Josh Marshall on how absurdly insane this Giuliani/Ukraine news is:
If you’re still worried about the collusion described in the Mueller Report forget about that because it probably means you’re not focused enough on how President Trump’s top advisors are already, more or less openly, trying to muscle Ukraine into targeting Trump’s political enemies in the US to throw the 2020 election in Trump’s favor.
I really cannot overstate how important this is.
As you know, Ukraine remains highly dependent on the United States, diplomatically, economically and even militarily, at least in the sense of arms sales. Russia continues a de facto occupation/insurgency in the country’s east. Crimea has already been annexed by the Russian Federation. The government of Ukraine is in little position to say no to anything the US government asks for.
There’s already substantial evidence that Trump used his leverage to get the Ukraine government to end its cooperation with the Mueller probe in 2018. There’s really little question this happened. The open question is whether the President or his representatives had to ask explicitly or whether the government didn’t need to be told.
In any case, the President is now sending his personal representative, Rudy Giuliani, to Kiev to meet with the incoming government of Ukraine to demand that the new government begin investigations into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, into the ‘origins’ of the Mueller probe and finally to target former Vice President Joe Biden. The claims against Biden are really bogus on their face and others have said as much. Bloomberg found that even key claims Giuliani coaxed the Times into publishing a week ago were false. But these issues are almost beside the point. The President is using his leverage as commander-in-chief to demand that the highly dependent government of Ukraine target his political enemies in the US.
To the extent President Trump has leverage over Ukraine, that is not his personal property or asset. It’s power he exercises on behalf of the American people. But here he’s using it openly to target political enemies.
According to the Times, Giuliani is working with usual suspects Victoria Toensing, her husband Joe DiGenova and a high dollar Trump donor Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who appears to be close to Giuliani.
Giuliani told the Times: “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
The investigation they’re allegedly already doing is the one Giuliani lobbied the outgoing prosecutor to begin. As Giuliani notes, he wants this because it is “very, very helpful to my client”, who of course happens to be the President of the United States and whose attitude and whims are close to life and death matters for the Ukrainian government. This is the most open and shut kind of abuse of office imaginable.
I said it was bad, not illegal. For me, it matters a huge amount that they're kids. They were kids making other people (potentially including other kids, as you mention) feel unsafe. That is very bad behavior, but it does not justify an adult making kids feel unsafe.
What’s the age limit then that this type of action can commence? Are people to ask for ID before attempting to publicly shame a person? If someone ID the mother would that be ok even though after the mother is ID, the kids can easily be ID. Why is the mother actually putting her kids in that position in the first place?
And here’s another thing. The mother didn’t state that they were getting death threats. Their lack of safety is their own perception after someone (who they didn’t know was a politican at the time) confronted them. They are acting like hypocrites. They probably weren’t in danger if they dropped it, but she stupidly went on television to wag her finger some more and if this goes viral and gains traction, guess what’s going to happen?
As I said, I am personally against public shaming - all types. John Oliver actually has a great segment on it recently with Monica Lewinsky.
And btw, that adult already admitted he was in the wrong and will be better in the future. What more do people want from him before he is the one that starts getting publicly shamed enough that he can’t do his job properly?
Huh, I guess the protesters are only allowed to publicly shame people going about their private lives, making what is probably the hardest decision of their life. The girls in question didn’t look like they were praying at the time either, more like lying in wait for someone to show up.
So you're more offended about non-existent harassers that you can't point to right now, but maybe can at some other location and at some other time, than a grown man and politician doing so to defenseless little girls?
I can make baseless statements too.
Cool story that he claims without evidence they were harassing people though, I guess we can totally forgive him and take him at his word since he's a Saint/Democrat after all.
No they are there for one reason.
A person can pray anywhere can’t they?
They are there to harass anyone who walks into that clinic. Praying loudly about the life of the child that is about to be aborted. They are passing judgement on them. Very unchristian like.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites
are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and
in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.
Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.- Matthew 6:5
That scripture is precisely for the brand of politicians we have these days who are more concerned about 'appearing' righteous while raking in the contributions and the political clout and not really giving two shits about actually doing anything to reward their followers. That is true on both sides as far as I'm concerned. Democrats and Republicans both use each other as foils so they can accomplish nothing while appearing like they give a crap and blame their failures on the other side. I call bullshit on both. The US is an aristocracy and the fuckers have learned how to play us against each other...
