Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 357703 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4250 on: September 22, 2020, 10:00:03 AM »
Even assuming that you agree with the argument that every pregnancy is voluntary (which is a big stretch to start with), the woman should be able to opt out of it at any time.

Please excuse a foreigner with English as a second language here, but should I read that as that you think that abortion should be allowed for the full duration of the pregnancy?

Not quite.  I support removal more than abortion.

People have bodily autonomy, regardless of whether or not those choices kill another.  If you have two healthy kidneys and your neighbour is dying of kidney failure, we don't force you to donate your kidney.  Even if it would save the life of your neighbour.

By the same token, a fetus should be removed from a woman who doesn't want it.  If the fetus is late term and can survive on it's own, cool.  Let it become a ward of the state.  If it cannot survive on it's own, then perform a standard abortion.  It would have died if removed anyway . . . just like the neighbour with kidney failure will die without your donation.  This is the only way to preserve the bodily autonomy of the woman.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4251 on: September 22, 2020, 11:03:27 AM »
It's already incorporated in the words of roe vs wade, that viable fetuses cannot be aborted, with the exception it endangers the life of the mother. So all these people talking about this and getting very upset, don't know what they are talking about. My mil had a nonviable pregnancy prior to roe vs wade. The fetus/baby was not going to survive regardless. However she had to wait until it was endangering her health before it could be removed, close to full term.  Obviously a lot more emotionally traumatic, as well as medically dangerous than what is allowed via roe vs wade. The people who want to outlaw or restrict roe vs wade do not like talking about the consequences of outlawing it, which includes more dangerous and later term abortions, which may affect the health, fertility and possibly life of the woman.
 
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 11:08:11 AM by partgypsy »

OzzieandHarriet

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4252 on: September 22, 2020, 12:04:43 PM »
It's already incorporated in the words of roe vs wade, that viable fetuses cannot be aborted, with the exception it endangers the life of the mother. So all these people talking about this and getting very upset, don't know what they are talking about. My mil had a nonviable pregnancy prior to roe vs wade. The fetus/baby was not going to survive regardless. However she had to wait until it was endangering her health before it could be removed, close to full term.  Obviously a lot more emotionally traumatic, as well as medically dangerous than what is allowed via roe vs wade. The people who want to outlaw or restrict roe vs wade do not like talking about the consequences of outlawing it, which includes more dangerous and later term abortions, which may affect the health, fertility and possibly life of the woman.

Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Not the one I am remembering, but outlines the facts:
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/miscarriage-medicine-growth-catholic-hospitals-and-threat-reproductive-health-care-2013-lois
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 12:09:19 PM by OzzieandHarriet »

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4253 on: September 23, 2020, 03:34:45 AM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7095
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • The Best Is Yet To Come
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4254 on: September 23, 2020, 08:32:02 AM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?
Yep, completely. Just like having entire states with no abortion providers, unreasonable regulations on places like planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood, no federal funding for abortions, employers who can choose not to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans, and a whole host of other ridiculous and rights-infringing bullshit that happens every day in the good ol’ US of A.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4255 on: September 23, 2020, 11:30:47 AM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?
Yep, completely. Just like having entire states with no abortion providers, unreasonable regulations on places like planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood, no federal funding for abortions, employers who can choose not to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans, and a whole host of other ridiculous and rights-infringing bullshit that happens every day in the good ol’ US of A.

yes. That's why I don't wholy buy the "pro life" aspect of people who say they are pro life, because they seem very dismissive of the emotional and even physical health of the females in the equation. And I have heard many say that pregancy or birth is the "consequence" of sex. It strikes me as being very female-hating.

I've told my story before. When I was going out with my then boyfriend (now ex husband) I went to planned parenthood to get on the pill. They wouldn't give me the pill unless I had an obgyn exam, my first one. They discovered precancerous cells in the cervix and treated me. If I hadn't gone to planned parenthood, there was a very real chance that it would have progressed to cancer and either made me infertile or even killed me. Instead, I was able to be on the pill till I was READY (and healthy enough) to bear children, and had two wonderful healthy kids. So I thank planned parenthood for giving me my family. I really truly want that every single baby born on this planet is born to people who are emotionally, physically etc ready for that baby and can provide a good home. It's the best outcome for the mother, and it's the best outcome for the child. And it's not possible unless women have control over their own reproductive choices.   

