"Be The Match" Registered
- Apr 5, 2006
- Utah, USA
- 06 Nissan XTerra Off Road, 00 VFR800, 07 ST1300
It's shitty either way but you are making it seem as something out of the ordinary, which it isn't. I don't follow judge appointments so couldn't really tell you how many have boosts from Russian oligarchs and/or SML.Does that make it better?
Were "like half the judges in the US" boosted to office by a Senate Majority Leader entangled with money from a Russian oligarch?
If it's moot, why does it exist?The the law is moot anyways, no need to argue about it. Moving on.
How can you assert that it's ordinary (it isn't, by the way) and in the same breath state that you don't follow judgeship appointments? Either you know enough to say with confidence that it is business as usual for the Senate majority leader to engage in a quid pro quo for a federal court appointment in exchange for Russian money - or you don't know enough about business as usual to say. It can't be both.It's shitty either way but you are making it seem as something out of the ordinary, which it isn't. I don't follow judge appointments so couldn't really tell you how many have boosts from Russian oligarchs and/or SML.
I know that judges being wildly unqualified is a common enough occurrence, read an article about that a while ago.How can you assert that it's ordinary (it isn't, by the way) and in the same breath state that you don't follow judgeship appointments?
If there is proof enough of it he should be investigated and prosecuted, what more is there at this point?McConnell is selling our federal justice system to a hostile foreign power for his own gains. How in the ever loving fuck is this not concerning to both parties?
The DNC forced those among their ranks accused of sexual misconduct to resign. Can't say the same for the GOP.Same time DNC does I suspect
Proof of this far right movement, please? Because ANYthing to the right of centre gets labelled as extreme right wing in today's leftist media.And the far right is pushing one of it's pet issues, drowning out the moderates. This is not new though, the right even has a name for it. RINO. Unless a republican is far enough right of center on the vast majority of issues, the far right(not even the extreme right) shits on them.
Specious argument. So what? Just because something was, doesn't mean it still need be. I thought as a liberal, you would be all for emulating what you consider progressive nations, including Canada, and (to a lesser extent) the EU, which utilize a merit-based immigration system, just like the the one Trump has proposed.You wouldn't have been allowed into the country if the right gets what they want with immigration.
You can't possibly be serious.By the way, the democrats shifting left is a symptom of how far right they have been dragged over the last 40 years or so.
Wrong. Dead (pun intended) wrong.Blanket, or depending on clear-cut medical criteria?
EDIT: Read up on NY, as the VA law is still under discussion - it is about cases where the mother's life is at risk and/or the fetus will not be viable, so it's either to save the mother's life (which makes sense) or to spare her from having to deliver a child just to watch it die (which, again, makes sense). I fail to see the "killing babies at 9 months".
This bill would not need introducing were it not for the now increased prospect of infanticide.
The state of New York, as I had already mentioned, already had the most liberal of abortion laws in the union prior to the new legislation. Elective up to 24 weeks, and induced delivery up to and any time after that, if the mother's life was in danger. The medical community fully understood what that meant: that abortion was a very real possibility, but when the mother's life hangs in the balance, primum non nocere dictated protecting the mother at all costs.
HOWEVER, that did not mean leave the newly delivered baby to die. Once a baby is born, care of that baby is transferred to a pediatrician. OB/GYN's role remains with the mother. Pediatricians would immediately take all necessary measures to stabilize the baby. There would never be a discussion at that moment with the parents if they want to remove life saving measures... it would be highly unethical, not to mention immoral, to deny care to a newborn for which prognosis can still very much remain dynamic. Act first, talk later.
Find me a newly minted parent, mother OR father, who would agree to refusing care to just-born child upon hearing it will likely die due to a fatal condition. You won't.
Find me a physician (and I'm speaking from authority here) who would dare interrupt the mother (or the father) possibly receiving her own life saving therapy, or even soon after stabilization, about removing all life supports from her newborn You won't. There are too many ethical/moral quandaries there as well, including the physicians not having enough information to be certain, and the parents not being in the proper frame of mind to consider the ramifications.
There is a time and a place to discuss goals of care and comfort vs supportive measures, even for babies. It's not in the delivery room.
Northram's contemptible comments, followed by the changes to law in New York (which, among the other points discussed, also allow for abortions by non-physicians), raised valid concerns about these once fully understood agreements among medical professionals. Clarification was warranted. The left's refusal to consider it is horrifying.
There is nothing, nothing, in the legislation about how to deal with terminally ill babies. As per the new state legislation, it's only about abortion, in case "the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or
substantially and irremediablyimpair the mental or physical health of the woman."
The strikethroughs are in the original, by the way. So now it's legal to abort a full term baby not only if the mother's life is in jeopardy (very clear language), but if her mental or physical health could be "impaired" (incredibly vague).
Or, in the official FAQ for the passed New York state bill:
I can't copy/paste everything salient as it would more than double the post. But the language is murky when it comes to refuting concerns about termination of late term babies for mental health (their answer is simply, "the bill will not permit abortions for frivolous reasons" rather than declare mental health as off limits to the decision). Again, nothing here is about the care or respect of a sick neonate/newborn. It's all about the abortion, and the language itself keeps declaring the justification for abortion in late term, NOT justification for induced labour.
That law is anything but moot, as explained above. If it were solely about protecting the life of an endangered mother-to-be, this new law wouldn't have needed introducing. And if somehow this was the intent of the law despite the insidiousness of its wording, the clarification recommended by Ben Sasse would have received bipartisan support, and it did not.The the law is moot anyways, no need to argue about it. Moving on.
Care to find some independent verification of this? No, I don't need to you look at my "preferred" sites, but something other than an opinionated tirade from the left’s answer to Hannity.McConnell's antics appear to make some sense given this latest revelation.
Short version: The wife of a lobbyist working for Russian plant in KY got a big push from McConnell to get a judgeship - despite not being qualified for the job.
So why don't you seem to care about how the info was gleaned on this whole Trump-Russia collusion mess? FusionGPS got their info from a foreign agent, with possible ties himself to a hostile foreign power. Or does this not matter to you so long as the information helps blueshirts and hurts redshirts?How can you assert that it's ordinary (it isn't, by the way) and in the same breath state that you don't follow judgeship appointments? Either you know enough to say with confidence that it is business as usual for the Senate majority leader to engage in a quid pro quo for a federal court appointment in exchange for Russian money - or you don't know enough about business as usual to say. It can't be both.
McConnell is selling our federal justice system to a hostile foreign power for his own gains. How in the ever loving fuck is this not concerning to both parties?
So you support anyone accused, but not given their day in court, just stepping down without a fight? We're on a very slippery slope here.The DNC forced those among their ranks accused of sexual misconduct to resign. Can't say the same for the GOP.
Are you sure about that? Pelosi got in front of the cameras before the meeting and accused him of facilitating a cover up. You don’t think that might have something to do with Trump telling her to go scratch?In other news: Trump, angry over obstruction of Justice investigation, obstructs justice by refusing to fund infrastructure unless obstruction of justice probes end.
Trump's a lot of things (many not good), but I don't care if you're a saint, you too would be fed up with being investigated for over two years, have nothing concrete come of it, and then still be subjected to more of it. What do you want him to do? Bend over?So now he's holding the country hostage in an attempt to avoid accountability. For a guy with nothing to hide and who "hates cover-ups" he sure seems to have a lot to hide with all these cover-ups.
People who live in glass houses...Sounds grand, let me know when the GOP starts putting country above party.