• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump makes conflicting comments, both of them ominous and disturbing

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I said from the perspective of Europe .. and many in the US too.

People’s perspective change from person to person and perspective doesn’t always match reality.
  1. First, he has shown that it´s possible to come to power by democratic electoral means and then subvert the state from within, as other rulers in Eastern Europe (Hungary and Poland), Turkey, Brazil, the Philippines and Russia are doing. At the same time, he has demonstrated that in order to remain in power, elections can be delegitimized through lies, fake news, the uses of loyal social networks, while blaming mainstream journalism for bias, and mobilizing paramilitary forces on the streets.

The process in the US is used by all parties. It doesn’t translate into “radical”. I would say that the Democratic party in our country is more subversive in nature and they threw out the duly elected official “Biden” by the people. That is subversive!

  1. Second, he has promoted the idea that in order to succeed economically (following his example), all state regulations must be eliminated, and those that exist sidestepped, going so far in fact as to decriminalize corruption.

That isn’t far right and I don’t agree that he said “all state regulations”. You will have to be more specific. Limited government?

  1. Third, Trumpism has normalized racism, sexism, and contempt for the left, environmental defenders and all those who represent the liberal agenda of diversity and human rights that has developed since the 1960s. It has articulated in public the rejection of immigrants and refugee claimants that people previously refrained from expressing. Trump spoke out and denigrated these claimants openly. As George Packer wrote, “not because he couldn’t control his impulses, but intentionally, even systematically, in order to demolish the norms that would otherwise have constrained his power. To his supporters, his shamelessness became a badge of honesty and strength”.

I disagree. It has been the left that has promoted racism and sexism. It is the liberal diversity that is a radical change from the norm.

  1. Fourth, it has reaffirmed the legitimacy of pro-Nazi groups, extremist militias, and conspiratorial groups armed and organized against the state. His adherence to conspiracy theories further fueled these groups in their fervor for rising up in arms to defend their idea of America.
Fake news.

  1. Fifth, since the Covid-19 pandemic broke out, Trump has consistently discredited science, promoting instead conspiratorial and dangerously superstitious interpretations.

False - and a radical position of thought. He promoted the development of the vaccine.

  1. Sixth, Trumpism captures the idea of the nation for sectarian, anti-democratic and exclusive purposes.

Baloney. Radical position and fake news.

  1. Seventh, Trump has promoted a political and nationalist conception of religion, through his alliance with evangelicals. In this way he has successfully regressed by centuries the separation between the state and religion.

A radical proposition. Separation of church and state and today’s interpretation is different from the norm that was held up to the 1960’s..

  1. And eighth, he has indicated that in foreign policy each country must defend its interests with transactional methods, moving away from any cooperative policy, despising and weakening the multilateral system, starting with the agreements and resolutions of the United Nations.

That is a personal viewpoint of how someone should do business. It isn’t radicalism but simply one way of looking at things. Every position has its pros and cons. The previous positions of both Reps and Dems has been to weaken the capacity of the US businesses.

Biden’s shutting down coal mines and forcing electric cars down people’s throats is what is radical.


Authoritarian rulers, as well as aspiring to govern and mobilize sectors of their societies, have taken inspiration from the current president of the United States, who will foreseeably continue to use his influence (and the weight of the many millions of people who have voted for him).
...
trumpism-ideology-extreme-far-right-globally

So… I would look at your post and wonder if it is you that is promoting a radical agenda?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
So? The qualification is “dependent"



On your part.



So when in doubt… kill it? I am pro-life and not pro-death. They have established a different heart-beat from the mom at 5 - 6 weeks.



I disagree with your opinion.
Except that's not actually a heartbeat you're hearing at 6 weeks.
The heart hasn't even developed yet, at that point.
It's still an embryo at that point.



"We consulted multiple embryology textbooks and several scientific reviews and research papers to learn about heart development, and also spoke with a pediatric cardiologist and researcher, Colin Phoon of New York University Langone Health.

A good rule of thumb, according to Phoon, is that heart development occurs over a four-week period, starting in the sixth week of pregnancy. Before the sixth week, he said, “There is no heart; there’s nothing beating.”



Hmm, maybe we should leave these life and death decisions to the actual people involved and their actual, medically-informed doctor, eh? Since the people who have a problem with women having control over their own reproductive health don't ever seem to know very much about it in the first place.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I find it the other way around. Calling it a “fetus” is a tactic to dehumanize the baby that is in the womb and I don’t like to be manipulated.
That is literally what it is called.

The very first sentence says this:

"In most cases, an ultrasound can detect the beating of cardiac tissue around weeks five to six. Typically, the heart will form within the next few weeks."



You didn't even read it.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Except that's not actually a heartbeat you're hearing at 6 weeks.
The heart hasn't even developed yet, at that point.
It's still an embryo at that point.



"We consulted multiple embryology textbooks and several scientific reviews and research papers to learn about heart development, and also spoke with a pediatric cardiologist and researcher, Colin Phoon of New York University Langone Health.

A good rule of thumb, according to Phoon, is that heart development occurs over a four-week period, starting in the sixth week of pregnancy. Before the sixth week, he said, “There is no heart; there’s nothing beating.”



  • A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it's not a fully-formed heart — it's the earliest stage of the heart developing.


What happens during week 5 - 6?​


It may not be a fully-formed heart (but then again, practically nothing is “fully” formed) - but if it “sounds like a heartbeat” - looks like a heart… I can only believe it is a heart.

Maybe we need a fact checker on the fact checker?