18, and if you're not sure, then don't dox. As a society, we try to lower the stakes of bad behavior for children, and I generally think that's a good thing. Yes, they are acting like hypocrites, but adults still need to act like adults.
I want to be clear that this kind of behavior absolutely enrages me, and I have made my more than my fair share of rude comments and obscene gestures to protestors outside of PP clinics. So I'm not trying to excuse or minimize what they did in any way. I just think that Sims's reaction was way out of line and that he is in a position of significantly greater accountability.
@smeagolheart So, if a baby is the product of rape, it deserves to die?
@ThacoBell
I wouldn't say that. If you want a baby from a guy that raped you then great for you, wouldn't say the baby deserves to die.
I would say women should be able to abort the baby without needless crap in her way. If it is her choice and she doesn't want to bear a rapists baby then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
context:
Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes. Chicago Tribune
"Pro-Choice" apparently means forcing another person's will on the body of a child.
@BillyYank Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Josh Marshall on how absurdly insane this Giuliani/Ukraine news is:
If you’re still worried about the collusion described in the Mueller Report forget about that because it probably means you’re not focused enough on how President Trump’s top advisors are already, more or less openly, trying to muscle Ukraine into targeting Trump’s political enemies in the US to throw the 2020 election in Trump’s favor.
I really cannot overstate how important this is.
As you know, Ukraine remains highly dependent on the United States, diplomatically, economically and even militarily, at least in the sense of arms sales. Russia continues a de facto occupation/insurgency in the country’s east. Crimea has already been annexed by the Russian Federation. The government of Ukraine is in little position to say no to anything the US government asks for.
There’s already substantial evidence that Trump used his leverage to get the Ukraine government to end its cooperation with the Mueller probe in 2018. There’s really little question this happened. The open question is whether the President or his representatives had to ask explicitly or whether the government didn’t need to be told.
In any case, the President is now sending his personal representative, Rudy Giuliani, to Kiev to meet with the incoming government of Ukraine to demand that the new government begin investigations into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, into the ‘origins’ of the Mueller probe and finally to target former Vice President Joe Biden. The claims against Biden are really bogus on their face and others have said as much. Bloomberg found that even key claims Giuliani coaxed the Times into publishing a week ago were false. But these issues are almost beside the point. The President is using his leverage as commander-in-chief to demand that the highly dependent government of Ukraine target his political enemies in the US.
To the extent President Trump has leverage over Ukraine, that is not his personal property or asset. It’s power he exercises on behalf of the American people. But here he’s using it openly to target political enemies.
According to the Times, Giuliani is working with usual suspects Victoria Toensing, her husband Joe DiGenova and a high dollar Trump donor Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who appears to be close to Giuliani.
Giuliani told the Times: “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
The investigation they’re allegedly already doing is the one Giuliani lobbied the outgoing prosecutor to begin. As Giuliani notes, he wants this because it is “very, very helpful to my client”, who of course happens to be the President of the United States and whose attitude and whims are close to life and death matters for the Ukrainian government. This is the most open and shut kind of abuse of office imaginable.
My God. This may mean that Trump has reason to believe that Biden has the best chance of beating him of all the potential Democrat opponents. That alone has me rooting for Biden unless Trump is impeached and some other Republican can win the nomination. I might even consider voting for Biden if push comes to shove...
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
Which is precisely why the morning-after pill should be legal in America. That would be a good start IMHO. If the egg can't implant it surely isn't a human-being at that point. The only argument against it is that everybody has to be an airtight Fundamentalist Christian that never fucks up or they have to suffer the consequences regardless of science. That's exactly how my family feels about it...
Josh Marshall on how absurdly insane this Giuliani/Ukraine news is:
If you’re still worried about the collusion described in the Mueller Report forget about that because it probably means you’re not focused enough on how President Trump’s top advisors are already, more or less openly, trying to muscle Ukraine into targeting Trump’s political enemies in the US to throw the 2020 election in Trump’s favor.
I really cannot overstate how important this is.
As you know, Ukraine remains highly dependent on the United States, diplomatically, economically and even militarily, at least in the sense of arms sales. Russia continues a de facto occupation/insurgency in the country’s east. Crimea has already been annexed by the Russian Federation. The government of Ukraine is in little position to say no to anything the US government asks for.
