You’re starting to contradict yourself. Which is it - he recklessly lied about testing negative prior to the debate, or he’s still recklessly infectious now? Because we’re at a point now that both narratives arent going to be accurate.
Oh, wait, they both say “Trump is terrible” so they must both be true. Sorry, I forgot.
??? What? Those aren’t mutually exclusive
Oh yeah, that’s right. He’s going to remain infected right up to election day. There havent been enough outbreaks to blame on him yet.
Sorry, I forgot that memo.
Well yeah, holding large gatherings against the most basic CDC guidelines, without social distancing or even face coverings will do that…
Even when he’s not infectious himself.
Yup, more facts and realities dismissed as being a “Republican apologist”. And that’s directed at someone at CNN, surprisingly. Everyone agrees it’s essential, she’s single handedly blocking it.
She didn’t call him a GOP apologist. Get the quote right.
She misspoke when she asked if he was an Obama apologist.
Trump already explicitly took direct personal ownership for blocking any and all stimulus until after the election… It was on Twitter.
It’s absurd Blitzer was asking her about a schizophrenic “offer” that is not even actually agreed to by the president or the Republicants in the senate, as if it was even something concrete. And without any actual details of what is even supposedly contained in the non-binding proposal. Blitzer took the bait.
Yeah, him giving up on getting a deal is soooo terrible. But her “agree to everything I want, or no one gets anything” is completely justified. 
I didn’t say it was or wasn’t. But he has flipped the position basically every day of the week. So it’s meaningless to try to pin that on Pelosi for not agreeing to an imaginary “deal” that is not concrete and is not actually agreed to by Trump or by Turtle in the Senate.
It would be wholly irresponsible to express any sort of agreement to the imaginary deal. Then when the deal doesn’t materialize or is changed, it would look like she was going back on her word. And basic integrity matters to non-“R” members of congress and to those who vote for them.
And again Barrett makes it clear she will decide cases based on the arguments laid out in court. And again, Democrats go nuts because they apparently thought that confirmation hearings are where judicial cases should be decided.
Why does something being private mean that society doesn’t have an interest? There are countless private matters that our society has deemed important enough to regulate. Adding a new member of society seems like something in which society could have a legitimate interest, no?
So what role does the father play in the choice to have an abortion? Should the mother be able to get one if he opposes it?
The amount of births in the the US is a “problem”? Do you consider the US to be over populated? What other measures besides abortion should we take to fix this problem?
Why do you characterize a pregnant woman as innocent as if her actions didn’t lead to the pregnancy? Is there another “innocent” party in the abortion decision who took no action to be part of the pregnancy that you are disregarding?
Absurd and repulsive are two very different feelings. One doesn’t necessarily follow from the other without usually some sort of animosity.
What changes the moment the child is born? Why are you concerned with the needs of society and the needs of the mother, but not the needs of the child?
If the mother is at risk of serious injury or death, an emergency delivery is safer than an abortion. If a fetus is unlikely to survive, why is an abortion necessary? Isn’t a DNR sufficient in those circumstances? For babies that will survive, how come quality of life can be considered? Our society doesn’t allow the killing of people who have a poor quality of life.
I thought I was clear when I answered. We as a society do not have a reproductive problem, so the wishes of the society do not outweigh the wishes of the mother.
A role of trying to convince the mother. I don’t know the law, but IMO the answer to the second question should be YES. Actually I think this is the case, as the mother may not even know who the father is and get an abortion. If the male father wants to carry a child to term, he should turn into a seahorse.
No and no. I was speaking of the entire world. Many areas have an overpopulation problem. Monsanto keeps insisting that without their patented technologies we couldn’t feed the world.
Because last I checked pregnancy was not a crime? Neither are consensual relations that may lead to pregnancy, even with precautions. And in case of rape, it was not her actions that lead to pregnancy.
You are referring to the unborn. As I tried to explain, my position is that the rights of the unborn are not separate from the right of the mother. It has no separate rights until birth.
