Trump makes conflicting comments, both of them ominous and disturbing

[Drunk_Uncle_Bob]

That isn’t exactly how it works.

1) He may choose potential Supreme Court Justices but it is the Senate that approves it.
2) Basically what you are saying is that if they select the ones that you like, then it is OK. If it isn’t , they it’s the sitting presidents fault.
3) Can I assume that you are ok with a Democratic President and Senate add more Justices that favor your cause?
4) It was sent to the States because, according to the Constitution, it wasn’t in the Federal jurisdiction. They didn’t deny abortion, they simply said the previous court had no right to let the Federal Government rule on it.

So it seems more like a personal viewpoint on your part and it has nothing to do with “Christian faith” but rather case law. People can still get abortions in any state.

There was no legal reason to overturn it. It was politically motivated and every legal scholar worth their salt knows it. While we can't say that the court has always been a bastion of pure legal objectivity devoid of politics it has swayed to the point of covering their eyes and declaring black is white for politically motivated reasons. Their most recent decision to say that any and all things done by a president during office that pertains to their duties are now legal. Thus exonerating Nixon a bit ironically.

Stripping rights from the federal level means stripping them from the people. Hiding behind the cause of "states decision" simply means that they admit they want the power to remove it but don't have the popularity to do it on the national level. Rights shouldn't work like that. To remove an enshrined protection knowing that it won't be protected is the same as taking the right of it away. If we change the wording to anything other than abortion it becomes obvious.

 

[anna.]

That isn’t exactly how it works.

1) He may choose potential Supreme Court Justices but it is the Senate that approves it.

This is exactly how it worked:

The Republican-controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell held Antonin Scalia's empty seat open for 9 months, refusing to confirm President Obama's nomination. He was hoping for a Republican victory, and it was too close to the 2016 election. His words: "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." And then - literally weeks before the 2020 election, he crammed through Amy Coney Barrett.

 

[Kenny]

There was no legal reason to overturn it. It was politically motivated and every legal scholar worth their salt knows it. While we can't say that the court has always been a bastion of pure legal objectivity devoid of politics it has swayed to the point of covering their eyes and declaring black is white for politically motivated reasons. Their most recent decision to say that any and all things done by a president during office that pertains to their duties are now legal. Thus exonerating Nixon a bit ironically.

Stripping rights from the federal level means stripping them from the people. Hiding behind the cause of "states decision" simply means that they admit they want the power to remove it but don't have the popularity to do it on the national level. Rights shouldn't work like that. To remove an enshrined protection knowing that it won't be protected is the same as taking the right of it away. If we change the wording to anything other than abortion it becomes obvious.

I don’t think so.

Their “opinion” says otherwise. They simply, and properly, released the rights back to the states to decide.

 

[Kenny]

This is exactly how it worked:

The Republican-controlled Senate led by Mitch McConnell held Antonin Scalia's empty seat open for 9 months, refusing to confirm President Obama's nomination. He was hoping for a Republican victory, and it was too close to the 2016 election. His words: "Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." And then - literally weeks before the 2020 election, he crammed through Amy Coney Barrett.

And the Democratic controlled Senate has authorized more judges that the Republicans during this session.

That’s the way the system works.

The difference is that one side complains more than the other side on this subject. Why? Simply because they didn’t get what they wanted in their political agenda. It is really “checks and balances” so that no one side becomes a dictator. (Although it appears that is what the Democrats want to do by “stacking the court by enlarging it” or limiting it by changing tenure which is there to bring stability and prevent dictatorship.

 

[Heyo]

I don’t think so.

Their “opinion” says otherwise. They simply, and properly, released the rights back to the states to decide.

The thinking that human rights are granted - or not - on a state level instead of the federal level is very alien to anyone from a European democracy, and as it seems also for some US citizens.
And my guess is that many US citizens would protest if I said that the US doesn't grant many human rights to their citizens.
I have the unalienable rights to life, to bodily autonomy and to vote or run for office, granted by my country - you don't.

 

[Pogo]

The thinking that human rights are granted - or not - on a state level instead of the federal level is very alien to anyone from a European democracy, and as it seems also for some US citizens.
And my guess is that many US citizens would protest if I said that the US doesn't grant many human rights to their citizens.
I have the unalienable rights to life, to bodily autonomy and to vote or run for office, granted by my country - you don't.

