There were 2 authentic drain the swamp candidates (maybe 3 if you include DeSantis) ..... Vivek and Burgam .

On abortion only Vivek and Burgam got it right that abortion as a policy has to remain a state power issue (not discussed would be an amendment ban on abortion which would then make it a federal issue.)

The problem with other's like Scott Nikki and Pence is that if a law is passed by Congress ;it can be reversed by the next Congress . As long as it is an unsettled issue by the people ,the only way to deal with it is on a state by state basis. SCOTUSfinally got it right.

As previously mentioned by j . No one adequately addressed the elephant in the room ..... the out of control national debt.

Election integrity was largely brushed over . Given what happened to Trump yesterday that should be a bigger issue,

Big government censorship was not a topic (but they managed to get a question in about UFOs ) A couple mentioned the weaponization of the DOJ but none was bold enough to say that knowing what we now know about the Biden Crime family ;the 1st Trump impeachment was completely unwarranted

Quote:

---

an amendment ban on abortion

---

Both the fifth and fourteenth amendments state that a person's life cannot be taken without due process of law. I think SCOTUS completely blew it. They should have followed the pretty clear reading of those two amendments. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year still perish. The people don't get to decide that a person's life can be arbitrarily ended. In leaving it to the states, it becomes certain that some states will allow abortion up to the moment of birth.

Quote:

---

No one adequately addressed the elephant in the room ..... the out of control national debt.

---

I think Haley did and also correctly pointed out that Scott, Pence and DeSantis were both implicated in it as former/current members of Congress. Hutchinson as well, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year still perish.

---

And what are your plans for them once they have been born? Far too many will be physically and mentally handicapped, and/or born into bad situations too numrous to list.

Quote:

---

The people don't get to decide that a person's life can be arbitrarily ended.

---

Nor do they get to overrule the mother (or father if the mother is unable to decide).

She addressed it by pointing fingers without giving a plan to deal with it .


The funny thing is that the left believes the 14th amendment due process is satisfied because of the invented right of privacy ;aka substantive rights which are not explicitly listed in the Constitution aka as ‘unenumerated rights’ .

Dobbs may have reversed that but it will take many other decisions . Certainly Clarence Thomas said they should scrutinize past substantive rights cases like Griswald ;Lawrence ;and Obergefell .

Quote:

---

And what are your plans for them once they have been born? Far too many will be physically and mentally handicapped, and/or born into bad situations too numrous to list.

---

So after a child is born, if it is mentally/physically handicapped, or born into a bad situation, would you be OK with killing it then? If not, then how is an 8 month old fetus different from a child that's been born for a month? And please don't use the, "If it's not breathing, then it has no soul," excuse. That has been repeatedly shown to be a poor approach.

Quote:

---

Nor do they get to overrule the mother

---

Well of course they do. It's done all the time. The mother cannot sell a kidney or a cornea, even though those actually ARE a part of her body. The mother cannot use her body for prostitution. The mother cannot announce she is going to kill her body without expecting someone to "overrule" that decision. A mother cannot kill her 3 month old because it cried too much. You really should know these things.

What are my plans for them after they are born? You're really asking that question? What is the plan now for children who are born? What's been the plan for the past thousands of years?

Quote:

---

She addressed it by pointing fingers without giving a plan to deal with it .

---

Fair enough statement. I think that's going to be a painful process. A good start might be to cut all federal departments by 5% but insist that the work must still get done by increasing efficiency, cutting redtape, and working harder. Got an employee not on board with that? Show them the door. They can be part of the 5%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So after a child is born, if it is mentally/physically handicapped, or born into a bad situation, would you be OK with killing it then?

---

Who will adopt it?

Quote:

---

how is an 8 month old fetus different from a child that's been born for a month?

---

First, the fetus takes the breath of life. Second, then the fetus becomes a living soul.

forgot to add rights found in " penumbras, formed by emanations."(Griswald) The dumbest phrase ever written by a SCOTUS judge.

Penumbra is the space of partial illumination between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light .
Emanations is a cosmological theory which asserts that all things "flow" from an underlying principle or reality aka God

Quote:

---

Who will adopt it?

---

Who adopts them now? I know that you think you are being clever in suggesting that unborn children should be killed to help us escape the sometimes uncomfortable dilemma of what to do with a young child that his/her foolish, irresponsible mother does not want. Sorry...won't work.

Quote:

---

First, the fetus takes the breath of life. Second, then the fetus becomes a living soul.

---

A completely foolish position for which there is no support at all. And no, it is not supported in Genesis at all. Not even close. It's just a silly assertion that makes no sense at all. But if you think it does, then by all means put forward your case.

Quote:

---

forgot to add rights found in " penumbras, formed by emanations."(Griswald) The dumbest phrase ever written by a SCOTUS judge.

