry picked judges to ignore precedent and law.

You cheered and rubbed the right's noses in it as agencies that were supposed to be apolitical were weaponized to persecute those whose political ideals did not align with yours.

At every turn the left negotiated in bad faith and demanded total capitulation and cheated when they did not get it.

AND NOW YOU WANT TO COMPROMISE?

Two words.

**** YOU.

cmag said:

---

Reasonable people would probably agree that there are certain instances - rape, incest, harm to mother, etc.

Also, seems like since the religious right won this battle, it's probably time to start taxing them so we can pay for the social services that are gonna be required.

---

I think you are right and I agree. If we could curb the religious right a tad, we could have some reasonable people getting it done. It's an excellent example of being 'extreme'. This is how you lose your average republican voter to a non voter or third party. Trump would still be in office if he understood how to temper himself a tad. That wasn't his style and we are all paying for it now.

Why not place the blame where it belongs- the left has absurdly nothing productive to offer.

If moderates had recognized this we wouldn't be stuck with sleepy Joe and this **** show.

The problem never lied with Trump. The problem was also with people who think like you.

Dan Scott said:

---

Right now if you're a Republican, good luck in your primary if you support any form of amnesty, any form of gun control, any form of tax increase. I think those are the big ones. Therefore, if you are a Democrat, good luck if you don't support any form of amnesty, any gun restrictions, and tax increases.

Can a Republican win a primary being in favor of a 15 week ban or rape/incest exception vs. the hard no Republican. Likewise can a Democrat win being pro-choice to a limit vs. Colorado type rule?

---

Yes, in certain parts of the country. The vast majority of Americans are ok with abortion with restrictions - say rape, incest, 15 week ban. Might even be possible in some suburban Districts in Texas

We desperately need the two parties to each have a core with leadership and a moderate group with leadership. As a Reagan conservative who read the recent Texas GOP platform like something out The Onion, I have nowhere to call home. Have to figure which party I can go to try to argue for country over party. Talk about slim pickens. Jokers to the right of me, knuckleheads to the left.

Bearpitbull said:

---

We desperately need the two parties to each have a core with leadership and a moderate group with leadership. As a Reagan conservative who read the recent Texas GOP platform like something out The Onion, I have nowhere to call home. Have to figure which party I can go to try to argue for country over party. Talk about slim pickens. Jokers to the right of me, knuckleheads to the left.

---

What about the platform do you take issue with?

Bearpitbull said:

---

We desperately need the two parties to each have a core with leadership and a moderate group with leadership. As a Reagan conservative who read the recent Texas GOP platform like something out The Onion, I have nowhere to call home. Have to figure which party I can go to try to argue for country over party. Talk about slim pickens. Jokers to the right of me, knuckleheads to the left.

---

Lemme know where you land because I'm with you. I'm an F16 liberal that's never voted D in my life, but I can't follow these dip****s in the GOP anymore.

It would depend on the state they are running in. A N.E. state Republican could compromise, Southern state, no so much.

Bearpitbull said:

---

We desperately need the two parties to each have a core with leadership and a moderate group with leadership. As a Reagan conservative who read the recent Texas GOP platform like something out The Onion, I have nowhere to call home. Have to figure which party I can go to try to argue for country over party. Talk about slim pickens. Jokers to the right of me, knuckleheads to the left.

---

Ummmm you do realize that Republicans have leaders that have routinely crossed party lines on key legislation- McCain has, McConnell has, hell Cornyn a ranking republican senator is crossing the aisle on red flag laws.

You are begging for moderation and there is only one party that has routinely given ground without getting anything in return.

This fact has led to further hardlining on the right. Dem leadership has been entrenched for years. Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, all proven liars who ****ed Republicans over when they claimed to want to compromise and rammed bills through instead of reaching across the aisle.

It's hilarious to me that you "moderates" are lamenting the fact that the right has become unwilling to compromise even as the left becomes more extreme and socialist.

Maybe the right is drawing a hard line because the left is too far left.

The right has not moved on any issues or pushed for further right legislation in 30 years but the left has introduced late term, partial birth abortion, UBI, socialism, spying red flag laws, socialism for medical care, environmental socialism, far left policy after far left policy, unfettered immigration, transgender laws, etc.

The answer to your question is obvious.

SB 43rd STREET OG said:

---

Never compromise. Only fight.

---

Past history shows this is the only option. Compromise only emboldens systematic expansion by the left.