There’s already substantial evidence that Trump used his leverage to get the Ukraine government to end its cooperation with the Mueller probe in 2018. There’s really little question this happened. The open question is whether the President or his representatives had to ask explicitly or whether the government didn’t need to be told.
In any case, the President is now sending his personal representative, Rudy Giuliani, to Kiev to meet with the incoming government of Ukraine to demand that the new government begin investigations into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, into the ‘origins’ of the Mueller probe and finally to target former Vice President Joe Biden. The claims against Biden are really bogus on their face and others have said as much. Bloomberg found that even key claims Giuliani coaxed the Times into publishing a week ago were false. But these issues are almost beside the point. The President is using his leverage as commander-in-chief to demand that the highly dependent government of Ukraine target his political enemies in the US.
To the extent President Trump has leverage over Ukraine, that is not his personal property or asset. It’s power he exercises on behalf of the American people. But here he’s using it openly to target political enemies.
According to the Times, Giuliani is working with usual suspects Victoria Toensing, her husband Joe DiGenova and a high dollar Trump donor Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who appears to be close to Giuliani.
Giuliani told the Times: “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
The investigation they’re allegedly already doing is the one Giuliani lobbied the outgoing prosecutor to begin. As Giuliani notes, he wants this because it is “very, very helpful to my client”, who of course happens to be the President of the United States and whose attitude and whims are close to life and death matters for the Ukrainian government. This is the most open and shut kind of abuse of office imaginable.
My God. This may mean that Trump has reason to believe that Biden has the best chance of beating him of all the potential Democrat opponents. That alone has me rooting for Biden unless Trump is impeached and some other Republican can win the nomination. I might even consider voting for Biden if push comes to shove...
Based on what I've read the last few weeks, Trump absolutely DOES think Biden has the best chance to beat him, and has told people close to him this. I don't necessarily know why this is the case (other than he thinks Biden will pretty much automatically lose him Pennsylvania and Michigan), but that is totally his calculation at this point. Trump does seem to fear a Biden nomination. The problem is that Biden has ALOT of problems, and if he gets nominated, alot of the left is going to be......less than enthused. So it would be an interesting litmus test if nothing else. Whether some normally Democratic voters stayed home because Hillary was too centrist and rooted in the establishment. Or if it was because she was both of those things AND a woman.
@smeagolheart So, if a baby is the product of rape, it deserves to die?
@ThacoBell
I wouldn't say that. If you want a baby from a guy that raped you then great for you, wouldn't say the baby deserves to die.
I would say women should be able to abort the baby without needless crap in her way. If it is her choice and she doesn't want to bear a rapists baby then she should be able to terminate the pregnancy.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.
context:
Should 11-year-old girls have to bear their rapists' babies? Ohio says yes. Chicago Tribune
"Pro-Choice" apparently means forcing another person's will on the body of a child.
@BillyYank Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
How on Earth do you get from my saying a woman should be free to choose to have an abortion or not to "forcing another person's will on the body of a child".
"forcing another person's will on the body of a child" is literally the "Pro-life" position of the Republican politicians taking away the 11 year old Childs ability to control her own body.
Josh Marshall on how absurdly insane this Giuliani/Ukraine news is:
If you’re still worried about the collusion described in the Mueller Report forget about that because it probably means you’re not focused enough on how President Trump’s top advisors are already, more or less openly, trying to muscle Ukraine into targeting Trump’s political enemies in the US to throw the 2020 election in Trump’s favor.
I really cannot overstate how important this is.
As you know, Ukraine remains highly dependent on the United States, diplomatically, economically and even militarily, at least in the sense of arms sales. Russia continues a de facto occupation/insurgency in the country’s east. Crimea has already been annexed by the Russian Federation. The government of Ukraine is in little position to say no to anything the US government asks for.
There’s already substantial evidence that Trump used his leverage to get the Ukraine government to end its cooperation with the Mueller probe in 2018. There’s really little question this happened. The open question is whether the President or his representatives had to ask explicitly or whether the government didn’t need to be told.
In any case, the President is now sending his personal representative, Rudy Giuliani, to Kiev to meet with the incoming government of Ukraine to demand that the new government begin investigations into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, into the ‘origins’ of the Mueller probe and finally to target former Vice President Joe Biden. The claims against Biden are really bogus on their face and others have said as much. Bloomberg found that even key claims Giuliani coaxed the Times into publishing a week ago were false. But these issues are almost beside the point. The President is using his leverage as commander-in-chief to demand that the highly dependent government of Ukraine target his political enemies in the US.
