Hodad

And what you are saying is a lie. He signed the repeal of a law that was deliberately re-written to force health care providers to preserve "life" regardless of viability. Repealing that shitty law doesn't change the fact that doctors are required to give life saving care when, in their medical judgement, it is reasonable to do so. The obligation to administer care to patients who have a chance exists independent of the shitty repealed law. And the repeal certainly does not legalize homicide.

The fetus was 15 weeks. Keep up.

Ghost writer conducts epic trolling! 🤣

No, lol, I directly attacked your position and held the absurdity of it up for ridicule. You are quite literally arguing for a so-called "born alive" law that was so extreme that it would, under threat of imprisonment, force health care providers to abandon all medical judgement, common sense and decency and pointlessly perform extreme intervention procedures on non-viable infants. And yes, we are talking about non-viable babies, because there are already laws protecting any viable person. Doctor's must render care and infanticide is homicide, already illegal under state and federal law. There is no such thing as a "post-birth abortion." Nowhere are they "executing" newborns. It's an entirely made up claim.

No, you said something incredibly stupid. If you'd like to amend your argument, feel free to do so. But as it stands, your absurd opposition to non-intervention for non-viable newborns is exactly what I described. And your characterization of a peaceful and dignified death as "post-birth abortions" is ludicrous and deeply dishonest. A non-viable newborn is, by definition, beyond saving. It should be made comfortable if needed and allowed to pass peacefully. Don't stick tubes in it. Don't crush it to simulate a heartbeat. Let the parents have their moment and their grief.

You are easily confused. Here, in the US, we elect a President of the United States, v not a president of the world. Bullies will still bully and ancient enemies will still fight regardless of who sits in the oval office. Go figure.

100% serious. And, yes, it's terribly sad that your will to dominate and subjugate would until such a terrible toll on your fellow citizens. Have you neither shame nor mercy?

As a Trump supporter, I'm not sure how you can throw stones at anyone regarding "word salads." Apparently you didn't watch the presidential debate, or you would have seen Trump's incoherent, off-topic ranting contrasted to a well-composed Harris, who manipulated Trump with grace and ease.

And both were more interested in answering the actual questions posed by the moderators than their top-of-ticket counterparts. But yes, the comparison to Trump is especially stark, considering his rambling, non-sequitur diatribes.

Yes, Graham was the speaker at Trump's inauguration who said the rain during Trump's speech was a sign from god. Trump, of course, claimed it didn't rain. And it's not faith in god that brings them together, but the shared faith that there's a fortune to be made fleecing the rubes.

No, typically they are an act of mercy, to spare some poor woman (who probably desperately wants that baby) the agony of continue to carry and birth a fetus with no chance of survival. And note that you are changing the subject from the entirely fictional "post-birth abortion" to late-term abortions, which are technically possible but nearly always for for good cause.

I suppose you would have found those non-viable babies tiny ventilators and done chest compressions until the little bodies were puddles of mush. I'm not sure why you hate babies--and their traumatized parents--so much that you'd deny those newborns the opportunity for palliative care when needed and to pass in peace and dignity.

I'd offer a correction. This really doesn't have anything to do with desperation. It's just who Trump is: a pathological liar. He started from day 1 literally telling people it didn't rain at his inauguration, when the entire country watched it happen. His wife sat on stage next to him under an umbrella. His guest speaker, Franklin Graham, went on stage just after Trump and mentioned the rain in his remarks. And Trump, being a compulsive liar made the claim anyway. Because he's mentally disordered. He's the kind of guy who would pee on your head and tell you it's NOT raining. And his devoted cultists can't be bothered to call him on the lies. They'd just luxuriate in the golden shower of his attention.

