Brussels is only 200 miles from London. I live 2,500 miles from Washington, D.C. Perhaps you see where this is going.
We are living in a time of enormous upheaval. Some of it is good, lots of it is bad, and all of it is challenging. The Brexit exit was one of the good things, some of the best news I have heard in a long time.
There were two basic issues in the Brexit vote. The first was the pointy-headed elites in Brussels making life miserable for the yeomanry in the UK, and the second issue was out-of-control immigration.
Perhaps you see those same two issues driving the Trump campaign, and you would not be wrong. That is where a lot of the energy is coming from, but there is a radical difference as well.
The difference is that in the UK the vote swirled around a referendum, made up of a very sensible proposal. Being words on a ballot meant that the object of the vote could not really embarrass itself. In the US, this same sentiment has gathered around a man who, when mentioned, does not cause the words “sensible proposal” to come to mind. I often don’t know what Trump means, but I know what he means. If you know what I mean.
In other words, when the chemicals get to a point where they are going to coalesce, like it or not, around something, the praiseworthiness of that point of coalescence can vary. Our British cousins are to be praised for the shrewdness of their vote, and to be envied for the opportunity to stick it to the establishment in such a clean way.
So the regular voters remain surly everywhere. Residents in the UK were extremely fortunate that their opportunity came in such a way as to give them a very straight shot. A friend in the UK wrote me that this was a very kind providence — the last chance to get out of Europe without violence. I agree with him, and agree with him also that violence was the downstream alternative.
We don’t have the same situation, but we do have the same dynamic. We do have similar forces in motion. We also have pointy-headed elites and we also have an out-of-control immigration system. Our sorrow is that the point of coalescence was the great American hustler.
Nevertheless, we are far enough into the year for me to dub 2016 the year of the wrecking ball. The idea of Europe is done. Stick a fork in it. Copy cat referenda in a number of other countries are lining up for their shot. Trump has been the wrecking ball here. We don’t know how many swings he is going to get but he has done plenty already. I don’t know if he is going to be far enough down in the polls to inspire a real mutiny at the Republican convention, or if he will manage to carry the banner against Hillary. That is, unless Hillary blows up.
Hillary only seems invulnerable because — read this carefully now — she is artificially propped up in place, a terrible candidate, by the pointy-headed elites. And we all know how omni-competent those elites are these days, right? And how much everybody loves them?
Behind the stage-managed cardboard cutout that is Hillary is a corrupt queen of mendacious graft, someone who really ought to be — let’s be honest here — in prison. Everything out front is artificially scripted and the establishment media lets it be artificially scripted. But imagine this rehearsed-to-Hell-and-back woman on a debate stage with — in the immortal words of Ben Shapiro — the crap tornado that is Trump. He taunts. He insults. He gouges. He bites her ear off. Whatever else happens, I think we can count on Hillary not having any idea of what to do, and acquitting herself poorly.
Still, conventional wisdom has Trump losing big time against Hillary — and we all know how astute conventional wisdom has been this year, right? I mean if ever there was a time when conventional wisdom knew what was going to happen next, it is now. Can I get an amen?
If Trump is elected, the wrecking ball has come to establishment Washington, and not just to the Republican Party. If he is not elected, he will only have wrecked the brand of the Republicans for the next generation, not to mention the dignity of the entire electoral process. As our grandmothers might have said, “that’s quite enough.”
So I do not anticipate being a significant voter in this election. I will vote third party, or a write-in candidate, about which more later as events unfold. But while I do not intend to be a significant voter in this election, I would like to be among the first responders after it.
SCOTUS just, like right now, voted 5-3 (i.e. binding) for the repeal of the Texas (and, since it’s binding, MS and LA [and nobody is mistaking it for that LA I hope]) abortion restrictions involving the regulation of clinics. Those Dems, they just hate regulations, don’t they?
Dems are fine with regulations that actually accomplish their stated purpose. The reason these regulations got thrown out is that they claimed to be about protecting women’s health but were actually about trying to make it impossible to get an abortion in Texas. Regulations that actually did protect women’s health probably would have survived.