To the extent President Trump has leverage over Ukraine, that is not his personal property or asset. It’s power he exercises on behalf of the American people. But here he’s using it openly to target political enemies.
According to the Times, Giuliani is working with usual suspects Victoria Toensing, her husband Joe DiGenova and a high dollar Trump donor Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who appears to be close to Giuliani.
Giuliani told the Times: “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
The investigation they’re allegedly already doing is the one Giuliani lobbied the outgoing prosecutor to begin. As Giuliani notes, he wants this because it is “very, very helpful to my client”, who of course happens to be the President of the United States and whose attitude and whims are close to life and death matters for the Ukrainian government. This is the most open and shut kind of abuse of office imaginable.
My God. This may mean that Trump has reason to believe that Biden has the best chance of beating him of all the potential Democrat opponents. That alone has me rooting for Biden unless Trump is impeached and some other Republican can win the nomination. I might even consider voting for Biden if push comes to shove...
Based on what I've read the last few weeks, Trump absolutely DOES think Biden has the best chance to beat him, and has told people close to him this. I don't necessarily know why this is the case (other than he thinks Biden will pretty much automatically lose him Pennsylvania and Michigan), but that is totally his calculation at this point. Trump does seem to fear a Biden nomination. The problem is that Biden has ALOT of problems, and if he gets nominated, alot of the left is going to be......less than enthused. So it would be an interesting litmus test if nothing else. Whether some normally Democratic voters stayed home because Hillary was too centrist and rooted in the establishment. Or if it was because she was both of those things AND a woman.
Hillary was unlikable and blatantly 'chosen'. That was my personal reason for not voting for her. I'm not alone in that assessment by any means. Riding the coattails of your husband is not a reason for voting for somebody. I have to say though, I've heard Debbie Dingell speak a few times now and I'm reconsidering my vow to never vote for her (I put her in the same category as Hillary). I guess there may be exceptions to my rule...
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
I know, let's have conservatives propose a new law, since they're all soooo concerned with the lives of children and all: If a child has a medical condition, and the only way to save their life is for the father to go under the knife for a kidney or bone marrow or partial liver transplant, the state must hunt down that man, drag him to the hospital and force him to get the operation. Mind you, this is to save the life of an actual thinking autonomous human being. Think that'll ever happen?
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
Which is precisely why the morning-after pill should be legal in America. That would be a good start IMHO. If the egg can't implant it surely isn't a human-being at that point. The only argument against it is that everybody has to be an airtight Fundamentalist Christian that never fucks up or they have to suffer the consequences regardless of science. That's ecactly how my family feels about it...
It's worth noting what the goal of the Georgia and Alabama abortion bans are. No one is under the illusion they are going to hold up in any lower court. They are going to be overturned and halted almost immediately. The point of them is to (I use this phrase alot lately) flood the zone with so many of these (currently) unconstitutional laws that one of them eventually gets before the Supreme Court now that it has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench. That's the end game.
I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
I agree with your take.
It's not an easy decision but It should be available as a choice. Removing that choice can at times leave only we worse choices sometimes with deadly consequences even.
My wife and I should have got an abortion at one point early in our marriage but we didn't and it damn near ruined our lives. Instead of getting an abortion early in the pregnancy because the timing was bad for us, she tried to have the baby but instead miscarried and that was terrible. Just terrible.
I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
I agree with your take.
It's not an easy decision but It should be available as a choice. Removing that choice can at times leave only we worse choices sometimes with deadly consequences even.
My wife and I should have got an abortion at one point early but we didn't and it damn near ruined our lives for close to 5 years. Instead of getting an abortion because the timing was bad for us, she tried to have the baby but instead miscarried and that was terrible.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's a very tough decision with real consequences. I feel that most of the people with hard-ass viewpoints have never had to make a decision where it makes a fucking difference. It sounds like both of us have had that decision to make. That's probably why we have the viewpoints that we do. Having said that, I sincerely wish that things would have worked out better for you. Life isn't fair sometimes. People that fight tooth and nail for children can't seem to have them, while others that don't want children can't seem to avoid having them. It's mind-boggling...
