P
ProVobis
Guest
How so? Didn’t Gorsuch already state Roe vs Wade was the law of the land and has been reaffirmed?
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
What is he supposed to say? The concern now is to avoid justices who will create interpretations that are worse than what we are living with now.
There is a lot of abortion policy in place now that goes well beyond the standards set by Roe v. Wade. There is nothing keeping the nation from doing the right thing and changing who is recognized by the Constitution as having a right to life in order to change Roe v. Wade.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I think you do not know what a straw man is. It is not something one disagrees with. It is something that is not being argued. For example, since no one never said that the opinions of our associates should be of greater value than our faith, and no one believes it, arguing that it is constitutes a straw man. It would be like me trying to argue that we all should value the truth. That is an obvious point of agreement. Arguing that President Trump has demonstrated that he has little regard for truth would not be a straw man.pnewton:
Yeah, well, so was the claim that Trump has “no track record” with regard to opposition of abortion. And someone did claim that. Funny, I didn’t see you post anything to correct THAT “false claim, a straw man.” We seem to be very selective with regard to pointing out straw men, no?SuperLuigi:
That is a false claim, a straw man. No one is saying that.
Makes one begin to question whether the virtue of honesty is being taken seriously in this thread.
Or do you agree that Trump has “no track record” in that regard? Do I also need to go on another long “diatribe” regarding the meaning of track record?
This is why abortion, like Nazis, cannot be the argument on every thread. Sometimes they have nothing to do with the topic, and they are not things we are really disagreeing over.
Now, as to your point, saying he has no track record on abortion may or may not be accurate, depending on what you consider a track record. He has spoken against it, quite a bit. He now has some record against it, though he had no track record of any kind before his election, as President was his first elected office. I do think the case can be made he was the least pro-life candidate of the race on the Republican ticket, perhaps the most for the last fifty years, which kind of makes the whole idea of Republicans being pro-life taste sour. So,while Catholics can still support Trump, I do not believe, in my own opinion, it has much to do with abortion. I see money, pride, guns, immigration, nationalism and “Murica” being the bigger sources of his support.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
I thought Trump’s reason for appointing judges was mainly to abide by the 10th Amendment. So even if Gorsuch is a 10th Amendment guy such as Justice Scalia had been, this isn’t a pure pro-life position. But I’ll agree with you it’s more of a Constitutional position.
J
jlhargus
Guest
He ran as pro-life and his actions appointing a prolife justice to the Supreme Court.
Last edited:
A
anon65111186
Guest
That is not prejudice but fact, unfortunately it is the law of the land. He has to hear both sides of an argument in court and make a judgement based on the facts of the case first.
Gorsuch has come out clearly on whether he thinks abortion is a right or not, saying “the right to terminate a pregnancy differs from the right to use contraceptives because the former involves the death of a person while the latter does not.”
A
anon65111186
Guest
In which way, that is quite a general and all encompassing statement.
Unfortunately there was nothing scientific about that accord, it was pure political statement.
He said if you attack us or our allies, you will be destroyed. Harsh, but more than likely a possibility if such an attack on us happened. Didn’t need to call him rocket man but that was a little humor, at least it wasn’t vulgar or obscene. Nuclear proliferation experts agree with his strategy, it is working better than anything we’ve had in awhile. Even China is cooperating.
Which foreign leaders were alienated? Ones that opposed and mocked his agenda viciously? Didn’t they rather alienate themselves and his supporters?
Jerusalem is the de facto capital of Israel, they have all their government there, so for all practical purposes it is indeed the capital. Acknowledging that led to what exactly? Protesting?
If that were true, he would be impeached.
How is that anything he has done?
Way too general to be meaningful, he talks against fake news when they print fake news stories against him. That is not the same thing.
He doesn’t trust the FBI because many of them were not doing their job, openly insubordinate or just corrupt.
P
PetraG
Guest
Exactly. You cannot ask for a Supreme Court justice to “fashion, wrest, or bow” his or her reading of the Constitution to conform to even the most praiseworthy political end. Well, you could, but it would be asking the judge to betray the public trust placed in the Justices. They have their role in the government, and in good conscience you cannot ask them to stray from it, even if others may have seem to have done so.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Absolutely true. AND, we didn’t actually have to anything to continue as a signatory. BUT, pulling out was a political statement as well, and was part of the general weakening of the US as a world leader and a world power.
Are you serious? What did it do? It removed any facade we might have had as an honest broker in the middle east, and placed us firmly in Israel’s camp. No more American leaders brokering peace deals. That’s what it led to.
Donald Trump has publicly lied at least 1600 times since inauguration. The news does not print fake stories against him. Fake stories are in InfoWars and the National Enquirer. The news media prints unflattering stories about a President who lies and does stupid things. His crusade about “Fake News” is solely to undermine the press among his supporters who can’t tell truth from fiction.
M
Metis1
Guest
False as it has been recognized by many of our own federal agencies, such as the NAS, NOAA, NASA, and even our own DoD.
Try most of them, including the Brits, the Canadians, and the Mexicans. His approval rating in Europe and most of Asia is dismal.
Again, false. Some need to remember that Mueller and Comey are both Republicans and were appointed by Republicans, and the only accusation of corruption and insubordination is coming out of Trump & Co. and some of the right-wing media.
