Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[Emjay]

Abortion in general, or the idea that Democrats are selling fetuses for profit?

Thing is, I went down this route with Xarog many times. He makes a wild claim, then substantiates it by giving a vast number of dubious links and demands that you refute them. You need to realize that on the face of it, the claim that Democrats are trafficking in fetal tissue is extraordinary and demands more evidence than some shadowy interview footage stitched together by an anti-abortion organization; and the effort level of trying to verify that footage is just not worth it for anyone on here. But just for the record:

I would consider that to be sufficiently damning evidence AGAINST the centre for medical progress, and completely disqualifies that footage.

Because something requires additional effort to verify does not make it not worth it. And shutting out everything that runs counter to your beliefs, morals and world view is being close minded. Thank you for confirming what I said a couple of days ago about this.

 

[cerebus]

Because something requires additional effort to verify does not make it not worth it. And shutting out everything that runs counter to your beliefs, morals and world view is being close minded. Thank you for confirming what I said a couple of days ago about this.

It took a few minutes to find the Wikipedia link that showed how CMP were demolished in court. Why couldn't you have applied the same level of skepticism before blindly swallowing every piece of alarmist crap you see?

 

[Emjay]

It took a few minutes to find the Wikipedia link that showed how CMP were demolished in court. Why couldn't you have applied the same level of skepticism before blindly swallowing every piece of alarmist crap you see?

I did if you actually understand what I posted in my initial post. There were settlements around this too, but let's carry on ignoring that fact. Next time you post something that is done on a partisan basis, I am going to outright reject it on that basis, and label it "alarmist crap". Like I said. Close minded and argue in bad faith.

 

[cerebus]

I did if you actually understand what I posted in my initial post. There were settlements around this too, but let's carry on ignoring that fact. Next time you post something that is done on a partisan basis, I am going to outright reject it on that basis, and label it "alarmist crap". Like I said. Close minded and argue in bad faith.

It's got nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with the fact that they were indicted on felony charges which, notwithstanding settlements, were basically upheld. I would have been embarrassed to have posted such a conclusively debunked source, yet you not only double down but then accuse me of being unwilling to change my position when presented with counter evidence.

 

[scudsucker]

Ah, the well known, tried and tested "Unless you provide examples that I approve of, your arguement is invalid" approach.

What, Emjay, would be an example of a "non-partisan" post that still refutes your theories?

 

[surface]

Ah, the well known, tried and tested "Unless you provide examples that I approve of, your argument is invalid" approach.

What, Emjay, would be an example of a "non-partisan" post that still refutes your theories?

Your own?

 

[scudsucker]

Your own?

Alas, that is my own statement. If someone else had stated it, they would have used correct English:

Unless you provide examples of which I approve, your argument is invalid

 

[greg0205]

Because something requires additional effort to verify does not make it not worth it. And shutting out everything that runs counter to your beliefs, morals and world view is being close minded. Thank you for confirming what I said a couple of days ago about this.

Yeah, no.

What, with the PP derail over the last day or so, one question has been left unasked, and this post has required an intervention to ask it.

Liberal, commie pinko, SJW that I am, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I'm pro choice.

You say this is a "super emotive" issue for you, but from your posts, I'm not clear if that means abortion generally, or late term abortion. GBM calls it the murder of unborn children, so we all know where he stands.

You also claim conservatism as an ideology. To my mind, that means you believe in civil liberties and freedom from government oppression. In fact, government should specifically be there to protect your rights as an individual. Small government, mind you, and *your* liberties above all.

In the face of you or GBM ever having to make a call on abortion, liberal, commie pinko, SJW me would defend your decision, whatever it was, to the nth degree... How is it then, that you'd have the exact opposite for folk like me? That you'd have government reach into the most private part of our lives to dictate to us, as individuals, what we can and can't do?

And, given that, how is it even possible that you feel entitled to respond to cerebus with, "shutting out everything that runs counter to your beliefs, morals and world view is being close minded"?

 

[Unhappy438]

Because it is super emotive for me. And for most people I think it would be. And as I get older, this issue hits home harder.

Ok fair enough but i would suggest that impairs logic however do you have an answer to which point you think a fetus starts feeling pain?

 

[Unhappy438]

@Emjay

So i was 100% right then

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088288311922307072

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088289916826648577

As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an.... ....alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a “great” State of the Union Address in the near future!

 

[Emjay]

Ok fair enough but i would suggest that impairs logic however do you have an answer to which point you think a fetus starts feeling pain?