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7095
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • The Best Is Yet To Come
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4256 on: September 23, 2020, 02:05:56 PM »
There is this billboard I’ve gone past for one of those fake pregnancy crisis centers that are anti-choice. It has a photo of a big baby smiling and says something to the effect of “babies are joy”. It makes me want to roll my eyes so badly.

I have a baby at home. My third. I worked damn hard and suffered late pregnancies losses and high-intervention, high-risk pregnancies to bring my babies into the world, preemies who had to spend time in the NICU. We are remarkably blessed with education, money, flexible schedules, and so forth. And déspite all that babies are awful. The first year of life and then some with all of my babies was absolute hell. I would only wish that on someone who really really wanted a child. Anyone who isn’t 100% sure shouldn’t be having one and you certainly don’t bring a human being in the world as punishment for some perceived misdeed. That is immoral.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4257 on: September 23, 2020, 03:06:29 PM »
I totally agree ysette. And while I am very glad to have my two kids, each were planned and wanted and so for me whatever I went through was worth it, forced birth just seems horrific to me. Pregnancy is uncomfortable at best, life threatening at worse, and it permanently changes you. You can look at females skeletons and differentiate which have given birth which not by marks on the bones. If you want to see something freaky look up rhombus of michaelis
« Last Edit: September 23, 2020, 03:19:07 PM by partgypsy »

OtherJen

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3859
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4258 on: September 23, 2020, 03:47:40 PM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?
Yep, completely. Just like having entire states with no abortion providers, unreasonable regulations on places like planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood, no federal funding for abortions, employers who can choose not to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans, and a whole host of other ridiculous and rights-infringing bullshit that happens every day in the good ol’ US of A.

yes. That's why I don't wholy buy the "pro life" aspect of people who say they are pro life, because they seem very dismissive of the emotional and even physical health of the females in the equation. And I have heard many say that pregancy or birth is the "consequence" of sex. It strikes me as being very female-hating.

I've told my story before. When I was going out with my then boyfriend (now ex husband) I went to planned parenthood to get on the pill. They wouldn't give me the pill unless I had an obgyn exam, my first one. They discovered precancerous cells in the cervix and treated me. If I hadn't gone to planned parenthood, there was a very real chance that it would have progressed to cancer and either made me infertile or even killed me. Instead, I was able to be on the pill till I was READY (and healthy enough) to bear children, and had two wonderful healthy kids. So I thank planned parenthood for giving me my family. I really truly want that every single baby born on this planet is born to people who are emotionally, physically etc ready for that baby and can provide a good home. It's the best outcome for the mother, and it's the best outcome for the child. And it's not possible unless women have control over their own reproductive choices.   

Apparently, fetuses are real people. Grown women are not.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4259 on: September 23, 2020, 03:52:30 PM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?
Yep, completely. Just like having entire states with no abortion providers, unreasonable regulations on places like planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood, no federal funding for abortions, employers who can choose not to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans, and a whole host of other ridiculous and rights-infringing bullshit that happens every day in the good ol’ US of A.

yes. That's why I don't wholy buy the "pro life" aspect of people who say they are pro life, because they seem very dismissive of the emotional and even physical health of the females in the equation. And I have heard many say that pregancy or birth is the "consequence" of sex. It strikes me as being very female-hating.

I've told my story before. When I was going out with my then boyfriend (now ex husband) I went to planned parenthood to get on the pill. They wouldn't give me the pill unless I had an obgyn exam, my first one. They discovered precancerous cells in the cervix and treated me. If I hadn't gone to planned parenthood, there was a very real chance that it would have progressed to cancer and either made me infertile or even killed me. Instead, I was able to be on the pill till I was READY (and healthy enough) to bear children, and had two wonderful healthy kids. So I thank planned parenthood for giving me my family. I really truly want that every single baby born on this planet is born to people who are emotionally, physically etc ready for that baby and can provide a good home. It's the best outcome for the mother, and it's the best outcome for the child. And it's not possible unless women have control over their own reproductive choices.   

Apparently, fetuses are real people. Grown women are not.

If it makes you feel better, it's only fetuses that are important.  If the unaborted babies grow up starving and impoverished with parents who hate 'em in a ghetto with no real future or way out . . . tough luck kiddo.  Should have chosen better parents.

