I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?



So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:

a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?

b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?

a:

no


b:


https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/h...18432177934336



In case anyone thinks there is a bottom below which trump/modern GOP will not go, imagine going through that and then having your president make statements saying you executed your child.

b. Clearly it is a bad taste late term abortion "joke"

As far as to your (a) point more generally, I think it is a very interesting phenomenon of group psychology that so many Americans are willing to defend and support Trump, given his innumerable faults as a decent human being and a politician.

I am not sure it is anything particularly unique to 21st century America though. History books are filled with horrible leaders who enjoyed varying levels of popular support, many of whom were arguably much worse than Trump and more popularly supported.

Good post. The difference of course is that we are in the middle of one right now - as opposed to reading about it after the fact. It's pretty wild.

I don’t have anything to do with Twitter. Some random tweet from a TRUMP opponent is not sufficient context for me. Post a link to a transcript of his speech please. FWIW TRUMP shaming is pretty weak sauce for a discussion too.

Apologies if Caroline Orr is more than some person bloviating on Twitter.

FTR I find “going hard to the paint” supporting 3rd trimester abortions to be reprehensible. So getting bent out of shape over someone’s opposition to the third trimester abortions ain’t happening with me tbh.

He's been saying it for months. From february:

www.vox.com/2019/2/12/18221707/trump-rally-el-paso-northam-abortion-virginia



trump shaming? Is that meant to conjure similarities to things like fat shaming?

It's the president of the United States spreading blatant, easily verifiable, incendiary propaganda lies during his rallies. This is new. This is significant. This is what populist dictators do. We've never had a President lie like this. Of course it's discussion-worthy. Stop gaslighting.

Calling out Trump's lies has nothing to do with supporting 3rd trimester abortions. By your logic it's ok to lie your ass off, as POTUS, if you think you're on the right side of an issue. Is that really what you believe?

Feel free to start another thread about abortion if you want. I actually think the Democrats are doing some pretty dumb stuff on that - at least at the state level right now. Well NY and VA to be specific. Of course the Rs are doing much worse stuff in a bunch of states. But still - could be an interesting discussion.

Here you go adios, even though you already conceded that proof of the claim in Caroline Orr's tweet wouldn't matter to you, but still asked for it anyway.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-ne...02131e297c65c5

Btw in some circles asking for proof of something that you're just going to discount, ignore or actually support once proof it provided - could be considered bad faith debating. Although most posters don't actually admit up front that they're going to discount the proof before it's provided. So I guess you get some honesty points for that.

Sounds like is spinning NICU bereavement procedure into something for abortion

Vilify & dehumanize. See also: "marauders" & "infest[atio n]" used to describe asylum seekers

there is no world where this type of language should be shrugged off as "normal"





This blatant dishonesty is a patent example of Bad Faith posting by potus. Of course the Democratic party does not want to encourage gang violence.

Normalizing this type of behavior is horrifying.

If conservatives won't act to police their party's de facto leader for this type of behavior, what lines will he next therefore be enabled to cross?

Andrew Jackson constantly lied about his opponents, gave zero ****s about laws and norms of government, openly used the US military to enrich himself (he bought land on frontier then removed the Indians), gave out critical government positions as political favors, fired/exiled anyone that didn’t agree with him, and used populist rhetoric that had little substance.

It took decades for the US government to recover from the Jacksonian “era”. I can only hope we can recover from the Trump “era” faster.

Trumps abortion comments above are obviously inflammatory rhetoric intended to rally the religious right to him but how often are 3rd trimester abortions failures? I didn’t even know that was a thing. Seems kinda bad to not have to give them care outside of the womb.


A lot of what Trump is is a return to ugly 19th century politics.

I think we will recover very quickly. Everything seems to happen at faster pace these days both the good and the bad.

I don't believe there are any states where it is not already legally obligatory to provide care for an infant that is born alive under any circumstances. These kinds of laws are not new. Here, for example, is my first ever post in the old politics forum, from 2008:

Everything that was true of the BAIPA 15 years ago is still true of these kinds of proposals today, AFAIK.

it is a topical issue since the senate just voted it down

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ion-2019-sasse

Right, it's politically relevant, it's just that the politics of the bill have little to do with its ostensible purpose, i.e. to prevent scenarios where living viable human children are not given care. The Vox article makes the same points I did about that, but thanks for finding it. I was thinking about it but couldn't remember where I had read it. It goes into more detail than I did.

its a political stunt, to make things illegal which are already illegal. it makes all the faux-religious right clutch their pearls over mean imaginary situations of babies being killed, in order to demonize anyone that is being rational or logical.

"New York’s RHA also repealed a section of the public health law that required the following: that abortions after 12 weeks be performed in a hospital; that an additional physician be present for abortions after 20 weeks to care for “any live birth that is the result of the abortion”; and that such babies be provided “immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York.”"

why did ny repeal this

i don't have any experience with new york laws, but its fairly settled that abortion clinics dont need an "additional physician" when one is already present. any doctor is required by the Hippocratic oath to attempt to do no harm to a living human being. so if an abortion that was failed, happened to result in a live baby, the one physician ALREADY there would be obligated to save it regardless of a random law. also a living being is already under the legal protection as a citizen...

it seems to be entirely unnecessary and was also likely a political stunt.

--eta, actually with the ADDITIONAL physician requirement, the law was probably introduced in the same fashion that the 'admitting privileges" law is being introduced in the south. to put unnecessary requirements on clinics in order to drive them out of business.

Mets: I can go do some research on NY laws for you at some point if you want, but I'm fairly confident that babies born in NY retain legal protection with or without whatever sections were repealed. For example, I already referenced a federal law which passed in 2002 with this same requirement, and the Vox article you linked also references it. That law is in effect in NY. It is almost certainly the case that many other state laws would also apply.

So, the political argument here is disingenuous, I think. Do you really think it's likely that the state of NY is trying to make it legal to murder newborns? Now, I think there's a plausible argument that they may be trying to go further towards legalizing late-term abortion than many people are comfortable with. I'm not sure exactly what changes they've made. But if there's an argument about where the limits should exist on late-term abortion that's a different topic, and the false suggestion that the state is going to allow viable new-born infants to be murdered is a pretty horrible way to try to score political points.

well named I think it's pretty clear metsandfins and adios here have very sincere and principled stands against infanticide, and it's well within the bounds of mainstream conservative thought to claim that Democrats support infanticide. I do not appreciate you impugning anyone's posting as "disingenuous"

I'm sure Mets understands that I was referring to Ben Sasse

Should be clear that trump was referencing this interview which went viral. I'm not here to debate trumps honesty about the issue but you can see in the interview they reference attempts to legalize late term abortion. IIRC Bernie just went on record at a town hall to say he is in favor of the right to terminate a pregnancy up to the moment of birth.

I think trump is clearly focusing on this to rally his base. He's directing attention to it because he knows that moderate people are repulsed by late term abortions. I think the dems are shooting themselves in the foot here and trump is steering them in to oncoming traffic.

Going to guess Bernie's had the same opinion for 40 years or so

dems understand facts and logic like that 98.7% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, with over 91% of the total number of abortions occurring before 13 weeks, according to the CDC.

dems also understand that there are medical conditions and situations which should allow for people to have abortions later than that.

trump and co. think that babies are strangled in hospitals..

That is the issue being discussed in the OP. Neither of the politicians you cited support executing newborns, which is trump's claim.