The abortion law builds on legislation passed in 2010 that represented a major shift for a traditionally Catholic country, transforming Spain into one of the most progressive countries in Europe on reproductive rights. Spain's constitutional court last week rejected a challenge by the right-wing Popular Party against allowing abortions in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
The debate will be heated in Spain, I imagine, as the conservative opposition pushes back. My daughter had horrible menstrual pain during her adolescence and young adulthood. I'm certain that she would have benefitted from that time.
Digging up dirt on your political opponent is pretty much a tradition. It is also a tradition of the press to dig up dirt. People try real hard to find things like extra material affairs, bribes, campaign finance missuse, even Watergate. Over and over politicians have been exposed for crimes and social misconduct. So yes, they likely went after Trump because he was running for President again and he was guilty...and that's a problem?
Does that bother you as well because it's clearly politically motivated to smear him.
I'm feeling nothing about people being concerned that Trump was prosecuted but showing no concern that he his an assault on Democracy itself.
Your last paragraph is telling. The ends justify the means is what you seem to be saying.
This wasn't one political party "digging up dirt" on an opponent. This was a prosecutor, "contorting the law" (Judge Judy's description) to go after Trump.
Trump's crime was classifying payments to Daniels as "legal expenses". Then, for it to be a felony they had to prove he did it to cover up another crime. That other crime has yet to be clarified.
Speaking of digging up dirt, the Clinton campaign actually paid for fictional dirt on Trump, the Steel Dossier. They also classified that as legal expenses.
The FEC investigated both. Guess which one was fined? It's not the one now referred to as a convicted felon.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Do you think they would have went after him with such rigor if he was not running for election again? Many people do not.
Could it be precieved as "show me the man and I'll find you the crime"?
Whether he is guilty or not and they would or would not have gone after him, many people feel the cases against him are at least partially politically motivated. Or wouldn't have occured if he wasn't running again.
Considering no one has been charged for one of the crimes, no president has been criminally charged in US history (a few should have been), the blatant campaigning on "getting Trump" by several of the prosecutors, it doesn't take cult like belief to at least wonder.
I think that the fear of prosecuting your political opponent and what that has meant for other nations throughout history, is more than the angst or disgust for Trump's imoral behavior.
However it all is so tiring.
You seem to be more concerned with the feelings and thinking of "many people" than with the actual crimes or evidence that convicts Trump. Why? Do you think that the citizens involved in the grand juries were all part of a vast conspiracy to persecute an innocent man?
Cults take advantage of a willingness to wonder without evidence. Remember how Q had so many Trump supporters "wondering" about all manner of crazy nonsense? It's the era of conmen, grifters and charlatans all lined up to take advantage of people conditioned to believe things that have no evidence but sound titillating.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Your last paragraph is telling. The ends justify the means is what you seem to be saying.
This wasn't one political party "digging up dirt" on an opponent. This was a prosecutor, "contorting the law" (Judge Judy's description) to go after Trump.
Trump's crime was classifying payments to Daniels as "legal expenses". Then, for it to be a felony they had to prove he did it to cover up another crime. That other crime has yet to be clarified.
Speaking of digging up dirt, the Clinton campaign actually paid for fictional dirt on Trump, the Steel Dossier. They also classified that as legal expenses.
The FEC investigated both. Guess which one was fined? It's not the one now referred to as a convicted felon.
Beerman said:
I'm feeling nothing about people being concerned that Trump was prosecuted but showing no concern that he his an assault on Democracy itself.
You characterize his words as "the ends justify the means"? Are you kidding. That's not at all what was actually said or implied by his mention of Trump assaulting our democracy.
Funny thing about that Trump campaign in 2016... Trump's lawyer went to prison for his sketchy Trump campaign money strategy involving Stormy Daniels but his unindicted Co- conspirator was never indicted because he had influence in the DOJ at the time. Thanks for reminding us that Clinton was fined for uncovering some of Trump's unsavory connections.
You characterize his words as "the ends justify the means"? Are you kidding. That's not at all what was actually said or implied by his mention of Trump assaulting our democracy.
I'm sure Tweety can speak for himself better than you can.
What it sounded like to me is that one shouldn't care about if he was treated fairly in his court case because he has dome wrong in other places. He had it coming, in other words. Another member here admitted as much in his fraud case.
toomuchbaloney said:
Funny thing about that Trump campaign in 2016... Trump's lawyer went to prison for his sketchy Trump campaign money strategy involving Stormy Daniels but his unindicted Co- conspirator was never indicted because he had influence in the DOJ at the time. Thanks for reminding us that Clinton was fined for uncovering some of Trump's unsavory connections.
Your last paragraph is telling. The ends justify the means is what you seem to be saying.
This wasn't one political party "digging up dirt" on an opponent. This was a prosecutor, "contorting the law" (Judge Judy's description) to go after Trump.
Trump's crime was classifying payments to Daniels as "legal expenses". Then, for it to be a felony they had to prove he did it to cover up another crime. That other crime has yet to be clarified.
Speaking of digging up dirt, the Clinton campaign actually paid for fictional dirt on Trump, the Steel Dossier. They also classified that as legal expenses.
The FEC investigated both. Guess which one was fined? It's not the one now referred to as a convicted felon.