:P

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5133
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4260 on: September 23, 2020, 04:15:02 PM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?
Yep, completely. Just like having entire states with no abortion providers, unreasonable regulations on places like planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood, no federal funding for abortions, employers who can choose not to offer contraceptives in their health insurance plans, and a whole host of other ridiculous and rights-infringing bullshit that happens every day in the good ol’ US of A.

yes. That's why I don't wholy buy the "pro life" aspect of people who say they are pro life, because they seem very dismissive of the emotional and even physical health of the females in the equation. And I have heard many say that pregancy or birth is the "consequence" of sex. It strikes me as being very female-hating.

I've told my story before. When I was going out with my then boyfriend (now ex husband) I went to planned parenthood to get on the pill. They wouldn't give me the pill unless I had an obgyn exam, my first one. They discovered precancerous cells in the cervix and treated me. If I hadn't gone to planned parenthood, there was a very real chance that it would have progressed to cancer and either made me infertile or even killed me. Instead, I was able to be on the pill till I was READY (and healthy enough) to bear children, and had two wonderful healthy kids. So I thank planned parenthood for giving me my family. I really truly want that every single baby born on this planet is born to people who are emotionally, physically etc ready for that baby and can provide a good home. It's the best outcome for the mother, and it's the best outcome for the child. And it's not possible unless women have control over their own reproductive choices.   

Apparently, fetuses are real people. Grown women are not.

If it makes you feel better, it's only fetuses that are important.  If the unaborted babies grow up starving and impoverished with parents who hate 'em in a ghetto with no real future or way out . . . tough luck kiddo.  Should have chosen better parents.

:P

As Sister Joan Chittister stated, it's pro-birth, not pro-life.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4261 on: September 23, 2020, 07:11:37 PM »
I've spent years trying to understand the Trump side of things by reading the output (via blog or periscope) of a famous cartoonist who has lately made his brand talking about how Trump is a master persuader.

I think he actually has a really smart policy prescription about legalized abortion: have a special referendum in which only women vote. One thing I've already noticed on my own social media is that the pro-life cause is being boosted almost exclusively by women.

PDXTabs

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5716
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4263 on: September 23, 2020, 07:48:10 PM »
I've spent years trying to understand the Trump side of things by reading the output (via blog or periscope) of a famous cartoonist who has lately made his brand talking about how Trump is a master persuader.

I think he actually has a really smart policy prescription about legalized abortion: have a special referendum in which only women vote. One thing I've already noticed on my own social media is that the pro-life cause is being boosted almost exclusively by women.

Interesting trends regarding that.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion-trends-gender.aspx


EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3281
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4265 on: September 23, 2020, 09:38:01 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/23/parsing-trumps-there-wont-be-transfer-power-comments/#comments-wrapper
BBC: US election: Trump won't commit to peaceful transfer of power

I just don't understand how any free and open-minded American can vote for a Presidential Candidate that says 'I was President for 4 years and will not cede power if I lose'.  This is a Dictator talking!  George Washington willingly gave up power even though the country overwhelmingly wanted him to continue to preside over them.  Give Trump 4 more years and our country will be unrecognizable, possibly to the point that it will be impossible to give the power back to the 'populace' (i.e. the popular vote).  A failed democracy, rules made by the minority to keep themselves in power, what a terrible legacy to leave our children. 

Abe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4266 on: September 23, 2020, 10:58:53 PM »
I'd be interested to see if that question was posed by a reporter to any other US president, ever. Part of me thinks it wasn't ever a question before, so no one thought to ask. Part of me thinks they were just poking the bear for a soundbite.

Prior farewell comments on transition of power for comparison to Trump's (if he gives one):


Harry Truman:
"My fellow Americans:

I am happy to have this opportunity to talk to you once more before I leave the White House.

Next Tuesday, General Eisenhower will be inaugurated as President of the United States. A short time after the new President takes his oath of office, I will be on the train going back home to Independence, Missouri. I will once again be a plain, private citizen of this great Republic.
That is as it should be. Inauguration Day will be a great demonstration of our democratic process. I am glad to be a part of it-glad to wish General Eisenhower all possible success, as he begins his term--glad the whole world will have a chance to see how simply and how peacefully our American system transfers the vast power of the Presidency from my hands to his. It is a good object lesson in democracy. I am very proud of it. And I know you are, too.
During the last 2 months I have done my best to make this transfer an orderly one. I have talked with my successor on the affairs of the country, both foreign and domestic, and my Cabinet officers have talked with their successors. I want to say that General Eisenhower and his associates have cooperated fully in this effort. Such an orderly transfer from one party to another has never taken place before in our history. I think a real precedent has been set."

