President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Angua

What you choose to do with your womb is your business alone. Stay out of mine.

So it is only down to you if you kill your child in the womb? Guess he or she is your property then - only you have the right to kill said child.

So if you have a right of ownership but only you remind me who is the one into slavery again?

Wow, never in my life have I seen something so ridiculously compared and given such a cold description of as person before they are born as a "Parasite".

So wrong on many levels.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

So it is only down to you if you kill your child in the womb? Guess he or she is your property then - only you have the right to kill said child.

So if you have a right of ownership but only you remind me who is the one into slavery again?

Once and for all. A foetus is not a child. Until you accept this, you are deliberately trying to conflate self sustaining life, with potential life, in order to force women into remaining pregnant, regardless to their health or mental well being.

I could no more kill a child than any other human. A collection of cells are not a child.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Mick

Wow, never in my life have I seen something so ridiculously compared and given such a cold description of as person before they are born as a "Parasite".

So wrong on many levels.

Technically that is what a foetus is. It may not be a particularly pleasant term, but it is accurate. Why do you think some women have problems with rhesus disease in pregnancy (thankfully very rare these days)?

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Angua

Once and for all. A foetus is not a child. Until you accept this, you are deliberately trying to conflate self sustaining life, with potential life, in order to force women into remaining pregnant, regardless to their health or mental well being.

I could no more kill a child than any other human. A collection of cells are not a child.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:48 ----------



Technically that is what a foetus is. It may not be a particularly pleasant term, but it is accurate.

By your argument, since we're all merely a collection of cells at some point in our transition from conception to death, we really don't need any protections. After all, we're all going to die anyway so why bother with protections.

Not sure this thread is best served by going to abortion arguments.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Lutherf

By your argument, since we're all merely a collection of cells at some point in our transition from conception to death, we really don't need any protections. After all, we're all going to die anyway so why bother with protections.

Reducto ad absurdum.

If for no other reason than finite planetary resources, humanity needs birth control and back up for failure.

The more we are able to cure various illnesses and diseases, the fewer children we need to have.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Not sure this thread is best served by going to abortion arguments.

Sorry, I will unsubscribe. Just one subject I feel very passionate about.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Angua

Reducto ad absurdum.

If for no other reason than finite planetary resources, humanity needs birth control and back up for failure.

The more we are able to cure various illnesses and diseases, the fewer children we need to have.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------



Sorry, I will unsubscribe. Just one subject I feel very passionate about.

Why don't you create a new thread? It is a subject that is worth talking about ..

---------- Post added at 18:48 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Lutherf

By your argument, since we're all merely a collection of cells at some point in our transition from conception to death, we really don't need any protections. After all, we're all going to die anyway so why bother with protections.

Not what she is saying at all but I guess you knew that.

[heero_yuy]

Quote from ianch99:


Why don't you create a new thread? It is a subject

That would keep the mods busy.

[pip08456]

Certainly would as it's a very emotive subject for both sides of the discussion.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Angua

If for no other reason than finite planetary resources, humanity needs birth control and back up for failure.

The more we are able to cure various illnesses and diseases, the fewer children we need to have.

And there we go folks...Sierra Club politics, 101. It is disgusting. There really isn't any need, nor desire for a thread to discuss population control. It is repellent.

There are good people on either side of the abortion debate ; the eugenic fanatics are not any part of that, though.

Despicable. I am just going to go back and continue posting about the election issue / Trump and 2016. (Probably take a bath too, after reading that filth).

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Lutherf

There was a report in The Hill on Trump Jr back in May. Mueller may be looking at it but he'll need to come up with something serious if they're going to use it against him. While something as innocuous as Sessions meeting Kislyak at some press conference might have got the desired recusal that's unlikely to be enough to hang serious criminal charges on Trump Jr.

I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong in him seeking dirt on the Clintons (legally speaking), even if it is from a foreign source. The optics however, are terrible.

The problem however, that Don Junior faces is that he may well have already told investigators that it was nothing of the sort...though like his father he tends to tell the truth to those that are likely to get him in trouble. If he told prosecutors the truth, he is fine.

For whatever reason, the Trumps really like running their mouths, and sometimes to the detriment of themselves and everyone involved. Thus far, they have been squeaky clean when talking with investigators. Rudy is doing a good job in keeping Trump away from Mueller...Trump will almost certainly get himself into a mess eventually. Unless he just tells Muller the truth all the way through in which case he will likely be fine - legally speaking anyway.

[Lutherf]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

I don't think that there is anything necessarily wrong in him seeking dirt on the Clintons (legally speaking), even if it is from a foreign source. The optics however, are terrible.

The problem however, that Don Junior faces is that he may well have already told investigators that it was nothing of the sort...though like his father he tends to tell the truth to those that are likely to get him in trouble. If he told prosecutors the truth, he is fine.

For whatever reason, the Trumps really like running their mouths, and sometimes to the detriment of themselves and everyone involved. Thus far, they have been squeaky clean when talking with investigators. Rudy is doing a good job in keeping Trump away from Mueller...Trump will almost certainly get himself into a mess eventually. Unless he just tells Muller the truth all the way through in which case he will likely be fine - legally speaking anyway.