It is not a right that he wants, it is the authority to impose his religious opinions on others.

 

[Kenny]

The thinking that human rights are granted - or not - on a state level instead of the federal level is very alien to anyone from a European democracy, and as it seems also for some US citizens.
And my guess is that many US citizens would protest if I said that the US doesn't grant many human rights to their citizens.
I have the unalienable rights to life, to bodily autonomy and to vote or run for office, granted by my country - you don't.

Abortion isn’t “human rights”. It is a subjective position. If you want “bodily autonomy” - then you can’t touch the body of the child in the womb. Your definition of “bodily autonomy” could eventually mean “I have the right to let you extinguish my life with a gun because I want you to”.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Tell me which state cannot.

Wild numbers without context is fear mongering and manipulative.

"States Where Abortion Is Banned
As of January 9, 2023, 12 states are enforcing a near-total ban on abortion with very limited exceptions. In five of these states, the ban is being challenged in court but remains in effect. A court has blocked enforcement of a pre-Roe ban in West Virginia while it is being challenged in court.
1. Alabama—Near-total ban
2. Arkansas—Near-total ban
3. Idaho—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions allowed under the ban, is pending in federal court.

4. Kentucky—Near-total ban

A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.
5. Louisiana—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.

6. Mississippi—Near-total ban
7. Missouri—Near-total ban
8. Oklahoma—Near-total ban

• a legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.

9. South Dakota—Near-total ban
10. Tennessee—Near-total ban
11. Texas—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions, is pending in federal court.

12. West Virginia—Near-total ban

• A separate pre-Roe ban has been blocked from enforcement while a legal challenge is pending in state court.

States Where Abortion Is Unavailable ​

In two states, abortion care is unavailable even though a ban is not being enforced. Legal challenges are ongoing in both states.

13. North Dakota—Sole clinic moved to Minnesota

• A legal challenge to the state’s near-total ban is pending in state court, even though no abortion clinics are operating in the state.

14. Wisconsin—Clinics stopped providing abortion because the enforcement status of the state’s pre-Roe ban is unclear.

• A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court. "

Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup

www.guttmacher.org

Then there's Texas, where infant mortality has risen by 12-13% since their heartbeat bill went into effect:


"Key Points
Question How did Texas’ ban on early abortions in 2021 impact infant mortality in 2022?

Findings This cohort study of 94 720 recorded infant deaths in Texas and 28 comparison states found that the Texas abortion ban was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal mortality in 2022.

Meaning These findings suggest that abortion restrictions may have negative spillover effects on infant health."

Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy

This cohort study of recorded infant deaths examines infant mortality after the passage of the 2021 ban on early abortions in Texas.

jamanetwork.com

"Why do you think neonatal deaths from these anomalies increased?

AG: We think that prior to the implementation of SB 8, people who were carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies had the option to terminate the pregnancy. This option is often exercised when the anomalies are incompatible with life or would result in significant suffering or health complications for the child.

We think that with the restrictive abortion ban in place, birthing people were all of a sudden not able to legally terminate pregnancies, even if severe congenital anomalies were detected, so these pregnancies were likely carried to term. And this probably led to an increase in births of infants with severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, and other life-threatening conditions, who died shortly after birth.

Why did you take up the question of infant mortality? What is the connection with abortion access?

SB: Given that we had observed more births than anticipated in Texas after SB 8 was imposed, we suspected that there could be downstream effects of this policy on infant health outcomes as a result of a few potential mechanisms.

The most obvious is through an increase in deaths involving congenital malformation. As people are forced to continue pregnancies diagnosed with these fetal defects, we might expect to see a greater share of live births experiencing congenital malformations. Congenital malformations are the leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S., accounting for more than 20% of infant deaths.

Abortion restrictions can also lead to greater infant mortality simply as a result of more pregnancies being carried to term, and that’s more infants at risk of death. And the possible increase in financial and emotional stress among pregnant people, as well as a shift in the composition of those giving birth to include more disadvantaged groups who are unable to overcome the barriers imposed by abortion restrictions, may increase exposure to known risk factors for infant mortality.