Sure. The animosity comes from the “holier than thou” attitude that I attribute to those who try to impose their absurd religious beliefs upon everyone else.
What used to be a single human body belonging to the mother becomes two separate human bodies. And what I wrote above.
For late term, perhaps. But for earlier time frame it depends, because a risk of serious injury or death can occur just a few weeks into the pregnancy, where an emergency delivery (surgery) is neither feasible nor safer than abortion (via drugs/hormones).
I’m not a doctor and do not have an example. Perhaps everything done in the late term is actually a delivery followed by DNR? Do not know.
Because if a child is born with a crippling condition that causes chronic pain and is expected to kill them in a couple years, IMO it would be inhumane to let this happen. Ethicists can argue about this until the end of time, so let the parents make the decision.
Of course we do. Never heard of assisted suicide? It’s legal in many places.
→ what a weak husk of a person remaining.
"Federal payments to farmers are projected to hit a record $46 billion this year as the White House funnels money to Trump’s rural base in the South and Midwest before Election Day.
The gush of funds has accelerated in recent weeks as the president looks to help his core supporters who have been hit hard by the double whammy of his combative trade practices and the coronavirus pandemic. According to the American Farm Bureau, debt in the farm sector is projected to increase by 4% to a record $434 billion this year and farm bankruptcies have continued to rise across the country.
The breadth of the payments means that government support will account for about 40% of total farm income this year. If not for those subsidies, U.S. farm income would be poised to decline in 2020.
More money for farmers will soon be on the way. Congress recently agreed to replenish an Agriculture Department fund that Trump has used to disburse nearly $30 billion to farmers at his discretion with tens of billions of additional dollars.
“For the first time in history, a president has repeatedly usurped congressional authority in order to personally dispense tens of billions of dollars in federal farm subsidy payments that would not otherwise have been paid,” said Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that has been tracking the agriculture payments. “This is an authoritarian power grab used to buy political support from voters who are essential to his reelection.”
Farmers are not the only constituency benefiting from the president’s largesse: He has promised $200 prescription drug cards to millions of seniors, approved $13 billion in aid to Puerto Rico, which could help his prospects in Florida, and he directed the Agriculture Department to include letters signed by him in millions of food aid boxes that are being distributed to the poor."
The most socialist President in history! If he honestly wanted to help them, he’d cancel most of the tariffs. Farmers are going under even with the government supplying 40% of their income. It can’t go on this way.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-funnels-record-subsidies-farmers-120926107.html
For the first time in history, Congress has refused to provide essential aid to the American people and businesses, that literally everyone agrees is in fact essential. For the first time in history, this President is being forced to creatively scrape together whatever funds he can find to try to do something to fill in that hole just a bit.
Just like with unemployment. Republicans are screaming at Democrats that we need extended UI benefits. Democrats are screaming at Republicans that we need extended UI benefits. Trump stirs up some funds to actually provide people with some extended UI benefits, and everyone turns to him and screams that he cant do that.
“I’ll kiss every guy, man and woman, man and woman,” the president said Tuesday, pointing to an individual in the crowd. “Look at that guy, how handsome he is. I’ll kiss him. Not with a lot of enjoyment, but that’s okay.”
That Biden, such a character, and so inappropriate.
" I don’t know what it was… I don’t know, I said I took it, I felt like Superman and I said, 'let me at ‘em.’"
It was steroids. Did he bother to check what it was?
You’re conflating two of my points. You are responding to a statement in which I questioned your claim that having a baby is a private matter and private matters aren’t regulated. 1. Private matters are regulated. 2. Adding a member of society is something the society can legitimately have an interest in.
The overpopulation question was separate from these points.
So you take back your claim that its “no one’s effing business except the parents to be (mostly the mother).” It’s really only the mother’s business. Got it. You already edited that statement once, why not just say what you meant when you did the edit and take out the “parents” part if the mother has the ultimate say?
We aren’t talking about the world. We are talking about the US. Why are you bringing up the world in US abortion policy?
