Here is his context.
Here is the bill.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/proposals/ab179
That is the context of what Trump is talking about. Feel free to read and make your own judgment.
Bennett: Virginia would decline White House invite
- Thread starter Halldan1
- Start date
Here is his context.
Here is the bill.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2019/related/proposals/ab179
That is the context of what Trump is talking about. Feel free to read and make your own judgment.
I am in the camp that says President Trump is a terrible President. I am not in the camp that says he is "unfit" for office, if unfit means he is medically or psychologically not capable. I don't believe that to be true. Being bad at your job and being unfit are not necessarily the same thing and should not be used interchangeably.
I am also uncomfortable with statements that imply the President's underlings are serving their country by preventing the President from doing bad things. That may be true in one sense, but "going rogue" is not a good thing in the long run for the country.
I focused on the text at the bottom of this post. As I read it, if a doctor botches an abortion, they need to reasonably and conscientiously attempt to keep the baby alive. Then the baby needs to be transported to a hospital. This is not an undue burden on what ultimately is medical malpractice.
The President is using specific imagery that implies a normal birth followed by an execution. He must be referring to something else.
(2) Requirements of health care providers.
Any health care provider present 8at the time an abortion or attempted abortion results in a child born alive shall do 9all of the following:
10 (a) Exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to
11preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious 12health care provider would render to any other child born alive at the same 13gestational age.
1(b) Observing the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under par. (a), 2ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a 3hospital.
The President is using specific imagery that implies a normal birth followed by an execution. He must be referring to something else.
(2) Requirements of health care providers.
Any health care provider present 8at the time an abortion or attempted abortion results in a child born alive shall do 9all of the following:
10 (a) Exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to
11preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious 12health care provider would render to any other child born alive at the same 13gestational age.
1(b) Observing the exercise of skill, care, and diligence required under par. (a), 2ensure that the child born alive is immediately transported and admitted to a 3hospital.
I agree with that, which is why it is mind boggling to me that military generals would feel it is their duty to do so and meets my definition of someone being unfit.
Fine if you disagree, it is just a word that doesn't really matter. The opportunity to remove Trump from office will occur in 18 months. I hope that we continue the debate and he never provides more obvious evidence that he is unfit.
I believe he is referring to Wisconsin, but if it is something else, it is probably imaginary because what he describes doesn't happen.
Words do matter. We hold the President accountable for his words all the time. You will never convince anyone of an unlike mind to vote against President Trump by claiming he is "unfit".
Are you talking about AB179 or another law?
If it is another law can you let us know which one. I'd be curious to read it.
That law and S. 311
Again, I am against abortion but approach the issue with empathy.
I try to put myself in the shoes of a mother who wants a child but finds out it has Potter's syndrome (or something similar) and they find out their child will die outside the womb. Sometimes there are just no good options, and how to handle those difficult options should be between a woman and her doctor.
Last edited:
You too are using imagery to fit you narrative. You are expressing an interpretation of the law that is not reasonable.
the law says" In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born alive:"
It does not say, "In the case of an abortion or attempted abortion that results in a child born that is now dying". You added that that innuendo.
The law is based on the assumption that the child is viable and has a chance to live. It is intended to ensure that every effort is made to save a life of someone who cannot speak for themselves.
And let's be real here. Please don't tell be that 100% of these so called mothers will want to "hold their dying child". They went to an abortion clinic for crying out loud. Take a guess what their intent was in the first place.
Last edited:
Agree with "Sometimes"
However given the emotional stated of a young uneducated scared mother I am not sure they are in the best condition to make a good decision immediately after birth. I am more in favor of having as many contingencies agreed to ahead of time.
I also agree with difficult. That is an understatement. Gut wrenching comes to mind.
If a woman and a doctor decide to induce a pregnancy because of a non viable fetus, she can deliver the baby who will die outside the womb.
The laws being created say that the doctor must then attempt to save the baby with no thought as to how likely that is and would deny a parent a chance to hold the baby while it is alive.
These are extremely rare cases, but there is nuance there that we can leave this up to a doctor and the mother. There is already a law which gives rights to any fetus born alive.
The issue is late term abortions that due to medical error are born alive and would be viable only that the doctor completed the abortion by killing the baby.
The President said-
"The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
The issue above and what the President are discussing are not the same thing. In addition, neither of these issues are abortion related.
I am not sure that inducing labor to birth a child that is not viable outside the womb (without taking proactive steps to end the life in the birthing process) is legally abortion but I believe there is room for both medical duty and human compassion in these really difficult, and fortunately pretty rare, circumstances.
The President said-
"The baby is born, the mother meets w/the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. Then the doctor and mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby."
The issue above and what the President are discussing are not the same thing. In addition, neither of these issues are abortion related.
I am not sure that inducing labor to birth a child that is not viable outside the womb (without taking proactive steps to end the life in the birthing process) is legally abortion but I believe there is room for both medical duty and human compassion in these really difficult, and fortunately pretty rare, circumstances.
