You complain about being cast as you are simultaneously casting against people who support Trump. Trump was a NY democrat up until his run for office. He didn’t magically become a racist republican in 2016. So you are either feeding into the republicans are racist smear or he hid it well for 70 years. And I am not a major Trump fan by any stretch. My vote is one for the party platform and the future, not a cult personality.
The Republican Party has gotten far more support from a wider variety of people, mostly of the working class, than anytime in my life.
You still buy the lie that Trump is a racist though, or in it for himself. Seems to me like he's in it out of love for the country. He could have been relaxing in some luxurious, hedonistic lifestyle somewhere for the last part of his life, and instead he opted to get slandered and persecuted for a decade.
Well, narcissist is probably the most overused word of the last 5 years, but let's agree that he is full of himself, even a narcissist. That's probably true of every president. They certainly have huge egos. But if that narcissism takes the form of wanting to be remembered for doing great things for your country--making America great again--then it's actually being channelled in a useful direction. But "in it for himself" is what the author claimed, and that usually means something different--personal gain, e.g. financial gain. Take a look at the net worth of Hillary, the Obamas, and the Bidens, and try explaining how they made all that money on a public servant's salary. Which ones of these are "in it for themselves"? Trump was already fabulously wealthy before entering politics, and he's been subject to an unprecedented level of persecution ever since. That's not something that a person "in it for himself", even a narcissist, would do. He could have continued to indulge his narcissism by continuing his celebrity life, with people fawning over him constantly. He was already famous and on TV all the time.
"[H]is actions and misogyny against women, his racist remarks, his anti-patriotic stands, his refusal to accept the Democratic process . . ." I get why you might think the last accusation, but for the life of me, I have no idea why you allege the first three. Could you explain because I believe you might have fallen into a trap.
I think you’re one of the rare christians taking a principled stance that I’ve seen. Most have been subsumed into a cult, overlapping their faith and patriotism. A good book on this is “The Myth of a Christian Nation.”
An ectopic pregnancy never results in a live birth and no doctor would refuse to do the surgery to save the mother. It’s not considered an abortion, it’s a failed pregnancy.
I can’t for the life of me figure out how people have allowed this sliding definition of words and conflation in things like miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy with abortion.
I’m specifically talking ectopic, and the reason I say it’s a failed pregnancy is that it is not a uterine pregnancy. If a woman is diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, she is scheduled for surgery right away. That was the only point I was trying to make.
Good to know. But I wish you or anyone else here would address my response that begins with "Not trying to be difficult here." At what point in a non-viable pregnancy, a pregnancy with a dead fetus, or a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother is the mother permitted to get an abortion/termination under your pro-life views?
Not trying to be difficult here, but what other pregnancies do you consider to be failed? Ones that will lead to the death of the woman carrying that pregnancy, even if it's not ectopic? Ones that cannot result in a live birth?
If Savita Halappanavar had been allowed an abortion (or a termination, or whatever it's called to end a failed pregnancy), she might still be alive today. Was her pregnancy considered to be a failed one when it became non-viable, or when it became a threat to her life, or both? Or neither? Because pregnant women need to know what kind of care they will receive when they check into a hospital that is associated with any type of religion. How sick might she become while the hospital waits for the "right" conditions to intervene and save her life?
Moving. Resonant. I would encourage you to at least look at the policies of RFK Jr. and see if anything about his construct resonates with you.. and if you are willing to compromise on some issues for the greater good.
You complain about being cast as you are simultaneously casting against people who support Trump. Trump was a NY democrat up until his run for office. He didn’t magically become a racist republican in 2016. So you are either feeding into the republicans are racist smear or he hid it well for 70 years. And I am not a major Trump fan by any stretch. My vote is one for the party platform and the future, not a cult personality.
The Republican Party has gotten far more support from a wider variety of people, mostly of the working class, than anytime in my life.
You still buy the lie that Trump is a racist though, or in it for himself. Seems to me like he's in it out of love for the country. He could have been relaxing in some luxurious, hedonistic lifestyle somewhere for the last part of his life, and instead he opted to get slandered and persecuted for a decade.
Well, narcissist is probably the most overused word of the last 5 years, but let's agree that he is full of himself, even a narcissist. That's probably true of every president. They certainly have huge egos. But if that narcissism takes the form of wanting to be remembered for doing great things for your country--making America great again--then it's actually being channelled in a useful direction. But "in it for himself" is what the author claimed, and that usually means something different--personal gain, e.g. financial gain. Take a look at the net worth of Hillary, the Obamas, and the Bidens, and try explaining how they made all that money on a public servant's salary. Which ones of these are "in it for themselves"? Trump was already fabulously wealthy before entering politics, and he's been subject to an unprecedented level of persecution ever since. That's not something that a person "in it for himself", even a narcissist, would do. He could have continued to indulge his narcissism by continuing his celebrity life, with people fawning over him constantly. He was already famous and on TV all the time.
"[H]is actions and misogyny against women, his racist remarks, his anti-patriotic stands, his refusal to accept the Democratic process . . ." I get why you might think the last accusation, but for the life of me, I have no idea why you allege the first three. Could you explain because I believe you might have fallen into a trap.
Trump is not racist
Five adopted children?
That’s phenomenal!
I think you’re one of the rare christians taking a principled stance that I’ve seen. Most have been subsumed into a cult, overlapping their faith and patriotism. A good book on this is “The Myth of a Christian Nation.”
Thanks for sharing!
"Abortion is wrong no matter what"...even if continuing the pregnancy will kill the mother, as with many ectopic pregnancies? Sad.
An ectopic pregnancy never results in a live birth and no doctor would refuse to do the surgery to save the mother. It’s not considered an abortion, it’s a failed pregnancy.
I can’t for the life of me figure out how people have allowed this sliding definition of words and conflation in things like miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy with abortion.
So it's a matter of semantics. Ok.
The only reason I entered into the discussion was your initial text and to clear up the ectopic pregnancy comment.
Your silence on my other question speaks volumes.
I’m specifically talking ectopic, and the reason I say it’s a failed pregnancy is that it is not a uterine pregnancy. If a woman is diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, she is scheduled for surgery right away. That was the only point I was trying to make.
Good to know. But I wish you or anyone else here would address my response that begins with "Not trying to be difficult here." At what point in a non-viable pregnancy, a pregnancy with a dead fetus, or a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother is the mother permitted to get an abortion/termination under your pro-life views?
Not a matter of semantics, what you said was just false.
Not trying to be difficult here, but what other pregnancies do you consider to be failed? Ones that will lead to the death of the woman carrying that pregnancy, even if it's not ectopic? Ones that cannot result in a live birth?
If Savita Halappanavar had been allowed an abortion (or a termination, or whatever it's called to end a failed pregnancy), she might still be alive today. Was her pregnancy considered to be a failed one when it became non-viable, or when it became a threat to her life, or both? Or neither? Because pregnant women need to know what kind of care they will receive when they check into a hospital that is associated with any type of religion. How sick might she become while the hospital waits for the "right" conditions to intervene and save her life?
Moving. Resonant. I would encourage you to at least look at the policies of RFK Jr. and see if anything about his construct resonates with you.. and if you are willing to compromise on some issues for the greater good.