---

Also known as just making it up as you go along. It's interesting that in an appeal to the fifth amendment, the liberals cooked up a right to privacy, named nowhere in the amendment, and completely overlooked the right to life which IS found in the amendment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who adopts them now?

---

No one.

Quote:

---

A completely foolish position for which there is no support at all. And no, it is not supported in Genesis at all. Not even close.

---

Genesis:
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Mankind wasn't a living soul until that first breath was taken.

Who adopts them now?

Quote:

---

No one.

---

Oh please. That is just a completely foolish response. There is a SHORTAGE of children to adopt, not a surplus. You really shouldn't comment on this if you don't know that.

Quote:

---

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

---

The correct translation is that Adam became a living being. In other words, he was not alive at all, being formed of dust, but when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, he became alive. That is true of no other human (Did God breathe the breath of life into Eve?) since no fetus can be said to be dead in the womb. And babies actually do breathe fluid in the womb. It's known as fetal breathing movements, so even if that position made sense, breathing is already taking place in the womb. Even worse for your case, many babies are born not breathing and must receive treatment in order to start. So are they dead and not a living soul when they are born not breathing at birth?

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Genesis%202%3A7

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who adopts them now?Oh please. That is just a completely foolish response. There is a SHORTAGE of children to adopt, not a surplus.

---

A shortage of normal, unblemished ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Who adopts them now?Oh please. That is just a completely foolish response. There is a SHORTAGE of children to adopt, not a surplus.

---

Hardly. Kids are fostered but aren't necessarily adopted. Please provide adoption stats and documentation.

Quote:

---

A shortage of normal, unblemished ones.

---

Well now you're changing your tune. I don't think even what you're saying now is accurate, but support it if you can. We can discuss it.

Quote:

---

Hardly. Kids are fostered but aren't necessarily adopted. Please provide adoption stats and documentation

---

Please note that when asked to provide support for my statements, I am readily willing and able to do so. You could learn something from that.

Quote:

---

While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption. Based on this couples waiting to adopt statistic, many couples are waiting to adopt.

---

https://www.americanadoptions.com/pr...ptive_families

https://www.lifenews.com/2012/05/17/...over-adoption/

https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2021/...ns/6705998002/

Do you need more???

Quote:

---

Tucked into a footnote for that statement was a telling citation from a 2008 CDC report that found "nearly 1 million women were seeking to adopt children in 2002 (i.e., they were in demand for a child), whereas the domestic supply of infants relinquished at birth or within the first month of life and available to be adopted had become virtually nonexistent."

---

https://www.salon.com/2022/05/03/ado...han-it-sounds/

Why are those couples waiting? Waiting for a normal child to adopt?

Only certain children are placed for adoption.

From
U.S. ADOPTION & FOSTER CARE STATISTICS
https://www.ccainstitute.org/resourc...ptive%20family.

• On any given day, over 391,000 children are living in the U.S. foster care system and the number has been rising. Over 113,000 of these children are eligible for adoption and they will wait, on average, almost three years for an adoptive family.
• 53% of the children and youth who left foster care were reunited with their families or living with a relative; 25% were adopted.
• More than 48,000 youth in U.S. foster care live in institutions, group homes, and other environments, instead of with a family.

Your ridiculous, unsupported speculation does not serve you well. A simple, "Gosh, turns out I was wrong," would be much more appropriate.

The couples are waiting, as any person with eyes to read could have found out in ten minutes, because there are FAR MORE couples wanting to adopt than children available. But I guess you will continue on with your "Kill them," approach since you don't like the the truth. Sad.

Quote:

---

• On any given day, over 391,000 children are living in the U.S. foster care system and the number has been rising.

---

• Most children in foster care are there temporarily until they can be returned to their families.
  Quote:

  ---

  Over 113,000 of these children are eligible for adoption and they will wait, on average, almost three years for an adoptive family.

  ---

  Thank you for validating the fact that they do get adopted.
• Quote:

  ---

  53% of the children and youth who left foster care were reunited with their families or living with a relative; 25% were adopted.

  ---

  Which is exactly what I stated above. Do you even bother to read your own articles??? At any rate, it was very nice of you to link an article that supported by case. Thank you!

You are horribly incorrect. I've toured foster-care group homes/institutions and have seen the kids that aren't adopted.

Your own article supports my position. The argument is over. Your usual approach of, "Oh, I've seen thus and such," won't work now anymore than the last time you've tried it.

Read. Learn. Please.

As I previously noted --

53% [only half!!!] of the children and youth who left foster care were reunited with their families or living with a relative; [only] 25% were adopted.

So? How does that show that there is a surplus of children needing adoption to support your position of killing unborn children? There was "only" 25% adopted because the others are largely returned to their families. Is that bad??