Dwight Eisenhower:
"Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all."

Lyndon Johnson:
"President-elect Nixon, in the days ahead, is going to need your understanding, just as I did. And he is entitled to have it. I hope every Member will remember that the burdens he will bear as our President, will be borne for all of us. Each of us should try not to increase these burdens for the sake of narrow personal or partisan advantage."

Gerald Ford:
"The people have spoken; they have chosen a new President and a new Congress to work their will. I congratulate you—particularly the new Members—as sincerely as I did President-elect Carter....
During the period of my own service in this Capitol and in the White House, I can recall many orderly transitions of governmental responsibility—of problems as well as of position, of burdens as well as of power. The genius of the American system is that we do this so naturally and so normally. There are no soldiers marching in the street except in the Inaugural Parade; no public demonstrations except for some of the dancers at the Inaugural Ball; the opposition party doesn't go underground, but goes on functioning vigorously in the Congress and in the country; and our vigilant press goes right on probing and publishing our faults and our follies, confirming the wisdom of the framers of the first amendment.
Because of the transfer of authority in our form of government affects the state of the Union and of the world, I am happy to report to you that the current transition is proceeding very well. I was determined that it should; I wanted the new President to get off on an easier start than I had."

Jimmy Carter:
"During the next few days I will work hard to make sure that the transition from myself to the next President is a good one, that the American people are served well...

As I return home to the South, where I was born and raised, I look forward to the opportunity to reflect and further to assess, I hope with accuracy, the circumstances of our times. I intend to give our new President my support, and I intend to work as a citizen, as I've worked here in this office as President, for the values this Nation was founded to secure."

George HW Bush:
"...in 36 days we will have a new President. And I am confident, I am very confident that he will do his level-best to serve the cause that I have outlined here today. And he's going to have my support, and I'll stay out of his way. And I really mean that. But it is more important than my support, it is more important that he have your support. You are our future."

George W Bush:
"Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose history reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-Elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls."

Barack Obama:
"In 10 days, the world will witness a hallmark of our democracy...the peaceful transfer of power from one freely elected President to the next. I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as President Bush did for me. Because it's up to all of us to make sure our government can help us meet the many challenges we still face."



LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4267 on: September 24, 2020, 03:47:56 AM »
I guess the more you talk about how great something something has been, the less it is today.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4268 on: September 24, 2020, 06:35:30 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3281
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4269 on: September 24, 2020, 07:06:12 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

Wow, what a contrast, I love it!  What voters should expect - open-minded and hopeful vs. (well, whatever FEAR Trump's twitter is spewing).  To me, this is all crystal clear what this election exposes about Trump (starting with non-stop talk about absentee ballots being rigged and not trusting the results, etc).  He weakens our democracy and unity at every turn.

Trump knows he is facing an uphill battle, that much should be consensus. Not many Presidents win re-election while citizens are dying in record numbers from a failed pandemic response.  America could be doing much, much better in terms of social unrest, economic growth across the country, and pandemic response.  We could have risen to the challenges of 2020, instead we get knee-capped at every turn by social unrest, stupid tweets to dictators (my 'nuke' button is bigger than yours, little RocketMan), denigration of decorated servicemen (McCain) and iconic women (RBG, Christine Blasey Ford), and tiny concessions (banning bump stocks after the LV massacre)... all fomented by our Commander In Chief.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2020, 07:07:54 AM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4270 on: September 24, 2020, 07:24:28 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1423
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4271 on: September 24, 2020, 09:00:47 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

Wow, what a contrast, I love it!  What voters should expect - open-minded and hopeful vs. (well, whatever FEAR Trump's twitter is spewing).  To me, this is all crystal clear what this election exposes about Trump (starting with non-stop talk about absentee ballots being rigged and not trusting the results, etc).  He weakens our democracy and unity at every turn.

"Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort."
-Trump's Secretary of Defense, General Jim Mattis

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4272 on: September 24, 2020, 10:49:30 AM »
Priceless! Turn your volume up!

I am sure Ruth was smiling down watching Trump squirm like a worm! Hahaha!

https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-boos-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vote-him-out-chants/

ysette9

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7095
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • The Best Is Yet To Come
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4273 on: September 24, 2020, 03:05:29 PM »
Priceless! Turn your volume up!