Even prior to SB 8, there was some evidence of a relationship between abortion restrictions and infant death: States that are hostile to abortion or that have more abortion restrictions had higher infant mortality rates. But these studies were not able to directly attribute this difference in infant death to the policies’ imposition."

Texas SB 8 and Increases in Infant Deaths | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The year after Texas passed its restrictive abortion law, infant deaths in the state increased.

publichealth.jhu.edu

 

[SkepticThinker]

Abortion isn’t “human rights”. It is a subjective position. If you want “bodily autonomy” - then you can’t touch the body of the child in the womb. Your definition of “bodily autonomy” could eventually mean “I have the right to let you extinguish my life with a gun because I want you to”.

It sure is. See my post below yours as to the reasons why.

Bodily autonomy is one of the most basic of human rights. Without that, we don't have anything.

 

[Kenny]

"States Where Abortion Is Banned
As of January 9, 2023, 12 states are enforcing a near-total ban on abortion with very limited exceptions. In five of these states, the ban is being challenged in court but remains in effect. A court has blocked enforcement of a pre-Roe ban in West Virginia while it is being challenged in court.
1. Alabama—Near-total ban
2. Arkansas—Near-total ban
3. Idaho—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions allowed under the ban, is pending in federal court.

4. Kentucky—Near-total ban

A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.
5. Louisiana—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.

6. Mississippi—Near-total ban
7. Missouri—Near-total ban
8. Oklahoma—Near-total ban

• a legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court.

9. South Dakota—Near-total ban
10. Tennessee—Near-total ban
11. Texas—Near-total ban

• A legal challenge to this ban, which seeks to expand the exceptions, is pending in federal court.

12. West Virginia—Near-total ban

• A separate pre-Roe ban has been blocked from enforcement while a legal challenge is pending in state court.

States Where Abortion Is Unavailable ​

In two states, abortion care is unavailable even though a ban is not being enforced. Legal challenges are ongoing in both states.

13. North Dakota—Sole clinic moved to Minnesota

• A legal challenge to the state’s near-total ban is pending in state court, even though no abortion clinics are operating in the state.

14. Wisconsin—Clinics stopped providing abortion because the enforcement status of the state’s pre-Roe ban is unclear.

• A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court. "

Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likely to Do So: A Roundup

www.guttmacher.org

Then there's Texas, where infant mortality has risen by 12-13% since their heartbeat bill went into effect:


"Key Points
Question How did Texas’ ban on early abortions in 2021 impact infant mortality in 2022?

Findings This cohort study of 94 720 recorded infant deaths in Texas and 28 comparison states found that the Texas abortion ban was associated with unexpected increases in infant and neonatal mortality in 2022.

Meaning These findings suggest that abortion restrictions may have negative spillover effects on infant health."

Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy

This cohort study of recorded infant deaths examines infant mortality after the passage of the 2021 ban on early abortions in Texas.

jamanetwork.com

"Why do you think neonatal deaths from these anomalies increased?

AG: We think that prior to the implementation of SB 8, people who were carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe congenital anomalies had the option to terminate the pregnancy. This option is often exercised when the anomalies are incompatible with life or would result in significant suffering or health complications for the child.

We think that with the restrictive abortion ban in place, birthing people were all of a sudden not able to legally terminate pregnancies, even if severe congenital anomalies were detected, so these pregnancies were likely carried to term. And this probably led to an increase in births of infants with severe congenital anomalies, such as heart defects, neural tube defects, and other life-threatening conditions, who died shortly after birth.

Why did you take up the question of infant mortality? What is the connection with abortion access?

SB: Given that we had observed more births than anticipated in Texas after SB 8 was imposed, we suspected that there could be downstream effects of this policy on infant health outcomes as a result of a few potential mechanisms.

The most obvious is through an increase in deaths involving congenital malformation. As people are forced to continue pregnancies diagnosed with these fetal defects, we might expect to see a greater share of live births experiencing congenital malformations. Congenital malformations are the leading cause of infant mortality in the U.S., accounting for more than 20% of infant deaths.