I said it was bad, not illegal. For me, it matters a huge amount that they're kids. They were kids making other people (potentially including other kids, as you mention) feel unsafe. That is very bad behavior, but it does not justify an adult making kids feel unsafe.
What’s the age limit then that this type of action can commence? Are people to ask for ID before attempting to publicly shame a person? If someone ID the mother would that be ok even though after the mother is ID, the kids can easily be ID. Why is the mother actually putting her kids in that position in the first place?
And here’s another thing. The mother didn’t state that they were getting death threats. Their lack of safety is their own perception after someone (who they didn’t know was a politican at the time) confronted them. They are acting like hypocrites. They probably weren’t in danger if they dropped it, but she stupidly went on television to wag her finger some more and if this goes viral and gains traction, guess what’s going to happen?
As I said, I am personally against public shaming - all types. John Oliver actually has a great segment on it recently with Monica Lewinsky.
And btw, that adult already admitted he was in the wrong and will be better in the future. What more do people want from him before he is the one that starts getting publicly shamed enough that he can’t do his job properly?
Around and around and around we go.
All Lewinski has to do is say that she's 'seen the light' and become a Fundamentalist Christian and she can rake in the accolades (and money) from the religious right. She'd probably make $millions from the book rights alone if she made Bill Clinton look like a rapist...
Once again, let's get everybody focused on abortion so we can polarize people in their corners. There is no abortion answer everybody is going to agree on because it's too complex of an issue. I'd personally be satisfied with leaving it as is, a tough decision that shouldn't be taken lightly but also shouldn't be made illegal. I married somebody I shouldn't have precisely because I was a moron and got her pregnant despite her telling me she was on the pill. I know she would have gotten an abortion if I hadn't married her so chose to bite the bullet for the sake of my offspring (a daughter who is now 11 years old). We divorced three years ago but I have NEVER regretted my decision. That's who I am though. Not every man would step up, so I damn well wouldn't blame a woman who has to make that tough choice with a man who isn't willing to take responsibility...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
Which is precisely why the morning-after pill should be legal in America. That would be a good start IMHO. If the egg can't implant it surely isn't a human-being at that point. The only argument against it is that everybody has to be an airtight Fundamentalist Christian that never fucks up or they have to suffer the consequences regardless of science. That's ecactly how my family feels about it...
It's worth noting what the goal of the Georgia and Alabama abortion bans are. No one is under the illusion they are going to hold up in any lower court. They are going to be overturned and halted almost immediately. The point of them is to (I use this phrase alot lately) flood the zone with so many of these (currently) unconstitutional laws that one of them eventually gets before the Supreme Court now that it has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench. That's the end game.
I'm not sure Gorsuch will play Republican nice for that endgame. Kavanaugh, being an Irish Catholic, might vote that way but Supreme Court members can play the game however they want with no election consequences. That's part of the mystique of the Supreme Court...
I'm not sure Gorsuch will play Republican nice for that endgame. Kavanaugh, being an Irish Catholic, might vote that way but Supreme Court members can play the game however they want with no election consequences. That's part of the mystique of the Supreme Court...
I think you've got them backwards, Gorsuch is more of a bible thumper than Kavanaugh who is the drunken frat boy who believes he should have the seat because he's entitled to it.
Then again, on the other hand the bible is pro-abortion not that that seems to matter to these Christians
Numbers 5:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[a] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
But it is saying that God will abort your child if you sin, or at least if one of His priests pray for it. Kind of looks bad for pro-lifers when they preach about God's will...
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
But it is saying that God will abort your child if you sin, or at least if one of His priests pray for it. Kind of looks bad for pro-lifers when they preach about God's will...
Edit: I'm not making a religious stand on this matter but I will say that the fundamentalists pick and choose what scriptures they decide to live by (and what they 'feel' everybody else should live by). All of the women on the religious right would be wearing hats and not speaking in church if they were 'real' fundamentalists. Also, all of their religious rules would be relegated to others that believe like them, not at non-Christians. Christ himself never judged non-believers (point being, the prostitute on the beach, the adulteress in Samaria, Simon the tax-collector, 'Saint Thomas' who needed to see the holes in his hands and the wound in his side, etc...). The religious right is a pack of Hypocrites in my opinion and I'm a fiscal conservative...
Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Everyone has different ideologies of when life begins. It's why some ultra conservatives thinks masturbation is a punishable sin because off those sperm are wasted and cannot create a life. The thing is, none of those ideologies are wrong, as ideologies cannot be wrong; however, they also shouldn't be forced upon another.