I'm saying no such thing. I've always said if someone untoward happened it just needs to be proven in a court of law during his appeal. Otherwise I was not disagreeing with the idea they went after Trump because he's Trump and running for President.
Let me rephrase my thought that you say is "telling".
People are so concerned about "contorting the law" against Trump and respect for the law.
Same people have no concern when Pence said "President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that".
Again, I have no feelings for this type of person. But I shouldn't be surprised that the same people that believe him when he says he won the election are going to believe he's an innocent victim.
Maybe I shouldn't be that catty and just separate the two. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and have it proven in court that is was a false accusation(s) and that he's innocent. I'm pretty cut and dry when it comes to accepting courtroom verdicts whether I like them or not but I'm also willing to accept when they are overturned.
It seems to be working very well for Trump as he has a good chance at becoming President. Not working so well for those in his orbit in jail.
I'm saying no such thing. I've always said if someone untoward happened it just needs to be proven in a court of law during his appeal. Otherwise I was not disagreeing with the idea they went after Trump because he's Trump and running for President.
Let me rephrase my thought that you say is "telling".
People are so concerned about "contorting the law" against Trump and respect for the law.
Same people have no concern when Pence said "President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that".
Again, I have no feelings for this type of person. But I shouldn't be surprised that the same people that believe him when he says he won the election are going to believe he's an innocent victim.
Maybe I shouldn't be that catty and just separate the two. I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and have it proven in court that is was a false accusation(s) and that he's innocent. I'm pretty cut and dry when it comes to accepting courtroom verdicts whether I like them or not but I'm also willing to accept when they are overturned.
It seems to be working very well for Trump as he has a good chance at becoming President. Not working so well for those in his orbit in jail.
Understood. Thanks for clarifying. I retract my statement.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I'm sure Tweety can speak for himself better than you can.
What it sounded like to me is that one shouldn't care about if he was treated fairly in his court case because he has dome wrong in other places. He had it coming, in other words. Another member here admitted as much in his fraud case.
Deflection.
Sure he can. I can also point out that you misrepresented what he said.
What it sounds like to me us that you don't care if there was sufficient evidence to convince a grand jury and a trial jury to convict Trump of crimes because it all feels so unfair to you.
Talking about Trump's felony convictions and how the constellation of crimes impacted his co-conspirator and former attorney is absolutely not a deflection. Should we review that definition or are you trying to maintain a painfully narrow focus for a specific reason? Trump's felony convictions involved multiple other people and one of them went to prison for it.
None of that means that you are those people, only that you are happy to get into their boat because your candidate appeals to them. They like his racist style and cruel fascist policy.
Can you name a group of murderers or pedophiles who have endorsed Biden? Meanwhile, it's not one of Biden's spiritual advisors who sexually abused a teenager.
Nah...I don't think you are guilty of anything beyond believing lies and justifying things that you probably know are not okay.
My opinion of Trump goes back decades and is broadly informed, which helps me to not be bamboozled by the BS that swirls around him.
You seem to be more concerned with the feelings and thinking of "many people" than with the actual crimes or evidence that convicts Trump. Why? Do you think that the citizens involved in the grand juries were all part of a vast conspiracy to persecute an innocent man?
Cults take advantage of a willingness to wonder without evidence. Remember how Q had so many Trump supporters "wondering" about all manner of crazy nonsense? It's the era of conmen, grifters and charlatans all lined up to take advantage of people conditioned to believe things that have no evidence but sound titillating.
Ypu should be concerned with the thoughts and feeling of many people regarding Biden's cognition. Especially in November.
None of that means that you are those people, only that you are happy to get into their boat because your candidate appeals to them. They like his racist style and cruel fascist policy.
Can you name a group of murderers or pedophiles who have endorsed Biden? Meanwhile, it's not one of Biden's spiritual advisors who sexually abused a teenager.
Nah...I don't think you are guilty of anything beyond believing lies and justifying things that you probably know are not okay.
My opinion of Trump goes back decades and is broadly informed, which helps me to not be bamboozled by the BS that swirls around him.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Ypu should be concerned with the thoughts and feeling of many people regarding Biden's cognition. Especially in November.
Oh what will you do? Or say?
The election was stolen perhaps?
Team Trump is certainly hoping that people will be more concerned about Biden's cognition than they are concerned about Trump's pathologic lying. More concerned about that than the matter of Trump's disqualifying corruption coupled with his deficient leadership during a pandemic. Trump definitely wants people to be more concerned about Joe's bad debate than they are about Trump's attempts to overthrow our government.
Nice projection. Trump already, along with his sychophants, refuses to declare that they will accept election results in November. 4 years later and Trump still speaks lies about our elections and you think no one will notice that you are trying to project that dishonesty onto Trump's opponents? That's just funny.
Beerman, BSN
4,428 Posts
Your last paragraph is telling. The ends justify the means is what you seem to be saying.
This wasn't one political party "digging up dirt" on an opponent. This was a prosecutor, "contorting the law" (Judge Judy's description) to go after Trump.
Trump's crime was classifying payments to Daniels as "legal expenses". Then, for it to be a felony they had to prove he did it to cover up another crime. That other crime has yet to be clarified.
Speaking of digging up dirt, the Clinton campaign actually paid for fictional dirt on Trump, the Steel Dossier. They also classified that as legal expenses.
The FEC investigated both. Guess which one was fined? It's not the one now referred to as a convicted felon.