Abortion restrictions can also lead to greater infant mortality simply as a result of more pregnancies being carried to term, and that’s more infants at risk of death. And the possible increase in financial and emotional stress among pregnant people, as well as a shift in the composition of those giving birth to include more disadvantaged groups who are unable to overcome the barriers imposed by abortion restrictions, may increase exposure to known risk factors for infant mortality.

Even prior to SB 8, there was some evidence of a relationship between abortion restrictions and infant death: States that are hostile to abortion or that have more abortion restrictions had higher infant mortality rates. But these studies were not able to directly attribute this difference in infant death to the policies’ imposition."

Texas SB 8 and Increases in Infant Deaths | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

The year after Texas passed its restrictive abortion law, infant deaths in the state increased.

publichealth.jhu.edu

So let me translate...

Near total ban = abortions are acceptable but there are limits to when it is acceptable.

As I said… there are legal abortions abortionsl in every state. And if you want to go beyond your states abortions laws… you can still get one in another state.

Thank you for making it plain.

 

[Kenny]

It sure is. See my post below yours as to the reasons why.

Bodily autonomy is one of the most basic of human rights. Without that, we don't have anything.

Except… as I said, if bodily autonomy is the most basic of human rights, then the baby in the womb has that same right.

Thank you for making it plain! Again!

 

[Heyo]

“I have the right to let you extinguish my life with a gun because I want you to”.

Don't you have that? I think it's called "suicide by cop".

 

[SkepticThinker]

So let me translate...

Near total ban = abortions are acceptable but there are limits to when it is acceptable.

As I said… there are legal abortions abortionsl in every state. And if you want to go beyond your states abortions laws… you can still get one in another state.

Thank you for making it plain.

You translated incorrectly. Read more carefully.

Most people don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks. Never mind having enough time to book doctor's appointments and all necessary procedures before the six-week cut-off. And then there's the increase in infant mortality that is playing out in Texas, thanks to their draconian abortion laws. Travelling to another state isn't feasible for a lot of people, especially the poor.

Did you hear that? The abortion bans you support are causing MORE unnecessary and agonizing infant deaths.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Except… as I said, if bodily autonomy is the most basic of human rights, then the baby in the womb has that same right.

Thank you for making it plain! Again!

A fetus doesn't have rights that a fully developed and grown human being has. Because one is a human being and one is not.
You want fetuses to have rights that fully grown human beings don't even have. You seem to think the fetuses life outweighs the woman's life. But did you ever stop to think that the woman may have children at home that she needs to raise and risking her life with a risky pregnancy puts all of that into jeopardy and risks their lives and livelihoods too? Or are you just concerned about fetuses? Do you support school lunch programs? Welfare programs for needy mothers? Paid maternity leave and daycare?

And you support abortion bans that have resulted in an INCREASE in infant mortality, as you're trying to tell me that abortion bans save unborn babies' lives.

 

[Heyo]

So let me translate...

Near total ban = abortions are acceptable but there are limits to when it is acceptable.

As I said… there are legal abortions abortionsl in every state.

You stopped reading after the first paragraph, again.

States Where Abortion Is Unavailable ​

In two states, abortion care is unavailable even though a ban is not being enforced. Legal challenges are ongoing in both states.

13. North Dakota—Sole clinic moved to Minnesota

• A legal challenge to the state’s near-total ban is pending in state court, even though no abortion clinics are operating in the state.

14. Wisconsin—Clinics stopped providing abortion because the enforcement status of the state’s pre-Roe ban is unclear.

• A legal challenge to this ban is pending in state court. "

 

[Balthazzar]

I watched the video by Rachel Maddow/MSNBC contained in this link, and found it thought provoking. Trump says, "get out to vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore ... In four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it so fixed that you won't have to vote." The implications of that comment are obvious and disturbing. He intends to end voting in America, although I can't visualize how that could happen. Sham elections, yes, but no voting?

Next, she changes tracks. Beginning at 1:43, she discusses what he said the days before that comment, namely, that his supporters don't need to vote for him this time - the contradiction. At 2:22, she shows several clips of Trump saying that he doesn't need votes - his earlier message. Why would he say that even once?