In the third trimester once the central nervous system has developed. Which is at 28 weeks I see. So, not quite 20 weeks. Because it's an emotive issue, I am not blind to this. It does not change the morality of it anyway, but is an aggravating factor in my view.

@Emjay

So i was 100% right then

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088288311922307072

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088289916826648577

As the Shutdown was going on, Nancy Pelosi asked me to give the State of the Union Address. I agreed. She then changed her mind because of the Shutdown, suggesting a later date. This is her prerogative - I will do the Address when the Shutdown is over. I am not looking for an.... ....alternative venue for the SOTU Address because there is no venue that can compete with the history, tradition and importance of the House Chamber. I look forward to giving a “great” State of the Union Address in the near future!

Ok, I concede it is important to him. I still don't think it's important as it's a monarchical practice. I think his response is weak, and is making him look weak. He should just do his own thing, and will have the same impact. A speech at the border wall with the angel moms in the front row would be highly impactful.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

It's got nothing to do with partisanship, and everything to do with the fact that they were indicted on felony charges which, notwithstanding settlements, were basically upheld. I would have been embarrassed to have posted such a conclusively debunked source, yet you not only double down but then accuse me of being unwilling to change my position when presented with counter evidence.

Ok, explain how the felony charges shows that CMP were lying, please.

Reminder, here is what Emjay quoted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_undercover_videos_controversy

In 2015, an anti-abortion organization named the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released several videos that had been secretly recorded. Members of the CMP posed as representatives of a biotechnology company in order to gain access to both meetings with abortion providers and abortion facilities. The videos showed how abortion providers made fetal tissue available to researchers, although no problems were found with the legality of the process. All of the videos were alleged to be altered, according to analysis by Fusion GPS and its co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a former investigative reporter for The Wall Street Journal. The CMP disputed this finding, attributing the alterations to the editing out of "bathroom breaks and waiting periods." A panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the videos were not deceptively edited.[1]

My bold.

Now here's the quote of the citation:

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Charles Smith (2019) ("The district court stated, inaccurately, that the CMP video had not been authenticated and suggested that it may have been edited. ...In fact, the record reflects that OIG had submitted a report from a forensic firm concluding that the video was authentic and not deceptively edited. And the plaintiffs did not identify any particular omission or addition in the video footage."). Text See footnote 6.

So the 5th circuit appeals court has now validated the legitimacy of the evidence in a court of law, using forensic auditors, and this ruling was just the other day since the case was heard in 2019. All this crying about the video being debunked is contrary to what legal experts have concluded, and your felony charges prove... what?

 

[Unhappy438]

In the third trimester once the central nervous system has developed. Which is at 28 weeks I see. So, not quite 20 weeks. Because it's an emotive issue, I am not blind to this. It does not change the morality of it anyway, but is an aggravating factor in my view.

Ya fair enough 28 weeks seems to be the general conclusion, i don't think anyone should be able to abort after 20 weeks unless its for medical reasons. Ive also noticed some places are requiring sedatives for the fetus if an abortion is necessary at a late stage which is good. I agree with Orbital though, education and contraception is the best method to reduce abortions. Abstinence generally goes against human nature.

Ok, I concede it is important to him. I still don't think it's important as it's a monarchical practice. I think his response is weak, and is making him look weak. He should just do his own thing, and will have the same impact. A speech at the border wall with the angel moms in the front row would be highly impactful.

I think his tweet was one of the more level headed ones during his tenure, perhaps it even goes as far as suggesting he is softening towards a deal with the Dems.

 

[theratman]

In the third trimester once the central nervous system has developed. Which is at 28 weeks I see. So, not quite 20 weeks. Because it's an emotive issue, I am not blind to this. It does not change the morality of it anyway, but is an aggravating factor in my view.



Ok, I concede it is important to him. I still don't think it's important as it's a monarchical practice. I think his response is weak, and is making him look weak. He should just do his own thing, and will have the same impact. A speech at the border wall with the angel moms in the front row would be highly impactful.

I disagree about him appearing weak. Him not throwing his toys out the cot and acting level headed (As unhappy said) is a good sign and shows that he can work with others.

As for softening on a deal. Someone is going to have to cave at some point.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I disagree about him appearing weak. Him not throwing his toys out the cot and acting level headed (As unhappy said) is a good sign and shows that he can work with others.

As for softening on a deal. Someone is going to have to cave at some point.

I don't think it shows him being level-headed so much as it shows Pelosi as being petty and deranged. The idea that they couldn't afford the security fees because of the shutdown was a pretty lie that made the move seem reasonable. But then Trump took the excuse away and made her double down on the snub.