I am sure Ruth was smiling down watching Trump squirm like a worm! Hahaha!

https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-boos-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vote-him-out-chants/
Thanks for sharing

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4274 on: September 25, 2020, 03:05:36 AM »
Priceless! Turn your volume up!

I am sure Ruth was smiling down watching Trump squirm like a worm! Hahaha!

https://www.tmz.com/2020/09/24/president-trump-boos-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vote-him-out-chants/
Thanks for sharing
Lucky for him people only turn in their graves, not in their caskets.

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4275 on: September 25, 2020, 07:03:25 AM »
Just was reading that Trump discarded ballots by military members into trash.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-attorney-battleground-pennsylvania-investigating-023800972.html


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4276 on: September 25, 2020, 07:15:13 AM »
Just was reading that Trump discarded ballots by military members into trash.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-attorney-battleground-pennsylvania-investigating-023800972.html

Makes sense.  Trump has repeatedly called members of the military idiots.  Why would you want idiots voting???

Roland of Gilead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4277 on: September 25, 2020, 07:24:27 AM »

Makes sense.  Trump has repeatedly called members of the military idiots.  Why would you want idiots voting???

Right?  I mean Trump a lot of times will repeat a headline and take it as fact without investigating further to see if it is accurate.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4278 on: September 25, 2020, 07:46:37 AM »

Makes sense.  Trump has repeatedly called members of the military idiots.  Why would you want idiots voting???

Right?  I mean Trump a lot of times will repeat a headline and take it as fact without investigating further to see if it is accurate.

This smells like something where they'll make a fuss about a handful of ballots that were discarded (note at least seven of the nine were Trump ballots) and then not make a stink later when 100,000 mail-in ballots go missing, and when it comes up they'd claim (without evidence) that they were all also Trump ballots and he would've won by even more!!!111one

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4279 on: September 25, 2020, 07:52:02 AM »
OP here.

Indeed I created this thread hoping to have one place where I could see all the terrible stuff Trump has been doing, but there have been so many hits lately that I think we've missed more than a few.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5716
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4280 on: September 25, 2020, 07:58:06 AM »

Makes sense.  Trump has repeatedly called members of the military idiots.  Why would you want idiots voting???

Right?  I mean Trump a lot of times will repeat a headline and take it as fact without investigating further to see if it is accurate.

This smells like something where they'll make a fuss about a handful of ballots that were discarded (note at least seven of the nine were Trump ballots) and then not make a stink later when 100,000 mail-in ballots go missing, and when it comes up they'd claim (without evidence) that they were all also Trump ballots and he would've won by even more!!!111one

No kidding. Plus, the sad thing is that given the way this administration and its supporters operate, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the people who "found" the ballots put them there in the first place, to manufacture an outrage story.

Sigh.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4281 on: September 25, 2020, 08:04:36 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4282 on: September 25, 2020, 08:44:22 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4283 on: September 25, 2020, 08:47:44 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4284 on: September 25, 2020, 08:59:25 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

There were also 22 million emails sent from addresses on an RNC private email server regarding government business when the Bush administration was in power.  Weird that that doesn't get any discussion.  It's almost like . . . the Clinton thing was a manufactured scandal and Republicans don't really care about the use of email by government.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4285 on: September 25, 2020, 09:44:30 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

Edit: Clinton said that she did not have classified information, but the FBI investigation found that she did: "An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.". It's believed she did not understand the difference.

The difference is Clinton had classified information on an unsecure home system.

As a software developer, some of the things I've read about it have made me cringe:
* "transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted"
* "Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services."

There is no proof that she was hacked, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. A lot of security breaches aren't known until years after the fact. It's difficult to know when hacking is occurring, since IT people usually only have log files to rely on. Especially considering Clinton only had one untrained person managing the server. Michael Hayden agrees with me: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

This is compounded with the facts that Clinton:
* Did not have permission to have the home server
* Had the ability to use the federal governments secure email system
* Clinton had no good reason to use a home server. Convenience is a terrible reason when you are dealing with classified information.

I have a few friends who work with classified systems and have classified emails. To access these systems, they must:
* Have a security clearance
* Access this email on a secure computer at a secure location that must be plugged into a monitored wall at all times. If they need to move it, it needs to be requested and approved by IT.
* At this secure location, they cannot bring in their phones, bluetooth devices, or anything with a microphone or camera.