For the rest of the video, she discusses this apparent contradiction and what it might mean. She suggests that Trump expects to take the White House however the votes fall, which suggests that the comment quoted above was some kind of pivot or damage control following saying that he doesn't need votes. And she suggests that this will be due to Republican controlled state legislatures refusing to certify outcomes that they don't like in their states.

Is there another way of understanding Trump's comments?

And even if she is correct about what Trump is thinking, does he have good reason to think such things? Has he been told something by his handlers? If so, could those words be just words to assuage him, or does he have inside information? Would they even tell Trump such a thing were the case? Are these just the confused thoughts of a man in cognitive decline losing touch with reality, or is there more to it?

I don't think we can answer that now.

And can anything be done if there are states getting ready to gridlock the election process? If they did, how would that put Trump in the White House? Things might get pretty interesting if a few states refuse to certify their results. They would be states with a Republican state government that Harris carried, which would lower her electoral vote count. Trump might have more as a result, but it wouldn't be the 270 electoral votes needed to win.

Anyway, it gave me a lot to think about, and I thought that some here at RF would be intrigued by this video and issue as well.

Thoughts?

If States are gridlocking, I suppose it's time to start looking for an adequate place to fit in. I need to anyway, although it's not terrible current location. If they're making it where you can vote over the phone or from home somehow, that wouldn't be terrible ... if they can ensure accuracy and less voter fraud. I could be wrong, but it doesn't make much sense to suggest we won't be needing to vote ever again, unless we're looking at some type of event where other life realities become too overwhelming to enable a "we the people government". I hope it's nothing like what is being suggested by some. Authoritarian regimes with a dab of tyranny mixed in. I have higher and far greater expectations for and from my nation that that.

 

[Pogo]

Abortion isn’t “human rights”. It is a subjective position. If you want “bodily autonomy” - then you can’t touch the body of the child in the womb. Your definition of “bodily autonomy” could eventually mean “I have the right to let you extinguish my life with a gun because I want you to”.

Yeah, that is reasonable though a less messy version such as allowed in some states and countries would be better.

 

[Balthazzar]

A fetus doesn't have rights that a fully developed and grown human being has. Because one is a human being and one is not.
You want fetuses to have rights that fully grown human beings don't even have. You seem to think the fetuses life outweighs the woman's life. But did you ever stop to think that the woman may have children at home that she needs to raise and risking her life with a risky pregnancy puts all of that into jeopardy and risks their lives and livelihoods too? Or are you just concerned about fetuses? Do you support school lunch programs? Welfare programs for needy mothers? Paid maternity leave and daycare?

And you support abortion bans that have resulted in an INCREASE in infant mortality, as you're trying to tell me that abortion bans save unborn babies' lives.

I'm fasting. Being particular has both perks and can be very limiting. I won't get into the abortion debate, but I honor mothers, fidelity, cooperating as equals, and raising children as a unit. People sometimes find themselves in situations where the general liberties we typically have are not present, so I'll stay out of the details of what warrants what and when. As for me, I'm fasting and may never have opportunity to bring another child into the world, which is fine. I have other things that require my attention more so than trying to find compatibility with someone. I'm a mess. I need to work on me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm fasting. Being particular has both perks and can be very limiting. I won't get into the abortion debate, but I honor mothers, fidelity, cooperating as equals, and raising children as a unit. People sometimes find themselves in situations where the general liberties we typically have are not present, so I'll stay out of the details of what warrants what and when. As for me, I'm fasting and may never have opportunity to bring another child into the world, which is fine. I have other things that require my attention more so than trying to find compatibility with someone. I'm a mess. I need to work on me.

I'd say we all need to work on ourselves a little bit.

 

[Kenny]

You translated incorrectly. Read more carefully.

Most people don't even know they're pregnant at six weeks. Never mind having enough time to book doctor's appointments and all necessary procedures before the six-week cut-off. And then there's the increase in infant mortality that is playing out in Texas, thanks to their draconian abortion laws. Travelling to another state isn't feasible for a lot of people, especially the poor.

Did you hear that? The abortion bans you support are causing MORE unnecessary and agonizing infant deaths.

Again…. no supportive documentation and fear mongering

try again