Hmm, maybe we should leave these life and death decisions to the actual people involved and their actual, medically-informed doctor, eh? Since the people who have a problem with women having control over their own reproductive health don't ever seem to know very much about it in the first place.

Reproductive health? - Are you saying they are sick and that the pregnancy is in peril? Are you talking about keeping the mom’s body healthy? Your statements are a little confusing.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No.. you are not responsible for my children. And it isn’t irrelevant… it is your semantics that is irrelevant.



Every law is a group of people imposing righteousness. Are you against righteousness? And every law has someone who doesn’t agree with it.



I can’t hear what you are saying because what you are doing is so loud.



I haven’t seen a human being that doesn’t have a heart unless you apply it figuratively.



Yes… and that what we are dealing with in every state… we are deciding for ourselves what will be law.



Contradictory in essence. The baby is not the same as the mother.
Ever seen a human being who was clinically dead (brain dead) but still had a heartbeat?
I have.

Your "heartbeat" assertion isn't quite the flex you think it is.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
  • A part of the embryo starts to show cardiac activity. It sounds like a heartbeat on an ultrasound, but it's not a fully-formed heart — it's the earliest stage of the heart developing.


What happens during week 5 - 6?​


It may not be a fully-formed heart (but then again, practically nothing is “fully” formed) - but if it “sounds like a heartbeat” - looks like a heart… I can only believe it is a heart.

Maybe we need a fact checker on the fact checker?





Reproductive health? - Are you saying they are sick and that the pregnancy is in peril? Are you talking about keeping the mom’s body healthy? Your statements are a little confusing.
It's not a heartbeat then.


Thanks for helping to demonstrate that with the article you clearly didn't read.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Reproductive health? - Are you saying they are sick and that the pregnancy is in peril? Are you talking about keeping the mom’s body healthy? Your statements are a little confusing.
I'm talking about women making decisions about their own bodies without draconian restrictions from people such as yourself, who don't even know what they're talking about to begin with.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I'm talking about women making decisions about their own bodies without draconian restrictions from people such as yourself, who don't even know what they're talking about to begin with.
I still hold to the scientific reality that it isn’t her body… it is a different body.

Little scientific clues that helps me in that position:

1) Different blood type and so much so that if the two mix, mom’s antibodies will ATTACK the baby’s body because it doesn’t recognize it as part of mom’s body and knows that it is not “her body”!
2) The heartbeat is different
3) The brainwaves are different
4) The fingerprints are different
5) You can have a boy in the mother’s womb so that the sex is different


And so many more.

Just good ol’ common sense and scientific data that some people forget to use. They prefer to be flat earthers in that respect.\ - I’m sure you know and understand, they just want to forget science!
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Interesting how we both can read the same article and come to a different conclusion.
I have no idea how on earth you're coming to a different conclusion when it flat out says THERE IS NOT HEART. There cannot be a heartbeat with a heart.

You're just willfully denying reality here.
If that is what you believe and it makes you happy… I like happy!
It's what happened.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
I still hold to the scientific reality that it isn’t her body… it is a different body.

Little scientific clues that helps me in that position:

1) Different blood type and so much so that if the two mix, mom’s antibodies will ATTACK the baby’s body because it doesn’t recognize it as part of mom’s body and knows that it is not “her body”!
2) The heartbeat is different
3) The brainwaves are different
4) The fingerprints are different
5) You can have a boy in the mother’s womb so that the sex is different


And so many more.

Just good ol’ common sense and scientific data that some people forget to use. They prefer to be flat earthers in that respect.\ - I’m sure you know and understand, they just want to forget science!
Your list here is irrelevant.
It grows within her body. It is literally attached to her. It is not viable outside of her body.

Gimme a break with this.

Common sense tells us that without a heart, there is no heartbeat. But here you here claiming there is one anyway. Let's not pretend you're using common sense here.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I have no idea how on earth you're coming to a different conclusion when it flat out says THERE IS NOT HEART. There cannot be a heartbeat with a heart.

You're just willfully denying reality here.

It's what happened.
No… it says it is, and I quote, “ but it's not a fully-formed heart” - not that there is no heart.

Are you heartless in this issue?
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Your list here is irrelevant.

Irrelevant because of your philosophy.
It grows within her body. It is literally attached to her. It is not viable outside of her body.

It’s science! You need to review the list.

Gimme a break with this.

Common sense tells us that without a heart, there is no heartbeat. But here you here claiming there is one anyway. Let's not pretend you're using common sense here.

:facepalm:
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Somebody has to be responsible for how those resources are used, and I would have
thought that it would be preferable for those sorts of decisions to be made on a local
basis. That's all I was saying.
i.e. I don't think it is helpful for politicians to force local health bodies to choose to spend on some
procedures at the expense of others
Voters as a group do not have the knowledge, education or experience to make these decisions for others. It is improper and unethical for voters to decide who gets what treatment. Yes, resources can only go so far, but there should not be voters or politicians playing doctor and making these decisions for people.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Irrelevant because of your philosophy.
A fetus cannot survive outside the womb in those times your mentioning. It isn't viable, it won't survive. Even brain dead people have a heartbeat, but it's just an automated husk of the person who was, a person who is forever lost and not coming back. Brain waves? That doesn't inherently or necessarily mean conscious or aware, and a fetus has neither, especially not within a few weeks as your heart beat and brainwaves.
 

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
Yes, resources can only go so far, but there should not be voters or politicians playing doctor and making these decisions for people.
I never said there should .. when I say that it should be up to the individual states to decide,
that doesn't necessarily mean that the state should hold a referendum.
 
Top