If nature were to take its course naturally, that embryo would grow into a child. People are allowed to believe that, to preach that, to teach it. But as its been pointed out, if people actually believe all life is precious and should be respected, they should also help nurture it and help it grow once it leaves the womb. That doesn't happen. I'll be pro-life once all of society actually supports and helps raise children as a whole.
Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Everyone has different ideologies of when life begins. It's why some ultra conservatives thinks masturbation is a punishable sin because off those sperm are wasted and cannot create a life. The thing is, none of those ideologies are wrong, as ideologies cannot be wrong; however, they also shouldn't be forced upon another.
If nature were to take its course naturally, that embryo would grow into a child. People are allowed to believe that, to preach that, to teach it. But as its been pointed out, if people actually believe all life is precious and should be respected, they should also help nurture it and help it grow once it leaves the womb. That doesn't happen. I'll be pro-life once all of society actually supports and helps raise children as a whole.
My wet-dream would be an abortion in that case. I guess I'm going to Hell...
Edit: not only that, by using the same logic, every time a woman menstruates without potential fertilization, that should be considered an abortion too...
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
Actually to me that reads more like a physician giving a woman a drug to cause a miscarriage.
I don't think that verse is pro-abortion. That's describing a priest who curses an adulterous woman by calling on God to terminate her pregnancy against her will, every time she gets pregnant. I think the only lesson in that story is to not cheat on your husband.
Actually to me that reads more like a physician giving a woman a drug to cause a miscarriage.
No, that's an abortion which will condemn you to Hell. The only way to get a God-approved abortion is if one of His priests prays for it and He grants the prayer...
Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Everyone has different ideologies of when life begins. It's why some ultra conservatives thinks masturbation is a punishable sin because off those sperm are wasted and cannot create a life. The thing is, none of those ideologies are wrong, as ideologies cannot be wrong; however, they also shouldn't be forced upon another.
If nature were to take its course naturally, that embryo would grow into a child. People are allowed to believe that, to preach that, to teach it. But as its been pointed out, if people actually believe all life is precious and should be respected, they should also help nurture it and help it grow once it leaves the womb. That doesn't happen. I'll be pro-life once all of society actually supports and helps raise children as a whole.
My wet-dream would be an abortion in that case. I guess I'm going to Hell...
Edit: not only that, by using the same logic, every time a woman menstruates without potential fertilization, that should be considered an abortion too...
A man can control his temptation to spill the seed. A woman cannot control her natural cycle, so they are not the same. But lets steer far away from this subject.
Comments
If you’re still worried about the collusion described in the Mueller Report forget about that because it probably means you’re not focused enough on how President Trump’s top advisors are already, more or less openly, trying to muscle Ukraine into targeting Trump’s political enemies in the US to throw the 2020 election in Trump’s favor.
I really cannot overstate how important this is.
As you know, Ukraine remains highly dependent on the United States, diplomatically, economically and even militarily, at least in the sense of arms sales. Russia continues a de facto occupation/insurgency in the country’s east. Crimea has already been annexed by the Russian Federation. The government of Ukraine is in little position to say no to anything the US government asks for.
There’s already substantial evidence that Trump used his leverage to get the Ukraine government to end its cooperation with the Mueller probe in 2018. There’s really little question this happened. The open question is whether the President or his representatives had to ask explicitly or whether the government didn’t need to be told.
In any case, the President is now sending his personal representative, Rudy Giuliani, to Kiev to meet with the incoming government of Ukraine to demand that the new government begin investigations into Hillary Clinton’s campaign, into the ‘origins’ of the Mueller probe and finally to target former Vice President Joe Biden. The claims against Biden are really bogus on their face and others have said as much. Bloomberg found that even key claims Giuliani coaxed the Times into publishing a week ago were false. But these issues are almost beside the point. The President is using his leverage as commander-in-chief to demand that the highly dependent government of Ukraine target his political enemies in the US.
To the extent President Trump has leverage over Ukraine, that is not his personal property or asset. It’s power he exercises on behalf of the American people. But here he’s using it openly to target political enemies.
According to the Times, Giuliani is working with usual suspects Victoria Toensing, her husband Joe DiGenova and a high dollar Trump donor Lev Parnas, a Ukrainian-American businessman who appears to be close to Giuliani.