Besides undermining the “MSM”, the Trump supporters have turned on the FBI and some other federal agencies undoubtedly because they’re well aware of what’s coming down the pike with the investigations. They know the “message” is gonna be bad, so they’re going after the “messengers” in advance.
After all, why else would six members of Trump’s staff lie about not having any contact with the Russians, and why would they try and stop these investigations if they’re innocent? If I’m innocent, I want all the information to come out to show that I’m innocent.
OK, what did I do wrong with trying to multi-quote?
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
OK, let’s be specific about how he got a reputation as being against a free press.
In a campaign speech in February 2016 in Fort Worth, Texas, Donald Trump said this:
“And one of the things I’m going to do, and this is only going to make it tougher for me — and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope I do, and we’re certainly getting there, I’m going to open up the libel laws so when they write horrible and negative and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money…We’re going to open up those libel laws, so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected. You see? With me they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people, but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money. So we can put up those libel laws and we’ll have people sue you like you never got sued before.”
He said he’s going after horrible, false and negative newspaper pieces. What can that mean?
If a newspaper prints something that is demonstrably false, they can already be sued for libel. He cannot be talking about making it illegal to print false things, because it is already illegal to print false things.
(And when did he sue the Times or the Post for their political coverage and get damages? I missed that.)
That leaves “horrible” and “negative.” What has never and should never happen is for it to be illegal to write something negative about someone that is demonstrably based on facts. That destroys the free press, because only writing that flatters or does not offend the subjects will be protected. Writing that the subjects can demonstrate is “negative” would be cause for a civil damages.
As recently as October, he tweeted this:
@realDonaldTrump
With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!
6:55 AM - 11 Oct 2017
@realDonaldTrump
Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!
5:09 PM - 11 Oct 2017
He is talking about revoking the licenses of news outlets that he doesn’t like!!
It is also considered a no-no to cherrypick who gets access to the President or the White House Press Office. On at least one occasion, Sean Spicer did just that, though, restricting press outlets that the White House didn’t like from attending:
Loading…
www.theguardian.com
In other words, print what the government likes, or you don’t get access.
That’s undermining a free press. The evidence is there for anyone who is willing to admit it,
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
That acquits Mrs. Clinton of all wrong-doing, too. Are you willing to stick with that?
It is not as if someone who commits a criminal act isn’t actually guilty before they’re convicted or if the justice system fails to convict them. You and I both know that the existence or non-existence of wrong-doing is an object fact that is not changed by a judicial verdict. It is only recognized or described by a judicial verdict.
O
OKi
Guest
They’re not worried about his talking, they’re worried about his doing. I.e. ending federal PP abortion funding.
O
OKi
Guest
If so bring suit. If not … I guess maybe you don’t have a case that he’s lying.
A
anon65111186
Guest
During the election I knew too many people that refused to accept the obvious fact that opposing Trump, or supporting a third-party protest vote, meant helping Hillary Clinton.
Today, many refuse to accept that criticizing only Trump means boosting the double standards that are deployed against all conservatives.
Those double standards are deeply corrosive of democracy as a whole. The fact that the mainstream media, for example, overlooked or defended mistakes by Obama that they treat as impeachable offenses by Trump means that legitimate criticism of the administration is often taken less seriously.
The media doesn’t simply point out inconvenient truths, it regularly distorts the truth and applies standards to Trump it would never dare to Obama or Clinton.
Today, many refuse to accept that criticizing only Trump means boosting the double standards that are deployed against all conservatives.
Those double standards are deeply corrosive of democracy as a whole. The fact that the mainstream media, for example, overlooked or defended mistakes by Obama that they treat as impeachable offenses by Trump means that legitimate criticism of the administration is often taken less seriously.
The media doesn’t simply point out inconvenient truths, it regularly distorts the truth and applies standards to Trump it would never dare to Obama or Clinton.
A
anon65111186
Guest
How did it weaken America as a world leader?
That contradicts what the White house actually said. They didn’t do anything but recognize the de facto capital, Palestine does not have their de facto capital there. They are still working with the situation, they didn’t recognize borders or anything, just the capital.
Wow so charitable of you counting his sins, how many other people’s sins do you count? Do you really think that worldly way of thinking is charitable? Would you have someone count your lies and publish it for the world to see?
R
Rahn
Guest
Yes. Romans 13:1
A
anon65111186
Guest
The chair of the House of Representatives science committee, in a statement
“By withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, President Trump has freed America from a bad deal that would cost billions of dollars but have little significant environmental benefit”
U.S. energy secretary: “the right course of action” The Paris accord “was neither submitted to nor ratified by the U.S. Senate, and is not in the best long term economic interest of the United States.
“Instead of preaching about clean energy, this Administration will act on it. Our work and deeds are more important than empty words. I know you can drive economic growth and protect the environment at the same time”
Actions not words, on American terms.
Trump: The United States will continue to be actively engaged in the development of global energy and the world leader in the development of next generation technology. That is exactly why I am traveling to Japan and China to discuss the benefits of all forms of energy, including nuclear, fossil, LNG and renewables. I also plan to discuss technological advances such as carbon capture (CCS) that can leverage the abundant resources we have available in an environmentally responsible way.
- Status