Harris / Trump Debate.

[SCBills]

8 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Yeah, I've been looking into this-- there is nothing, even on extremely right-leaning or otherwise pro-life spaces, that indicates that any of these cases are elective abortions of viable fetuses/babies, which is what Trump's claims were about.  Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check.

You're suddenly very concerned with the accuracy of verbiage on a complicated and nuanced topic in a debate format that allows you two minutes to discuss multiple issues at a time.  
 

This topic should be left to folks like you and I discussing what’s happening and deciding who and what we want to believe .. not being forced to digest a blanket fact check that requires this level of discourse to determine the veracity of such a claim. 
 

The fact of the matter, and the crux of Trumps point, is that under prior Minnesota law, life-saving care would have been provided that infant.   Fast forward to Tim Walz changing the legislation, those babies were only given comfort care as they died. 
 

This is hardly acceptable to have Linsey Davis injecting her opinionated fact check into a live debate.   And you know it. 
 

 

Edited September 11 by SCBills

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, phypon said:

 

Here are a couple of articles that are worth a read on the topic:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/claims-children-born-alive-abortion-195553629.html

 

https://patch.com/minnesota/across-mn/tim-walz-repealed-mn-law-protecting-babies-born-after-failed-abortions

Yeah-- so a couple of important notes here.  First is that "abortions" encompasses things like miscarriages (also known as "spontaneous abortions") and terminations performed to protect the life of the mother.  A pre-viability fetus/unviable baby that exits the womb receiving palliative care instead of life-sustaining measures just means that the parent opted not to prolong the life of a child that was not going to survive.  If comfort care was not administered, it would indicate that it was unnecessary to provide additional care based on the condition of the (again, unviable) child.

 

Repeals of laws forcing life-saving measures in these situations is to reduce the levels of trauma to parents that find themselves in these situations and to reduce the expenditure of medical resources on patients who are guaranteed not to survive.

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

You're suddenly very concerned with the accuracy of verbiage on a complicated and nuanced topic in a debate format that allows you two minutes to discuss multiple issues at a time.  
 

This topic should be left to folks like you and I discussing what’s happening and deciding who and what we want to believe .. not being forced to digest a blanket fact check that requires this level of discourse to determine the veracity of such a claim. 
 

The fact of the matter, and the crux of Trumps point, is that under prior Minnesota law, life-saving care would have been provided that infant.   Fast forward to Tim Walz changing the legislation, those babies were only given comfort care as they died. 
 

This is hardly acceptable to have Linsey Davis injecting her opinionated fact check into a live debate.   And you know it. 
 

 

I don't know it?  You are fully ignoring this portion of my post:

 

"Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check."

 

Conflating false assertions of post-birth abortions with what is occurring in Minnesota is absolutely acceptable to fact-check.

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

2 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Probably because tax laws need to originate in the House. It’s good to understand how the government works.

The border deal was in place until Trump killed it.

I have heard it called "Trump tax cut for the wealthy" so many times it is hilarious to hear someone pretend presidents don't drive policy.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

11 minutes ago, SCBills said:

You're suddenly very concerned with the accuracy of verbiage on a complicated and nuanced topic in a debate format that allows you two minutes to discuss multiple issues at a time.  
 

This topic should be left to folks like you and I discussing what’s happening and deciding who and what we want to believe .. not being forced to digest a blanket fact check that requires this level of discourse to determine the veracity of such a claim. 
 

The fact of the matter, and the crux of Trumps point, is that under prior Minnesota law, life-saving care would have been provided that infant.   Fast forward to Tim Walz changing the legislation, those babies were only given comfort care as they died. 
 

This is hardly acceptable to have Linsey Davis injecting her opinionated fact check into a live debate.   And you know it. 
 

 

Do you believe the embryo is baby, anti IVF voters were happy with trump last night?  He's skating on very thin ice with the fundamentalists.

[SCBills]

11 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Yeah-- so a couple of important notes here.  First is that "abortions" encompasses things like miscarriages (also known as "spontaneous abortions") and terminations performed to protect the life of the mother.  A pre-viability fetus/unviable baby that exits the womb receiving palliative care instead of life-sustaining measures just means that the parent opted not to prolong the life of a child that was not going to survive.  If comfort care was not administered, it would indicate that it was unnecessary to provide additional care based on the condition of the (again, unviable) child.

 

Repeals of laws forcing life-saving measures in these situations is to reduce the levels of trauma to parents that find themselves in these situations and to reduce the expenditure of medical resources on patients who are guaranteed not to survive.

I don't know it?  You are fully ignoring this portion of my post:

 

"Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check."

 

Conflating false assertions of post-birth abortions with what is occurring in Minnesota is absolutely acceptable to fact-check.

 

 

A fact check would be to point out what we’re discussing - not to blanket fact check the entire content of Trump’s comments under the guise of a fact check.  
 

But Linsey Davis is unaware of what’s going on in a few states - as it seems you were prior to an hour ago - and could not provide an accurate fact check.

 

If you are incapable of providing context on such a nuanced topic in which Trump discussed multiple aspects of this issue, a blanket fact check with zero depth is unacceptable. 
 

 

Edited September 11 by SCBills

[stevestojan]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

The worst part is they didn’t need to help her. Trump sounded like the unraveled old man yelling at the clouds that he truly is. 
 

I’m just glad I have a fenced in yard so my neighbors don’t come over and BBQ my dog. 😂

[Backintheday544]

1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

I have heard it called "Trump tax cut for the wealthy" so many times it is hilarious to hear someone pretend presidents don't drive policy.

He drove that through a Republican controlled House Ways and Means which took it to a Republican controlled house and passed it through reconciliation and much required just 50 votes in the Senate that was Republican controlled.

 

Biden/Harris passed a nice tax bill similarly with the Inflation Reduction Act but now they no longer control the house.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

I think  an instant replay is in order.  It's difficult to describe this with words

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-trump-says-hes-been-a-leader-on-ivf

Edited September 11 by Joe Ferguson forever

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Do you believe the embryo is baby, anti IVF voters were happy with trump last night?  He's skating on very thin ice with the fundamentalists.

This is a separate topic - more of a political one, as opposed to moderator bias which I am discussing with the other poster.  
 

However, in relation to you question..

 

Trump doesn’t have a good answer on any of this.  Mainly because the pro-life movement is very hardline and he needs them.  But he also needs to expand his base to the undecideds.   
 

It also doesn’t help that he’s forced by the moderators to answer as to whether he supports a ban, but Kamala gets saved by the mods when pressed on if she supports any protections for the baby at all. 
 

As someone who loves politics in general as an observer… when the debate went abortion in Question 2, right after Kamala was able to put Trump on the defense over the friggin economy of all things Question 1.. I figured it would be a long night for him.  

[Avisan]

3 minutes ago, SCBills said:

A fact check would be to point out what we’re discussing - not to blanket fact check the entire content of Trump’s comments under the guise of a fact check.  
 

But Linsey Davis is unaware of what’s going on in a few states - as it seems you were prior to an hour ago - and could not provide an accurate fact check.

 

If you are incapable of providing context on such a nuanced topic in which Trump discussed multiple aspects of this issue, a blanket fact check with zero depth is unacceptable. 
 

 

Bruh.

 

Trump was claiming that there are elective "executions" (his words) of viable babies occurring.  It is an absolutely bogus claim.

 

All of the nuance in our discussion thus far has been regarding why even the milder claims being made about abortion are inaccurate.

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

It also doesn’t help that he’s forced by the moderators to answer as to whether he supports a ban, but Kamala gets saved by the mods when pressed on if she supports any protections for the baby at all. 

Also worth noting that Kamala expressing a desire to return to the Roe vs. Wade status quo does technically answer the question, even if comes across as vague and unspecific.  You can dislike the answer and find it lacking, but IS an answer.

 

Trump was refusing to answer a yes/no question not about support for a specific stance, but rather whether or not he would veto a hyppthetical bill banning abortion that Trump's running mate had already said Trump would sign.

[B-Man]

 

[phypon]

23 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Yeah-- so a couple of important notes here.  First is that "abortions" encompasses things like miscarriages (also known as "spontaneous abortions") and terminations performed to protect the life of the mother.  A pre-viability fetus/unviable baby that exits the womb receiving palliative care instead of life-sustaining measures just means that the parent opted not to prolong the life of a child that was not going to survive.  If comfort care was not administered, it would indicate that it was unnecessary to provide additional care based on the condition of the (again, unviable) child.

 

Repeals of laws forcing life-saving measures in these situations is to reduce the levels of trauma to parents that find themselves in these situations and to reduce the expenditure of medical resources on patients who are guaranteed not to survive.

I don't know it?  You are fully ignoring this portion of my post:

 

"Trump was also making unnuanced claims involving "executions" of full-term babies, which is what prompted the fact-check."

 

Conflating false assertions of post-birth abortions with what is occurring in Minnesota is absolutely acceptable to fact-check.

 

 

Bruh, do you not know what previable means?

[Roundybout]

 

 

[Backintheday544]

End of the story here on who won:

 

 

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, phypon said:

Bruh, do you not know what previable means?

Of course I do?  It's a fetus that cannot survive yet outside the womb, even with medical care.  Why are you asking?

[Backintheday544]

Super right wing Traflgar

 

 

[stevestojan]

7 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Question: is “the machine” the same as the “dEeP sTaTe?” Or are those different? 
 

😂😂😂

[phypon]

6 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Of course I do?  It's a fetus that cannot survive yet outside the womb, even with medical care.  Why are you asking?

Periviability – Earliest stage of fetal maturity where there is a reasonable chance, although perhaps not a high likelihood, of extrauterine survival. This period is generally between 22 and <26 weeks gestational age (GA). Most infants born at ≥26 weeks GA have a high likelihood of survival, whereas virtually none born at <22 weeks GA survive.

 

Cleary you don't.

Edited September 11 by phypon

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Super right wing Traflgar

 

 

Will be interesting to see if polling reflects this…

 

Im voting Trump, but he very clearly lost the debate.  Anyone saying he won is not being honest.  

The moderators were also, very clearly, a major story out of the debate.  
 

I see this sentiment from alot of independent voices today.  “Trump didn’t come across well, but omg… those moderators…”

 

I think Kamala probably could’ve got him off his game without their help.  He very clearly fell for her crowd size bait like 5 minutes in.   But with the moderators being so over the top, it blunts much of his poor performance.