I'm concerned that you think that Clinton's blatant disregard of security with classified information is a "minor infraction".
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 10:01:02 AM by bloodaxe »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4286 on: September 25, 2020, 10:05:42 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

Edit: Clinton said that she did not have classified information, but the FBI investigation found that she did: "An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.". It's believed she did not understand the difference.

The difference is Clinton had classified information on an unsecure home system.

As a software developer, some of the things I've read about it have made me cringe:
* "transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted"
* "Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services."

There is no proof that she was hacked, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. A lot of security breaches aren't known until years after the fact. It's difficult to know when hacking is occurring, since IT people usually only have log files to rely on. Especially considering Clinton only had one untrained person managing the server. Michael Hayden agrees with me: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

This is compounded with the facts that Clinton:
* Did not have permission to have the home server
* Had the ability to use the federal governments secure email system
* Clinton had no good reason to use a home server. Convenience is a terrible reason when you are dealing with classified information.

I have a few friends who work with classified systems and have classified emails. To access these systems, they must:
* Have a security clearance
* Access this email on a secure computer at a secure location that must be plugged into a monitored wall at all times. If they need to move it, it needs to be requested and approved by IT.
* At this secure location, they cannot bring in their phones, bluetooth devices, or anything with a microphone or camera.

I'm concerned that you think that Clinton's blatant disregard of security with classified information is a "minor infraction".

And what did the FBI investigation of Ivanka Trump's (and Jared Kushner's) emails show?  Or were Republicans so concerned about emails that no investigation took place, and we took their word at it?
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 10:08:09 AM by GuitarStv »

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4287 on: September 25, 2020, 10:15:15 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

Edit: Clinton said that she did not have classified information, but the FBI investigation found that she did: "An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.". It's believed she did not understand the difference.

The difference is Clinton had classified information on an unsecure home system.

As a software developer, some of the things I've read about it have made me cringe:
* "transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted"
* "Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services."

There is no proof that she was hacked, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. A lot of security breaches aren't known until years after the fact. It's difficult to know when hacking is occurring, since IT people usually only have log files to rely on. Especially considering Clinton only had one untrained person managing the server. Michael Hayden agrees with me: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

This is compounded with the facts that Clinton:
* Did not have permission to have the home server
* Had the ability to use the federal governments secure email system
* Clinton had no good reason to use a home server. Convenience is a terrible reason when you are dealing with classified information.

I have a few friends who work with classified systems and have classified emails. To access these systems, they must:
* Have a security clearance
* Access this email on a secure computer at a secure location that must be plugged into a monitored wall at all times. If they need to move it, it needs to be requested and approved by IT.
* At this secure location, they cannot bring in their phones, bluetooth devices, or anything with a microphone or camera.

I'm concerned that you think that Clinton's blatant disregard of security with classified information is a "minor infraction".

And what did the FBI investigation of Ivanka Trump's (and Jared Kushner's) emails show?  Or were Republicans so concerned about emails that no investigation took place, and we took their word at it?

I don't know.

With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?


ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4288 on: September 25, 2020, 10:17:52 AM »
With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Not GuiterStv, but jumping in because this is fun.

You ignored other things we know. Most importantly:
* Republicans showed total disregard to public record laws by ignoring to apply same standards for investigations towards Ivanca/Jared as they did for Clinton.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4289 on: September 25, 2020, 10:21:00 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

Edit: Clinton said that she did not have classified information, but the FBI investigation found that she did: "An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.". It's believed she did not understand the difference.

The difference is Clinton had classified information on an unsecure home system.

As a software developer, some of the things I've read about it have made me cringe:
* "transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted"
* "Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services."

There is no proof that she was hacked, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. A lot of security breaches aren't known until years after the fact. It's difficult to know when hacking is occurring, since IT people usually only have log files to rely on. Especially considering Clinton only had one untrained person managing the server. Michael Hayden agrees with me: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

This is compounded with the facts that Clinton:
* Did not have permission to have the home server
* Had the ability to use the federal governments secure email system
* Clinton had no good reason to use a home server. Convenience is a terrible reason when you are dealing with classified information.

I have a few friends who work with classified systems and have classified emails. To access these systems, they must:
* Have a security clearance
* Access this email on a secure computer at a secure location that must be plugged into a monitored wall at all times. If they need to move it, it needs to be requested and approved by IT.
* At this secure location, they cannot bring in their phones, bluetooth devices, or anything with a microphone or camera.

I'm concerned that you think that Clinton's blatant disregard of security with classified information is a "minor infraction".

