It's the last line of defense......

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in an interview Friday that he does not believe that there's a Democrat in the 2020 field today who can prevent President Trump from winning a second term.

Johnson, a lifelong Democrat who has in the past praised Trump, told CNBC that his opinion was based on facts and he did not want to make it political.

"I think the president has always been in a position where it’s his to lose based on his bringing a sort of disruptive force into what would be called political norms,” he said.

Johnson said it would be wise to disregard polling that shows Trump losing his grip in battleground states and said if you took a "snapshot" today the election would be Trump's to lose.

In July, Johnson – the country’s first African-American billionaire – warned that the Democrats have become too liberal and said at the time that he isn’t supporting a particular 2020 candidate.

“I think the economy is doing great, and it’s particularly reaching populations that heretofore had very bad problems in terms of jobs and employment and the opportunities that come with employment,” Johnson said at the time. “African-American unemployment is at its lowest level…  I give the president a lot of credit for moving the economy in a positive direction that’s benefiting a large amount of Americans.”

OK....let me look deep into my crystal ball...
What do I see?

OH LOOK.......

Women are lining up.
It looks to be in front of a nice building.
They are holding signs.
Chanting.
I see a sign a sign, on this building.
BET Television.

Oh golly, my ball went, er....black.

Am I that obtuse, that no one got my snark?  

re: abortion.....it is so draconian, with today's medical advances, and birth control, etc....
However, it does sorta tie into the disingenuous motivation of the democrat platform.
It's a woman's choice, period, no men have say, however these same folk, white ones, can tell a Black man, he ain't acting in a black mans best interest.....

The life growing inside does not get a choice, does not have a say in the matter.

At it's core, the Pro-Choice position is that the very definition of the words "human life" and the value of that life is determined by a single individual whom biology has selected as the one to develop that life.

It's wrong to destroy it.

Up until a fetus can sustain itself outside the womb, it's not viable, and it's not a baby.

Technology is moving that time earlier and earlier. Right now that's between 22 and 24 weeks I believe. Assuming of course you or your insurance carrier can afford it.

So the definition of life is dependent upon technology and prosperity?

In one case, its the premature birth of a human being.  In another case, at the exact same point in gestation, it's not. It's treated like am unwanted tissue, a tumor or something.

To me, that's an unbridgeable paradox.

I think it is. You lobby to bridge countless issues that aren't any of your personal business.

What business is it of yours if I choose to own a 20 round magazine?

I could take any argument you make why you believe it is in fact your business to tell me why I can't make that choice and I could use the same logic to make a stronger case why severely restricting abortion is the right thing to do.

The woman's right to choose is hers alone and affects her alone. It only seems that way on the surface. Question; why does society make attempts to limit self-destructive behavior even when that person refuses to acknowledge the behavior or activity has destructive consequences? We do that because it has a cost to the rest of society.
Can you make a valid argument that 40 million abortions have had no effect on society?
Restricting guns/magazines/weapons effects (potentially) many on the business side of the weapon.  (Just go ask a parent who had a child killed at Sandy Hook)
Ask a person who discovered his mother aborted a sibling?

In the case of women's rights, it's actually the liberal stance that is for smaller government and the conservative side that wants government running their life.
Not really. The conservative side has a scientific and logical definition of life. If you believe a 26 week old unborn baby is in fact a baby, being against abortion is the only logical conclusion.
And by the way, this belief is not without consequences. I am against the death penalty for this same reason which is not always an easy position to stand by.  Granting the State the right to end a life is limited to war and self-defense. In the news today was the story of a woman who hung her two children, 8 and 4 I think were their ages. In St Louis this month, a man killed his pregnant wife and dumped her body in cold, frozen field because he was having an affair. It's not the State's decision to end their life.

WebsterMark wrote on 12/03/19 at 12:56:01: