I traditionally have a thread heading to the election, here we go.
Get out the popcorn for this one.
Quote
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to formally announce next week he is running for president in 2024, NBC News reported Thursday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
The governor's official entry into the Republican primary field will put him head-to-head with former President Donald Trump, the party's current frontrunner for the nomination. Trump has already spent months treating DeSantis as his primary campaign rival, thrashing him with torrents of criticism over his gubernatorial record, his political skills and his personality.
I could be offended by the slur that I might be giving into left wing media, which I do not consume but I know you didn't mean anything so I'm not.
"The Family Book" by a children's author was removed for a line "some families have two moms or two dads". The book "My Two Dads" has been removed from libraries. The classic book "Heather Has Two Mommies" 30 years after publican was removed from libraries recently and probably is one of the most banned books ever about the topic. I could go on I'm sure.
While it may not be the primary concern it's out there, so it was the example I chose. I certainly wasn't going to say "let one child be traumatized by explicit gay sex....". I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of book banning because we've already had many discussions about it.
I wasn't inferring that you were giving into the left wing media. Only that it is a habit of the left wing media. No slur intended but the comment was more critiquing the media than you. I think the "you didn't mean anything" may be a sarcastic slight? My apologies for any annoyance I've caused you.
Well if it's worth anything, banning books like the ones you mentioned is stupid. I would have no issue with those books about same sex parents.
My parent group doesn't specify gay sex, just explicit sexual descriptions of any sexuality. I'm sure there are plenty that do but I do not associate myself with people like that.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Did you know that P2025 proposes that all federally funded public high school students need to take the military ASVAB. That exempts students in private schools, right? Maybe any charter or private schools that accept public school vouchers will also have to schedule those tests.
The current events news across the country are reporting on real time examples of the republican abortion laws endangering the lives of women. You can deny that there are serious consequences associated with these anti abortion laws but you would simply once again be wrong.
Maybe you haven't read that book, Handmaid's Tale, it seems like you haven't any real idea what the book is about.
Nah... we already debunked that claim that the bans are all about graphic sex. Nice try, though.
Please provide these "real life consequences related to anti abortion laws" please cite the law that causes it.
I'm sure you have a friend of a sister that tried to get birthcontrol then got pregnant and was denied an abortion. Provide the exact laws to back up your claim.
Perhaps if just even 1 woman who suffers a complcation from not getting an abortion is too many. Then one child injured by puberty blockers is 1 too many as well?. But nah, it's not up to the government to regulate either....
I'm not interested in feminist grievance fantasy ffiction so no, I haven't read the Handmaid's TALE.
Did you know that P2025 proposes that all federally funded public high school students need to take the military ASVAB. That exempts students in private schools, right? Maybe any charter or private schools that accept public school vouchers will also have to schedule those tests.
None of that are in any laws and never will be. It's a fantasy made up by old man bigots trying to Symp for Trump. He doesn't support it and his election committee has advised the Heritage Foundation to not associate it with Trump's campaign.
It's also exploited by democrats to instill fear of a second Trump presidency to off set the glaring reality that Biden in is cognitive decline and cannot run the country for the next 4 years.
"His campaign has previously warned outside allies not to presume to speak for the former president and suggested their transition-in-waiting efforts were unhelpful........" .
I think the "you didn't mean anything" may be a sarcastic slight? My apologies for any annoyance I've caused you.
No it wasn't sarcastic but complimentary because you've never been insulting to me personally and I didn't think you were making a conscious decision to do that by associating my comment with how the left wing media approaches the banned book situation. But yes I was annoyed at that.
No need to apologize or was that sarcastic? We often annoy each other here, it comes with posting and doesn't bother me a bit. I know I've annoyed many a poster over the years. LOL
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
You seem to have completely missed all points.
I never said women should not get abortions or there should be laws against it. Nor did I say I'm against abortion either. So your antibiotic strawman is irrelevant.
No republican bill suggests restricting birth control. That's ridiculous.
Aside from a few politically motivated Dr's, there is no substantial evidence to suggest the Dr's are "afraid to provide care to women" due to imaginary abortions laws. The Dr that do are most likely trying to add to the "taking away women's healthcare" hysteria that the left media causes. Unless you have some exact evidence that's to the contrary. It's just left hysteria.
Yes. Out of state abortions may need to occure. However without Roe, states can now increase the term limit beyond 16 weeks. Making some states less restrictive. That's good no?
I never said women should not get abortions or there should be laws against it. Nor did I say I'm against abortion either. So your antibiotic strawman is irrelevant.
No republican bill suggests restricting birth control. That's ridiculous.
Aside from a few politically motivated Dr's, there is no substantial evidence to suggest the Dr's are "afraid to provide care to women" due to imaginary abortions laws. The Dr that do are most likely trying to add to the "taking away women's healthcare" hysteria that the left media causes. Unless you have some exact evidence that's to the contrary. It's just left hysteria.
Yes. Out of state abortions may need to occure. However without Roe, states can now increase the term limit beyond 16 weeks. Making some states less restrictive. That's good no?
So women, with guidance with their medical provider, should have the right to make decisions about their healthcare?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
None of that are in any laws and never will be. It's a fantasy made up by old man bigots trying to Symp for Trump. He doesn't support it and his election committee has advised the Heritage Foundation to not associate it with Trump's campaign.
It's also exploited by democrats to instill fear of a second Trump presidency to off set the glaring reality that Biden in is cognitive decline and cannot run the country for the next 4 years.
"His campaign has previously warned outside allies not to presume to speak for the former president and suggested their transition-in-waiting efforts were unhelpful........" .
No kidding? Were you confused as to what P2025 is or isn't? I'm not.
It's not law yet, but I don't trust any of the people who are distancing Trump from P2025 in their denials. Trump, himself, is a pathological liar. His lies are now just accepted as normal. Trump requires that people in his orbit are faithful to him and that they will lie for him. We've seen examples of this over and over again. There's no good reason to believe what they say when there are so many details that connect the document to Trump and his RNC.
I'm quite certain that Trump finds the public rejection of P2025 "unhelpful" in his effort to convince moderates and independents that he's not the same liar that mismanaged a pandemic and tried to overthrow the government. It is very inconvenient that P2025 appears to be written by people closely associated with Trump and written specifically for his next term (not a generic republican president).
No it wasn't sarcastic but complimentary because you've never been insulting to me personally and I didn't think you were making a conscious decision to do that by associating my comment with how the left wing media approaches the banned book situation. But yes I was annoyed at that.
No need to apologize or was that sarcastic? We often annoy each other here, it comes with posting and doesn't bother me a bit. I know I've annoyed many a poster over the years. LOL
I can 100 % say I have never intended to be sarcastic or snarky to you in anyway. I very much respect your opinion and content. !
No kidding? Were you confused as to what P2025 is or isn't? I'm not.
It's not law yet, but I don't trust any of the people who are distancing Trump from P2025 in their denials. Trump, himself, is a pathological liar. His lies are now just accepted as normal. Trump requires that people in his orbit are faithful to him and that they will lie for him. We've seen examples of this over and over again. There's no good reason to believe what they say when there are so many details that connect the document to Trump and his RNC.
I'm quite certain that Trump finds the public rejection of P2025 "unhelpful" in his effort to convince moderates and independents that he's not the same liar that mismanaged a pandemic and tried to overthrow the government. It is very inconvenient that P2025 appears to be written by people closely associated with Trump and written specifically for his next term (not a generic republican president).
Perfect. Then we have some trust issues.
I don't care or pay any attention to P2025. I only looked at it because I heard it here. It's fantastical and ridiculous as the idea that we will all be living in the handmaid's tale fantasy fiction. The only attention it gets os rom demorats.
You do not have to believe Trump. There is no outside evidence that he supports P2025 either. The creators say it's not affiliated with any political candidate.
Reminds me of people saying their friend or family members have a mental illness because some of the behaviors are the same as some of the symptoms. So because somethings in P2025 are simular to what Trump says, or more accurately, interpreted as what Trump says, make him connected to it.
I think of Trump was a narcissist you claim him to be, he would not allow anyone but him to take credit for it. He would double down on it and claim is is "the best ever in history , every one agrees, I make the best policies.l, everyone loves me bla bla bla..". This serves as far better "evidence" than speculative hyperbolic theories by democrats designed to cause hysteria.
Pretty much anything Trump says or does is rejected. He doesn't care so why would he miraculously care about this?
It's been very sucesfull presenting this speculation and theory in order to invoke fear to deflect from Biden's cognitive decline.
And I have been a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) for children in our probate court for 10 years. I see what happened to these unwanted and difficult to place infants though teenagers. Now some conservatives are calling to re-consider birth control creating some king of hell that only women can enter. Crusades, this seems to be OK with you because you believe women and children should some how be punished for having sex. Imagine that you weren't 32 weeks pregnant but 6 weeks and had just finished a round of antibiotiocs that were known to be teratogenic, Do you think that you should be forced to carry that baby to term and watch it die in the delivery room? If you wanted an abortion you would have to go to another state. This is what is happening in Idaho with women with missed ab's. Doctors don't want to touch these women. RoevWade was a very King Solomon decision.
Right. So the unwanted and difficult to place infants would be better off if their mothers terminated their pregnancy? That's not a dig, I certainly hope that's not what you think. Perhaps you should clarify that?
Crusades
1,655 Posts
I wasn't inferring that you were giving into the left wing media. Only that it is a habit of the left wing media. No slur intended but the comment was more critiquing the media than you. I think the "you didn't mean anything" may be a sarcastic slight? My apologies for any annoyance I've caused you.
Well if it's worth anything, banning books like the ones you mentioned is stupid. I would have no issue with those books about same sex parents.
My parent group doesn't specify gay sex, just explicit sexual descriptions of any sexuality. I'm sure there are plenty that do but I do not associate myself with people like that.