And what did the FBI investigation of Ivanka Trump's (and Jared Kushner's) emails show?  Or were Republicans so concerned about emails that no investigation took place, and we took their word at it?

I don't know.

With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Sure.

As long as we also add in:
* No investigation of the email belonging to Ivanka (or Jared) so we don't know if they did the same
* The violation that Clinton made was also made by the Bush administration with the RNC private server

Because of the above two points, I have difficulty believing there's much actual concern about the acts that Clinton did or didn't commit.  It seems to have been a largely politically manufactured outrage event specifically targeted (and successful) in discrediting a presidential candidate.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4290 on: September 25, 2020, 10:31:57 AM »
You left out Sec. Clinton: "President Trump deserves an open mind and a chance to lead."

I couldn't hear that over the 'lock her up' chants led by Donald Trump.  Y'know.  The demand that she be locked away for doing the exactly same thing that Trump's daughter did while he was in office.

I don't think either Ivanka or Hilary did the right thing. But they are definitely not "exactly the same thing".

Hilary stored highly classified emails on a home server for convenience, then deleted them when she was given a subpoena.

Ivanka used her personal gmail to send non classified government email.

Clinton also said that the deleted emails were either personal or non-classified.  She didn't 'delete them when given a subpoena', she had requested that they be deleted months before the subpoena was issued.

Ignoring the deleting part, Clinton's email issue was still on a whole different level than Ivanka's.

Again, not saying what Ivanka did was right.

Ivanka's emails were sent to White House aides, Cabinet members and Ivanka Trump’s assistants, many in violation of public records rules.  Can you spell out what makes it a 'whole different level'?  Both were pretty minor infractions regarding misuse of email while in office.

Edit: Clinton said that she did not have classified information, but the FBI investigation found that she did: "An FBI examination of Clinton's server found over 100 emails containing classified information, including 65 emails deemed "Secret" and 22 deemed "Top Secret". An additional 2,093 emails not marked classified were retroactively classified by the State Department.". It's believed she did not understand the difference.

The difference is Clinton had classified information on an unsecure home system.

As a software developer, some of the things I've read about it have made me cringe:
* "transmissions to and from the server were apparently not encrypted"
* "Clinton's server was configured to allow users to connect openly from the Internet and control it remotely using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Services."

There is no proof that she was hacked, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was. A lot of security breaches aren't known until years after the fact. It's difficult to know when hacking is occurring, since IT people usually only have log files to rely on. Especially considering Clinton only had one untrained person managing the server. Michael Hayden agrees with me: "I would lose all respect for a whole bunch of foreign intelligence agencies if they weren't sitting back, paging through the emails."

This is compounded with the facts that Clinton:
* Did not have permission to have the home server
* Had the ability to use the federal governments secure email system
* Clinton had no good reason to use a home server. Convenience is a terrible reason when you are dealing with classified information.

I have a few friends who work with classified systems and have classified emails. To access these systems, they must:
* Have a security clearance
* Access this email on a secure computer at a secure location that must be plugged into a monitored wall at all times. If they need to move it, it needs to be requested and approved by IT.
* At this secure location, they cannot bring in their phones, bluetooth devices, or anything with a microphone or camera.

I'm concerned that you think that Clinton's blatant disregard of security with classified information is a "minor infraction".

And what did the FBI investigation of Ivanka Trump's (and Jared Kushner's) emails show?  Or were Republicans so concerned about emails that no investigation took place, and we took their word at it?

I don't know.

With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Sure.

As long as we also add in:
* No investigation of the email belonging to Ivanka (or Jared) so we don't know if they did the same
* The violation that Clinton made was also made by the Bush administration with the RNC private server

Because of the above two points, I have difficulty believing there's much actual concern about the acts that Clinton did or didn't commit.  It seems to have been a largely politically manufactured outrage event specifically targeted (and successful) in discrediting a presidential candidate.

I agree. Government officials (and most people in general) should not be operating private email servers. They are difficult to manage and secure.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4291 on: September 25, 2020, 10:36:19 AM »
With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Not GuiterStv, but jumping in because this is fun.

You ignored other things we know. Most importantly:
* Republicans showed total disregard to public record laws by ignoring to apply same standards for investigations towards Ivanca/Jared as they did for Clinton.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Barr have some input in preventing an investigation.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4292 on: September 25, 2020, 10:54:25 AM »
With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Not GuiterStv, but jumping in because this is fun.