B. It's not a person in that it lacks the basic characteristics of personhood. It has no identify, no sense of self, no autonomy, no ability to process information. If an extra-uterine human has that level of cognition we understand that it has passed beyond personhood. We call it a "vegetable" and pull the plug. C. You can snip the irrelevant first three paragraphs of your reply. There is no tenable philosophy that proposes that either the intended or unintended consequences of a sex act magically create a supremacy of rights. And indeed, if you really want to make an argument for the supremacy of fetal rights, you can no longer give consideration to the life and health of the pregnant person. In such a cockamamie scheme, they must die before terminating a pregnancy. Your mother does not owe you her blood and tissue, period. If you try to take it from her, she is well within her legal and moral rights to defend herself against you. Go ahead. Try it. See how that goes.

A. The pregnant person is indisputably a person. B. The fetus is not a person C. Even if the fetus were a person with full equal rights, it would no more entitled to inhabit the host's body--steal the blood and tissue, and inflict medical and psychological trauma--than any other person. Your mother brought you into the world, but you can't take her blood or her kidney, not any other part of her simply because of that relationship. She can willingly donate either, but you're not entitled to take them against her will.

Eh, there are people playing along at home and they deserve to know the facts. The pre-COVID Trump economy was a good continuation of the Obama economy (the trajectories didn't change at all) just with higher deficits. The economy Trump promised and the GDP growth he promised never materialized.

It's really not my concern that you "believe"me. We're talking about basic facts and figures available to everyone. If you want to be perceived as someone very, very stupid, keep pretending we've had 20 million illegal immigrants over the last 4 years. (Jeebus, of you're going to tell outlandish lirs, why stop there? Why not 100 million?) Keep pretending that producing dramatically more oil drives up has prices. Keep pretending that Biden's deficits are awful, but Trump's larger deficit was fine. You have a perfect formula for becoming a brain-dead partisan lunatic.

1. The "open border" is a silly myth. The border law is the border law until we can change it. and "20 million illegals" under Biden is an impossibly stupid exaggeration in no way related to reality. There are 11 or 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US total, cumulatively, from all administrations. 2. Again, a total myth. We've had record domestic oil production under Biden and we are net energy exporters. It is economically impossible to drive up gas prices or inflation by increasing oil production. So stupid. 3. Biden did run deficits--which was completely appropriate to navigate out of a crisis. They were, however, smaller than the deficits he inherited from Trump. Which factually means that "print and spend" wend DOWN under Biden. ^^ all facts, plain facts that anyone can verify.

The Biden economy was super-fantabulous-sensational if you pretend that we weren't recovering from the COVID financial crisis. That's the way it works, right? We should all just pretend that reality isn't reality and what happened didn't really happen. The Trump economy was amazing if you ignore the parts that weren't!🤪

I think you're more likely to turn them on with this list. Being indecent and unqualified is a badge of honor in the MAGA cult because it's a middle-finger to conventional politics. It's the politics of spite.

Yes. I pick three charities each year and set up automatic donations monthly. Psychologically this is easy because it's painless. Reasonable amounts monthly add up to significant giving over the course of a year and I don't defer or forget. Because it's automatic and incremental I never have to make a decision to forego some other spending. (When December rolls around I don't have to say, "Well, I forgot to be charitable this year, should I write a big donation check or go on a trip?") I choose the charities based on: 1. Passion - a cause that is meaningful to my family 2. Is is a quality organization? I check with Charity Navigator to see the financials, controversies etc. You can see how much goes into overhead vs service, etc. I also do ad-hoc donations when opportunities pop up throughout the year, but that's reactive rather than a "giving plan."

Good, gawdy, that's hideous.

The lizard people are a technologically superior species. Anything can be anything! An aluminum foil hat is the only way to fully protect yourself.

That's a scam that would work flawlessly every time if they simply re-use his donor list.

Probably. At least in terms of enforcement, it's not as bright a line as it should be and much of his activity has been at least close to that fuzzy line. He may have crossed it. Probably did. But if they start enforcing that law strictly it's going to raise a LOT of uncomfortable questions for a lot of first families and associates.