Trump has been staying at the WH since the shutdown started, spending Christmas there, and I haven't heard any stories about him playing golf, so I assume he hasn't done any of that either. In other words, he's doing everything he can to appear like someone working hard and ready to make a deal at the drop of a hat.

On the other hand, Pelosi has been flying all over the place and point blank refused to even talk to Trump. And when Trump took away her flying privileges, the media brouhaha exposed the fact that Pelosi had been abusing the travel privileges to fly her, her children and her grandchildren all over the place. You'd think she could avoid stealing money from the taxpayer given that she has $200 million in the bank, no? I anticipate an ethics investigation to start at some point over this, as I can't see the Republicans passing up such an opportunity.

So it looks to me more like this latest move by Trump is him trying to unbalance his opponent's position rather than a softening as such.

 

[Emjay]

Yeah, no.

What, with the PP derail over the last day or so, one question has been left unasked, and this post has required an intervention to ask it.

Liberal, commie pinko, SJW that I am, it should come as no surprise to anyone that I'm pro choice.

You say this is a "super emotive" issue for you, but from your posts, I'm not clear if that means abortion generally, or late term abortion. GBM calls it the murder of unborn children, so we all know where he stands.

You also claim conservatism as an ideology. To my mind, that means you believe in civil liberties and freedom from government oppression. In fact, government should specifically be there to protect your rights as an individual. Small government, mind you, and *your* liberties above all.

In the face of you or GBM ever having to make a call on abortion, liberal, commie pinko, SJW me would defend your decision, whatever it was, to the nth degree... How is it then, that you'd have the exact opposite for folk like me? That you'd have government reach into the most private part of our lives to dictate to us, as individuals, what we can and can't do?

And, given that, how is it even possible that you feel entitled to respond to cerebus with, "shutting out everything that runs counter to your beliefs, morals and world view is being close minded"?

My position on abortion is difficult and is not one on a political basis. There is quite a bit of cogitative dissonance there, and I can admit it. I am very aware of this. And there are many, many reasons. I am open to debate on early term abortions on the basis of science. But when you break it down, and go into the philosophy of life, the ability to extinguish something that has potential on superfluous grounds (wealth, personal freedom, genetics), it gets too difficult to maintain a position of pro-choice.

If we can so easily extinguish a life, how is it that life is sacrosanct? Where do we push-back on ideas, because we are pushing boundaries all the time. What barely skirts acceptance now is allowed, that is now the new norm, and we eventually push that new norm? How come it is now ok to have late term abortions (up to the point where a baby is ready to exit the birth canal), but we cannot make women and men be more responsible in terms of birth control? How is it ok to celebrate having an abortion and shout it out but not to tell a woman she is neglectful for engaging in irresponsible sexual practices?

Your views about Conservatism are incorrect. USA Conservatism is actually about conserving the vision that the forefathers had and which are enshrined in the American Constitution. Government is there to ensure that the social contract we have with each other is upheld, but they are not under any circumstances a moral arbiter. You may not like to admit it, but those lines are being blurred more and more. We are also seeing the sciences being weakened because of this.

I am not going to defend killing an unborn child for the sake of "reproductive health" (which is so counter intuitive, it's laughable) and freedom of choice. This is in my view bending my morals. It's either wrong or right. We believe life is sacrosanct, or we don't. If you want to change your moral position based on the other person's position and their beliefs, what is the point of having any position?

 

[greg0205]

My position on abortion is difficult and is not one on a political basis. There is quite a bit of cogitative dissonance there, and I can admit it. I am very aware of this. And there are many, many reasons. I am open to debate on early term abortions on the basis of science. But when you break it down, and go into the philosophy of life, the ability to extinguish something that has potential on superfluous grounds (wealth, personal freedom, genetics), it gets too difficult to maintain a position of pro-choice.

If we can so easily extinguish a life, how is it that life is sacrosanct? Where do we push-back on ideas, because we are pushing boundaries all the time. What barely skirts acceptance now is allowed, that is now the new norm, and we eventually push that new norm? How come it is now ok to have late term abortions (up to the point where a baby is ready to exit the birth canal), but we cannot make women and men be more responsible in terms of birth control? How is it ok to celebrate having an abortion and shout it out but not to tell a woman she is neglectful for engaging in irresponsible sexual practices?

Your views about Conservatism are incorrect. USA Conservatism is actually about conserving the vision that the forefathers had and which are enshrined in the American Constitution. Government is there to ensure that the social contract we have with each other is upheld, but they are not under any circumstances a moral arbiter. You may not like to admit it, but those lines are being blurred more and more. We are also seeing the sciences being weakened because of this.