Giuliani told the Times: “There’s nothing illegal about it. Somebody could say it’s improper. And this isn’t foreign policy — I’m asking them to do an investigation that they’re doing already and that other people are telling them to stop. And I’m going to give them reasons why they shouldn’t stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”
The investigation they’re allegedly already doing is the one Giuliani lobbied the outgoing prosecutor to begin. As Giuliani notes, he wants this because it is “very, very helpful to my client”, who of course happens to be the President of the United States and whose attitude and whims are close to life and death matters for the Ukrainian government. This is the most open and shut kind of abuse of office imaginable.
What’s the age limit then that this type of action can commence? Are people to ask for ID before attempting to publicly shame a person? If someone ID the mother would that be ok even though after the mother is ID, the kids can easily be ID. Why is the mother actually putting her kids in that position in the first place?
And here’s another thing. The mother didn’t state that they were getting death threats. Their lack of safety is their own perception after someone (who they didn’t know was a politican at the time) confronted them. They are acting like hypocrites. They probably weren’t in danger if they dropped it, but she stupidly went on television to wag her finger some more and if this goes viral and gains traction, guess what’s going to happen?
As I said, I am personally against public shaming - all types. John Oliver actually has a great segment on it recently with Monica Lewinsky.
And btw, that adult already admitted he was in the wrong and will be better in the future. What more do people want from him before he is the one that starts getting publicly shamed enough that he can’t do his job properly?
Around and around and around we go.
That scripture is precisely for the brand of politicians we have these days who are more concerned about 'appearing' righteous while raking in the contributions and the political clout and not really giving two shits about actually doing anything to reward their followers. That is true on both sides as far as I'm concerned. Democrats and Republicans both use each other as foils so they can accomplish nothing while appearing like they give a crap and blame their failures on the other side. I call bullshit on both. The US is an aristocracy and the fuckers have learned how to play us against each other...
I want to be clear that this kind of behavior absolutely enrages me, and I have made my more than my fair share of rude comments and obscene gestures to protestors outside of PP clinics. So I'm not trying to excuse or minimize what they did in any way. I just think that Sims's reaction was way out of line and that he is in a position of significantly greater accountability.
"Pro-Choice" apparently means forcing another person's will on the body of a child.
@BillyYank Its a life that is the product of the reproductive process of two humans. What else would it be?
My God. This may mean that Trump has reason to believe that Biden has the best chance of beating him of all the potential Democrat opponents. That alone has me rooting for Biden unless Trump is impeached and some other Republican can win the nomination. I might even consider voting for Biden if push comes to shove...
Look, I have no statistical evidence to back it up (because there is none, and never will be) but if I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times and I believe it wholeheartedly. If men were able to have babies, abortions would be as easy to get as a Big Mac Extra Value Meal. They'd have the option along with DVDs and Blu-Rays at Redbox kiosks.
"Embryo" or "fetus". It's not a baby until it's born.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Which is precisely why the morning-after pill should be legal in America. That would be a good start IMHO. If the egg can't implant it surely isn't a human-being at that point. The only argument against it is that everybody has to be an airtight Fundamentalist Christian that never fucks up or they have to suffer the consequences regardless of science. That's exactly how my family feels about it...
Based on what I've read the last few weeks, Trump absolutely DOES think Biden has the best chance to beat him, and has told people close to him this. I don't necessarily know why this is the case (other than he thinks Biden will pretty much automatically lose him Pennsylvania and Michigan), but that is totally his calculation at this point. Trump does seem to fear a Biden nomination. The problem is that Biden has ALOT of problems, and if he gets nominated, alot of the left is going to be......less than enthused. So it would be an interesting litmus test if nothing else. Whether some normally Democratic voters stayed home because Hillary was too centrist and rooted in the establishment. Or if it was because she was both of those things AND a woman.
How on Earth do you get from my saying a woman should be free to choose to have an abortion or not to "forcing another person's will on the body of a child".
"forcing another person's will on the body of a child" is literally the "Pro-life" position of the Republican politicians taking away the 11 year old Childs ability to control her own body.
Hillary was unlikable and blatantly 'chosen'. That was my personal reason for not voting for her. I'm not alone in that assessment by any means. Riding the coattails of your husband is not a reason for voting for somebody. I have to say though, I've heard Debbie Dingell speak a few times now and I'm reconsidering my vow to never vote for her (I put her in the same category as Hillary). I guess there may be exceptions to my rule...