You ignored other things we know. Most importantly:
* Republicans showed total disregard to public record laws by ignoring to apply same standards for investigations towards Ivanca/Jared as they did for Clinton.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Barr have some input in preventing an investigation.

As long as we give equal importance to equal infraction (e.g. if you are equally riled up about Ivanca as you are about Hillary), I think nobody will disagree that Hillary Clinton was a poor choice as the Democratic nominee. Criminal? Probably no (else she would have been in jail with so many vindictive republican's behind her). Unethical - probably yes!!

But none of these matter when the other choice is the current Republican party.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4293 on: September 25, 2020, 11:23:58 AM »
With the facts we know right now:
* Hilary and Ivanka both violated public record laws.
* Clinton also disregarded proper security procedures to protect classified information.

Agree?

Not GuiterStv, but jumping in because this is fun.

You ignored other things we know. Most importantly:
* Republicans showed total disregard to public record laws by ignoring to apply same standards for investigations towards Ivanca/Jared as they did for Clinton.

I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Barr have some input in preventing an investigation.

As long as we give equal importance to equal infraction (e.g. if you are equally riled up about Ivanca as you are about Hillary), I think nobody will disagree that Hillary Clinton was a poor choice as the Democratic nominee. Criminal? Probably no (else she would have been in jail with so many vindictive republican's behind her). Unethical - probably yes!!

But none of these matter when the other choice is the current Republican party.

At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4294 on: September 25, 2020, 12:01:19 PM »
At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

<mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>
If you are in one of the swing states (which I don't know if you are or not), then a hundred thousand people like you created Trump.
</mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>

I believe it is important to differentiate between garden variety political corruption (==Clinton) and wannabe fascists.

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4295 on: September 25, 2020, 12:07:01 PM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?

Under the First  Amendment's Free Exercise Clause  and the RFRA  a  Catholic facility's choice to do as posted does not violate a woman's fundamental right of bodily autonomy to  choose certain medical procedures.


Religious Freedom Restoration Act | United States [1993 ...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Religious-Freedom-Restoration-Act
Aug 29, 2020 · Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), (1993), U.S. legislation that originally prohibited the federal government and the states from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion” unless “application of the burden…is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that…interest.”
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 12:35:21 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

Omy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4296 on: September 25, 2020, 12:14:22 PM »
So we can rest easy now...Trump is going to fix the healthcare system with a couple of executive orders.

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4297 on: September 25, 2020, 12:19:59 PM »
At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

<mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>
If you are in one of the swing states (which I don't know if you are or not), then a hundred thousand people like you created Trump.
</mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>

I believe it is important to differentiate between garden variety political corruption (==Clinton) and wannabe fascists.

I did live in a swing state then. I hope you can forgive me.

Where I live now is almost a guaranteed Trump win. So I'm going third party.

ctuser1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4298 on: September 25, 2020, 12:59:35 PM »
At least for presidential, republican wasn't the only choice ;) I voted green then.

<mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>
If you are in one of the swing states (which I don't know if you are or not), then a hundred thousand people like you created Trump.
</mock outrage with a tinge of sadness>

I believe it is important to differentiate between garden variety political corruption (==Clinton) and wannabe fascists.

I did live in a swing state then. I hope you can forgive me.

Where I live now is almost a guaranteed Trump win. So I'm going third party.

It was said in jest.

I have nothing against people who do things for the correct reasons.

I *know* and am friends with people who voted for Trump for reasons that are not unethical (
He argued that US needs to become a "normal" country and shed it's "manifest destiny" moorings. I don't agree with him, but I do agree Clinton definitely wan't the right candidate for that and Trump sounded like he wanted to do this.
).


LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4299 on: September 25, 2020, 01:13:24 PM »
Catholic-run facilities are doing this now (not performing any procedures that could lead to an abortion, even when the mother’s health is endangered). And often people have no choice to go elsewhere because the Catholic-run company has a monopoly or is the only option under their health insurance. Will try to find the article I read about it.

Isn't that infringing on the women's freedom? Surely it is if adding a "this is not a fact" to a tweet is!!
Not to mention violating the doctor's oath?

Under the First  Amendment's Free Exercise Clause  and the RFRA  a  Catholic facility's choice to do as posted does not violate a woman's fundamental right of bodily autonomy to  choose certain medical procedures.

Well, under the hippocratic oath it does. Because the topic was not (only) bodily autonomy, but bodily health. The OP wrote  even when the mother’s health is endangered