I am not going to defend killing an unborn child for the sake of "reproductive health" (which is so counter intuitive, it's laughable) and freedom of choice. This is in my view bending my morals. It's either wrong or right. We believe life is sacrosanct, or we don't. If you want to change your moral position based on the other person's position and their beliefs, what is the point of having any position?

So, moral absolutism then? And I think you'll find the answer to your, "but we cannot make women and men be more responsible in terms of birth control? How is it ok to celebrate having an abortion and shout it out but not to tell a woman she is neglectful for engaging in irresponsible sexual practices" bit would be a thousand years of Christian dogma.

Also, the founders said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Seems to me, modern conservatives disagree as far as women and people of colour go, so referencing them might not be the best option here.

 

[Emjay]

So, moral absolutism then? And I think you'll find the answer to your, "but we cannot make women and men be more responsible in terms of birth control? How is it ok to celebrate having an abortion and shout it out but not to tell a woman she is neglectful for engaging in irresponsible sexual practices" bit would be a thousand years of Christian dogma.

Also, the founders said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Seems to me, modern conservatives disagree as far as women and people of colour go, so referencing them might not be the best option here.

And who says I am against the mantra of "Life, Liberty and Happiness"? If you put that argument forth, then happiness and liberty supersedes life. If that is your stance, just for a moment think how far down that rabbit hole we go.

Disagree as far as woman and people of colour? Please can you expand on what exactly you mean?

Do you know that in the USA, there is a higher rate of black abortion and abortion impacts black communities more? The idea of the black family in the USA has been hard hit in the last 60 years or so. My position is one of protecting all life.

I really look forward to your reasoning on how you get to: "Seems to me, modern conservatives disagree as far as women and people of colour go, so referencing them might not be the best option here."

 

[greg0205]

And who says I am against the mantra of "Life, Liberty and Happiness"? If you put that argument forth, then happiness and liberty supersedes life. If that is your stance, just for a moment think how far down that rabbit hole we go.

Disagree as far as woman and people of colour? Please can you expand on what exactly you mean?

Do you know that in the USA, there is a higher rate of black abortion and abortion impacts black communities more? The idea of the black family in the USA has been hard hit in the last 60 years or so. My position is one of protecting all life. And I am more for fixing black families as their poverty stems from the very high single parent rate. The best way to raise a family out of the lower end of the economic bracket is to raise children in homes with a mother and father.

I really look forward to your reasoning on how you get to: "Seems to me, modern conservatives disagree as far as women and people of colour go, so referencing them might not be the best option here."

First part, and the answer to your question: Off the top of my head, incarceration rates of POC vs white folk, immigration policy at the southern border, coloured kids in cages and the number of women just elected to Congress under the Republican banner.

Second part: Both parents in the home you say? Please see my incarceration comment. Also, and this is a personal observation, no more, do you know any two-income gay couples without children who are on welfare? Any philosophy or theology that assaults a woman's right to choose, supports inequality. Simple as that.

 

[Emjay]

First part, and the answer to your question: Off the top of my head, incarceration rates of POC vs white folk, immigration policy at the southern border, coloured kids in cages and the number of women just elected to Congress under the Republican banner.

Second part: Both parents in the home you say? Please see my incarceration comment. Also, and this is a personal observation, no more, do you know any two-income gay couples without children who are on welfare? Any philosophy or theology that assaults a woman's right to choose, supports inequality. Simple as that.

As I suspected, you have lumped all Conservatives into the "racist and sexist" category. I was so hoping you were not going down this road. My views on life and abortion have nothing to do with any Conservative morals, nor am I religious in any sense of the word. At all. I am not even spiritual. I however have a set of very basic morals, and abortion is one that runs counter to my morals. You are trying to make my views and Conservatism fit into your little boxes.

Are all law makers, and police officers, prosecutors, and entire juries Conservative, greg? But I am willing to bet you will be very closed off to any behavioral discussions as to why people of colour are incarcerated at higher rates than whites (in proportion to the population). I will give you a hint: take a look at the rate of homicide in the poor black areas and compare it to the rate of murder in the predominantly white areas. The rates of violence are also proportionally much higher. The idea of systemic racism absolves us of looking deeper into the actual causes. I suggest you start a separate thread and we can have a go around systemic racism.

You are also pushing for equality of outcome without trying to understand the underlying causes of why the status quo is. We are not having honest conversations about this. We are all on the side of equal opportunity, but personal agency is the biggest determining factor of anyone's success.