I know, let's have conservatives propose a new law, since they're all soooo concerned with the lives of children and all: If a child has a medical condition, and the only way to save their life is for the father to go under the knife for a kidney or bone marrow or partial liver transplant, the state must hunt down that man, drag him to the hospital and force him to get the operation. Mind you, this is to save the life of an actual thinking autonomous human being. Think that'll ever happen?
(Note: argument stolen from Tracy Harris.)
It's worth noting what the goal of the Georgia and Alabama abortion bans are. No one is under the illusion they are going to hold up in any lower court. They are going to be overturned and halted almost immediately. The point of them is to (I use this phrase alot lately) flood the zone with so many of these (currently) unconstitutional laws that one of them eventually gets before the Supreme Court now that it has Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench. That's the end game.
I agree with your take.
It's not an easy decision but It should be available as a choice. Removing that choice can at times leave only we worse choices sometimes with deadly consequences even.
My wife and I should have got an abortion at one point early in our marriage but we didn't and it damn near ruined our lives. Instead of getting an abortion early in the pregnancy because the timing was bad for us, she tried to have the baby but instead miscarried and that was terrible. Just terrible.
I'm sorry to hear that. It's a very tough decision with real consequences. I feel that most of the people with hard-ass viewpoints have never had to make a decision where it makes a fucking difference. It sounds like both of us have had that decision to make. That's probably why we have the viewpoints that we do. Having said that, I sincerely wish that things would have worked out better for you. Life isn't fair sometimes. People that fight tooth and nail for children can't seem to have them, while others that don't want children can't seem to avoid having them. It's mind-boggling...
All Lewinski has to do is say that she's 'seen the light' and become a Fundamentalist Christian and she can rake in the accolades (and money) from the religious right. She'd probably make $millions from the book rights alone if she made Bill Clinton look like a rapist...
I'm not sure Gorsuch will play Republican nice for that endgame. Kavanaugh, being an Irish Catholic, might vote that way but Supreme Court members can play the game however they want with no election consequences. That's part of the mystique of the Supreme Court...
I think you've got them backwards, Gorsuch is more of a bible thumper than Kavanaugh who is the drunken frat boy who believes he should have the seat because he's entitled to it.
Then again, on the other hand the bible is pro-abortion not that that seems to matter to these Christians
Numbers 5:20-22 New International Version (NIV)
But it is saying that God will abort your child if you sin, or at least if one of His priests pray for it. Kind of looks bad for pro-lifers when they preach about God's will...
Edit: I'm not making a religious stand on this matter but I will say that the fundamentalists pick and choose what scriptures they decide to live by (and what they 'feel' everybody else should live by). All of the women on the religious right would be wearing hats and not speaking in church if they were 'real' fundamentalists. Also, all of their religious rules would be relegated to others that believe like them, not at non-Christians. Christ himself never judged non-believers (point being, the prostitute on the beach, the adulteress in Samaria, Simon the tax-collector, 'Saint Thomas' who needed to see the holes in his hands and the wound in his side, etc...). The religious right is a pack of Hypocrites in my opinion and I'm a fiscal conservative...
Everyone has different ideologies of when life begins. It's why some ultra conservatives thinks masturbation is a punishable sin because off those sperm are wasted and cannot create a life. The thing is, none of those ideologies are wrong, as ideologies cannot be wrong; however, they also shouldn't be forced upon another.
If nature were to take its course naturally, that embryo would grow into a child. People are allowed to believe that, to preach that, to teach it. But as its been pointed out, if people actually believe all life is precious and should be respected, they should also help nurture it and help it grow once it leaves the womb. That doesn't happen. I'll be pro-life once all of society actually supports and helps raise children as a whole.
My wet-dream would be an abortion in that case. I guess I'm going to Hell...
Edit: not only that, by using the same logic, every time a woman menstruates without potential fertilization, that should be considered an abortion too...
Actually to me that reads more like a physician giving a woman a drug to cause a miscarriage.
No, that's an abortion which will condemn you to Hell. The only way to get a God-approved abortion is if one of His priests prays for it and He grants the prayer...
A man can control his temptation to spill the seed. A woman cannot control her natural cycle, so they are not the same. But lets steer far away from this subject.