This is a layup. Open your eyes and pay attention for 30 seconds. You can throw a stone in any direction and hit a reason. He lived a very loud and public life for decades before entering office. He is unethical, immoral, corrupt, selfish, and toxic. He's a fraud, a swindler, a cheat, a pathological liar, and a narcissist. And he was quite comfortable with that. Review the man's life, business dealings, marriages, etc. We knew all of this. There was no act. That's who he is, which wasn't a big problem when he was citizen Trump. In fact, I found him to be somewhat amusing under the unintentional comedy banner, because he was such an unaware public hot mess of a human being. So when that man, with zero experience, became President...what did you think would happen? Well, we're seeing it and it's rotten.
It's rotten that unemployment is this low? It's rotten that the markets are up? It's rotten that we called out our allies for not paying enough for NATO?
That's the problem. There is something new every 30 seconds that would have been a huge scandal in any other presidency.
Reporting today that the governments of 8 governments renting luxury condo units from Trump in 2017, without any congressional approval as required by the emoluments clause. Foreign governments lining the pockets of the president is something that framers were fairly explicit about wanting to avoid. Just another day in the Trump administration though.
What does that have to do with Trump? Nothing. Take a look at the scoreboard. I have noted this here before, but Trump out-scandals Team Clinton by a ton, which is really hard to do.
This is how reality works:
News: Report of a Clinton scandal.
Me: No sh!t... Totally expected. That's what they do.
I don't envy Trump apologists and enablers. The 24/7 suspension of disbelief and all of the mental gymnastics one has to do to create an alternate reality must be exhausting. Rest well friends... or it could lead to Windmill Cancer.
So why isn’t your reaction to a Trump scandal the same No Sh!t?
Do you have anything other than whataboutism rebuttals? Of course unemployment and the economy are positives. Although those two things were steadily climbing before he took office. You can argue Trump actions helped give both a jump, but don’t overstate it. Also worth noting is Trump’s contribution to the national deficit while providing that economist boost. That should not be be overstated as well. In both case, not all him.
Unfortunately for you, your logic is terribly flawed. Zoom out a take a look at the big picture. If a man breaks into a house, kills a woman, and does the dishes before he leaves... The story is man kills woman. The “but what about the dishes! He did the dishes!” argument is not one to be made.
I pretty much do react that way. My crystal ball is in the shop. I couldn’t have told you exactly what a Trump Presidency was going to look like, but I knew it had corrupt-disaster potential. It’s worse than I thought.
To the point of your question...it seems like you’re having some difficulty grasping the situation again. Volume and severity matter.
Or maybe you’re blowing the situation out of proportion. Politics have been corrupt forever. To think now is much more severe than ever before is nuts.
The biggest problem in politics today is both sides hate each other more than ever and are putting party over country at a greater rate than ever before. They promote that hate non stop on the news.
When Trump was running, I thought he would be a total disaster as president. As I listened to the campaign, that fear lessened a bit but I was never excited about him. When he won, I said I'd give him a chance.
His presidency has been better than I thought it would be. I'd say as far as accomplishments, he's an average president. I was expecting worse.
His presidency has been better than I thought it would be. I'd say as far as accomplishments, he's an average president. I was expecting worse.
They also have agendas and biases. You don't have to be an "expert" on something to offer a valid opinion on the topic.
For example, I follow Michael Beschloss on Twitter because of the great photos and historical insights he posts. But he is incapable of suppressing his incredible bias against this president.
Trump is not a member of the elite, political class in this country. He was never "supposed" to be president. He's not "one of them" (policy elites, historians, academics, etc.), he's an outsider and he doesn't conform to their system. That will forever be held against him. His personal failings and immorality are just gravy.
If Washington had been doing their job, we wouldn’t even be talking about Trump today. Lack of oversight and accountability of those who caused the financial crisis, juvenile partisanship, and rhetoric; and an elitist attitude that has resulted in a record low approval rating. He won; there are people that still can’t deal with it; won’t accept it; have to contuslly go on unhinged rants; but even worse fail to reflect on what got us here. It wasn’t Russia; the Alt Right or any outside force that enabled his victory. Look in the mirror.
For the sake of the country, we should hope the DOJ’s investigations do not find Hillary and Obama complicit in undermining the election. The next 18 months will be interesting for sure.
For the sake of the country, we should hope the DOJ’s investigations do not find Hillary and Obama complicit in undermining the election. The next 18 months will be interesting for sure.
We can certainly debate what got us here, but I dont think that means we cant acknowledge how crazy this administration is.
If Bernie wins and ends up constantly attacking our institutions, I am not going to excuse that behavior by saying the environment led to it. You were big on leadership under Obama but you never mention that as a criteria for your analysis of the white house.
What is your worst case scenario of what they would find there?
The White House has been devoid of leadership for a long time (including under Trump). I’ve been consistent on that. When you devalue leadership, experience and values, you get celebrity candidates like Obama and Trump.
Don’t have a worse case scenario or a conspiracy theory. I’ll wait to see if the DOJ pursues and what comes out.
Right, so in your opinion politicians failing us brought a celebrity presidency of Obama and Trump... Yet you never said that Obama was a result of that while he was President. You just went after his leadership and failure to negotiate.
Lol. You dont have a conspiracy theory but you just hope there isnt a very specific one?
Similar threads