I don't think there's a problem with getting "dirt" from any source. Near as I can tell the rule is you can't take "anything of value" from a foreign asset. Well, how does one determine the value of "dirt"? Part of the problem with "dirt" is that sometimes it comes back to bite YOU instead of the intended target. There isn't much value in that.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45286906

This is rather expected because of the fact that the Senate will increase it's Republican majority in a few months time. If the GOP pick up only say a couple seats in November, expect Sessions to stick it out until 2020.

Lindsay Graham was saying that if Sessions would go, all hell would break lose on the Hill:

(This was a while ago though).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7863741.html

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has declared that if Donald Trump fires his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, “there will be holy hell to pay”.
Over the past week, the President has verbally attacked Mr Sessions, making clear that he is angry with the Attorney General for recusing himself from a probe into possible ties between Trump campaign advisers and the Russian government.

Now, Graham says:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/o...ons/index.html

(Title is a loaded piece from CNN)

For those waiting for a profile in courage to emerge from Republicans in Congress after President Donald Trump was implicated by his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen, who

pleaded guilty

to eight criminal counts, stop holding your breath. Sen. Lindsey Graham, formerly one of Trump's harshest critics, just paved the way for the post-midterm election fate of Attorney General Jeff Sessions,

telling reporters

on Capitol Hill that Trump is "entitled to an attorney general he has faith in."

If Trump were to appoint someone else, they would have to go through the same issues on Russia at confirmation...unless they agreed to avoid clamping down on the investigation from Mueller. (Wouldn't matter even if they didn't it is down to Rosenstein).

Now if the nominee were to say no, the larger majority in the Senate would give Graham some scope to vote no, and the nominee still be confirmed. Though at this point, I doubt that he even cares ; he has come round to Trump some, as have most of his detractors. He showed loyalty to Sessions as Sessions was a Senate colleague but even he realizes the bigger picture at large which is getting a high court nominee confirmed.

A President under impeachment cannot pardon himself but it would muddy the waters if one tried to nominate someone to the SC. Got kind of messy when LBJ appointed Abe Fortiss and he was just his chief of staff. Graham understands that RBG could well die soon and that is a fact not to be overlooked.

Rosenstein can still carry on his work, but were Trump to fire him that would warrant and immediate charge of obstruction of justice from Mueller. The Dems would not push it for now but on the off chance they totally mess up 2020 they would likely commence with impeachment proceedings after. (Like Lewinsky after Dole failed in 96 etc).

For now, Trump is totally fine and so long as he sits tight / only fires Sessions he is good as Rosenstein is the one who heads / oversees Mueller's probe. Firing him would be the disaster that Trump needs to avoid.

(Bear in mind btw, Sessions own seat went to a Democrat so that was a likely "salt in wound" moment for Trump...not that it was Sessions fault as he was hatch act barred from even endorsing anyone).

The numbers are razor tight in the Senate and McCain making it through June means that the seat in AZ stays with the GOP through 2020 but now those other contentious races like in AZ (the other seat which Flake is vacating) become all the tighter due to the Roy Moore idiocy.

I said some nasty things about Sessions...for someone as opposed to it as me, I sure ate a bunch of humble pie. He is a good man. If Trump fires him, he has held his head high through this entire spectacle that has gone on at Justice ; he is not a vindictive man either. Which is why, for the sake of his boss (Trump), Sessions has stayed in place this long and taken the crap that he has.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Chloé Palmas

And there we go folks...Sierra Club politics, 101. It is disgusting. There really isn't any need, nor desire for a thread to discuss population control. It is repellent.

There are good people on either side of the abortion debate ; the eugenic fanatics are not any part of that, though.

Despicable. I am just going to go back and continue posting about the election issue / Trump and 2016. (Probably take a bath too, after reading that filth).

Typical false leap of logic.

Of the two of us, you are the one who would dictate women's choices. I just believe women should keep the hard won choices and access to contraceptives they have now. Odd how Maternal health in the US is the worst in the developing world.

Stripping women of rights (via odd legislation) is one of the many issues I have with Trump.

[Chloé Palmas]

Originally Posted by Angua

Of the two of us, you are the one who would dictate women's choices.

Out of the two, you are the one who would destroy life in the womb. (We can keep this going, if you would like?)

I just believe women should keep the hard won choices and access to contraceptives they have now.

Ahh so abortion is now a form of contraceptive to you now, too?

Odd how Maternal health in the US is the worst in the developing world.

This is typical of the abortion crowd...start off arguing about logical fallacies, just from abortion to contraception, throw in some straw-men, then beat them up (once you have gotten your facts about the political views of others wrong) and then finish with:

Stripping women of rights (via odd legislation) is one of the many issues I have with Trump.

An utter and complete lie.

Not sure why I wasted my chance to use your in-between post not to make another reply (in regards to the actual topic) and avoid the DP merger for consecutive posts. You're useful, in that sense.

(Btw it is not a right that I have as a woman (at least not one that I would exercise, anyway) - but again, if it is my body and my right what is to stop me using my body to kill someone else's child? Or is it that only you have the right to kill your own child as it is "your" body? Ownership much? Remind me who it is who is into slavery again?)