When I claimed a pregnant woman isn’t “innocent”, I wasn’t using it in a criminal sense. I was using it in the sense that the pregnancy resulted from the woman’s actions. It didn’t just happen to her randomly. But it’s also important to point out that pregnancy isn’t a punishment either. It is a natural evolutionary component necessary for the flourishing of a species common among all female mammals.
We’re not talking about edge cases here. We’re talking about abortion in general. Regardless, even though I didn’t say it in my other post, I figured it was generally understood. Republicans always concede “life of the mother, rape, and incest” exceptions in their abortion restrictions.
You didn’t try to explain it. You just skimmed over it like its an unarguable scientific truth. You are calling the mother “innocent” while not even acknowledging the only human involved that is truly innocent. You aren’t even attempting to explain what changes for that human at the moment of birth.
Children “belong” to their mother whether they are inside their mother’s body or outside their mother’s body. You haven’t explained why a baby being inside its mother’s womb is different than being outside, for the purposes of respecting its life.
Do you have many close friends that are religious with a “holier than thou” attitude, or do you get the attitude mostly from religious people (politicians/pundits/etc.) on cable news and the like?
I was specifically responding to your claim about late term abortions when I wrote that. But if you want to move the goal posts, okay. What specific risk of serious injury or death requires an abortion rather than a delivery?
I assure you, there are late term abortions happening. They are not common, but its not a made up procedure. If it were made up, why would so many people on the left fight tooth and nail for the right to perform it when it is extremely unpopular with the public?
I’m glad you’re not my doctor or my parent. “Mr. Meed, you’ve got terminal cancer. You’re going to be in crippling pain. It would be inhumane to let you live like this. I’m going to pour some acid on you and then after you die, I will dismember you. It was your mom’s idea.”
It’s only legal when the person committing suicide makes the choice of their own free will. Last I checked, there has never been an unborn baby that gave consent for its abortion.
You asked me why exactly I think there should be a right to an abortion, and I answered with “Because I believe that pregnancy is an entirely private undertaking, and society should have no say in how or if it is conducted.”
“Private” as in between a patient and her doctor. And society should have no knowledge or input.
Your question “Why does something being private mean that society doesn’t have an interest?” is tangential. On other matters perhaps society should have an interest. On this matter it should not.
I don’t take anything back. IIRC I edited to add “mostly the mother” and I don’t see any conflict between what I wrote or even what you wrote: it is no one’s business except the parents – the father has a role (to try to convince the mother one way or the other), but the mother has the ultimate say.
Why are you talking about US abortion policy? You asked my opinion on the right to abortion, I answered.
Because failure to address edge cases could lead to a system failure. And no, they do not always concede those edge cases. See that idiot former senator Todd Akin’s statements. If they had it their way, there would be no exceptions.
Perhaps I explained this upthread prior to where you started reading, apologies. I’m not giving you unarguable scientific truth, just my position. Which you asked for.
I did, but you’re not getting it, so let me try another way. I consider a pregnant mother a single organism. A premature fetus is unlikely to survive without modern technology (lungs aren’t done cooking until about 35 weeks).
I get it from the pro-life movement. Many in that movement are extremely religious. The result of their desired policy, driven mostly by their faith, would impose their beliefs on everyone.
Ectopic pregnancy. I suspect there may be others, I’m not an expert.
I’m not sure that they are happening, but the fight to allow them is because conceding anything at all becomes a slippery slope.
You’ve got to stop drinking the cool-aid. I’m pretty sure that’s not a standard procedure for abortion.
Sure, you stick to your position. And I’ll stick to mine – it’s more cruel to allow a baby to suffer for a couple of years and die than to take away the suffering immediately (the sooner the better, of course, but I don’t remember the name or the timeline for that particular disease).
Almost forgot the dam’ pope, who apparently has a problem with the morning after pill? Ugh. And I mostly like the guy, way better than his predecessors (as much as one could like a worshiper of a false god, since there’s no god besides the FSM 
).