Dems are fine with regulations that actually accomplish their stated purpose. Super! We’ll soon see bipartisan support for repealing Obamacare! The reason these regulations got thrown out is that they claimed to be about protecting women’s health but were actually about trying to make it impossible to get an abortion in Texas. But by not letting the law go into effect at all, the Dems never got to see if it would have accomplished its stated purpose. Also, The Texas law’s stated purpose was to protect women’s health, but it would have had bad consequences for the clinics, right? I’ll… Read more »
I’ll let Justice Ginsburg’s opinion respond: “Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 806 F. 3d 908, 912 (CA7 2015). See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates… Read more »
Quoting an expert does not an argument win. Your opponent can always find a different expert who is smarter and more educated on the subject than either of you. RBG’s opinion did not convince three justices. I could quote them and we’d just have dueling references. You could always appeal Ginsburg as The Majority, but you would certainly realize how big of a logical fallacy this is, so you won’t do it.
I’ll also note that you didn’t really address much of my comment anyway.
Justice Ginsburg is not an expert in women’s health, but she did find a number of experts in women’s health who quoted objective statistics to show that there is no rational relationship between the regulations and actually protecting women’s health. The dissent was unable to come up with any cold, hard numbers to the contrary, and in fact didn’t even try; their main point was that the case should have been bounced on procedural grounds. Do you dispute those cold, hard numbers? Do you think those statistics were made up? And sometimes if the rationale that’s offered for a policy… Read more »
Ginsburg is a legal expert. More so than me and even you.
But not on women’s health. And the issue was whether these regulations did in fact promote women’s health. Answer: No.
But not on women’s health. And the issue was whether these regulations did in fact promote women’s health. Answer: No. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-cole/ Here, as I’m sure you already know, you can find amici for AND AGAINST overturning HB 2. In the Against Overturning column, you can find evidence from: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PRO-LIFE OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PEDIATRICIANS, CHRISTIAN MEDICAL & DENTAL ASSOCIATION, CATHOLIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND PHYSICIANS FOR LIFE FORMER ABORTION PROVIDERS; POST-ABORTIVE WOMEN AND THEIR FAMILIES; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROLIFE NURSES; AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CATHOLIC NURSES, U.S.A. just to name a few. Many of these are… Read more »
Did you actually read the pro-life briefs to see what kind of cold, hard numbers they give? (Before you ask if I read the pro-choice briefs, no, but I didn’t have to since Ginsburg told us in her opinion what they said.)
Did you actually read the pro-life briefs to see what kind of cold, hard numbers they give? Not every word, but I did read some details and skimmed over the rest of both of the ones I mentioned to you. Look, we’re getting further and further away from the original point. I’ve allowed myself to get dragged into a red herring of a fact-chopping assignment. There is indeed a case to be made that HB2 does improve women’s health, whether or not that is the ACTUAL motivation for said legislation. I replied to your first response to me with a… Read more »
I found three of the briefs you referenced on line, printed them out, and will read them and get back to you later tonight or tomorrow; I promise.
With regard to the Democratic policies you reference:
1. “Doesn’t live up to it’s stated purpose” is not the same thing as having a different purpose than the public rationale. Laws are frequently disappointing in their ability to deliver, but that’s not the standard. The standard is saying one thing while deliberately intending another. That applies to gun control too.
No need to get back with me. I am done with our dueling expert argumentation.
Super. Glad to hear we have another attorney who belives strongly that nearly all proposed gun control measures should not become law.
I believe strongly that owning a gun is a constitutional right, and so is owning a car, but that doesn’t preclude reasonable restrictions on either.
Unless those restrictions are enacted based on ulterior motives, right? Then they’re to be rejected a priori. (And of course since we can rarely prove ulterior motives, we’ll just have to assume that any Dem sponsored measures have them.)
Going back to my car analogy, when the legislature passes a law requiring vehicle registration, do you assume it’s a car grab and the ultimate goal is that no one can have a car? Do you think driver’s licensing laws are just a ploy to keep people from driving? Of course not. I favor mandatory gun safety courses before anyone is allowed to own a gun, for the same reason we don’t allow people to drive until they’ve demonstrated they can do so safely. I favor mandatory gun storage laws so that five year olds don’t accidentally shoot one another… Read more »
Going back to my car analogy, when the legislature passes a law requiring vehicle registration, do you assume it’s a car grab and the ultimate goal is that no one can have a car? We’re not talking about car registration. That is not a partisian issue. Gun control and abortion are. You are certain that Texas HB2 (and similar laws elsewhere) are partisian power grabs in the wake of Gosnell designed solely to keep abortions from happening, while at the same time, assuming the best of intentions of your fellow Dems on their gun control power grabs post Orlando. Pardon… Read more »
But there’s a fairly significant difference. The gun regulations actually do further gun safety. The abortion regulations did nothing to protect women’s health.
How would the abortion restrictions have prevented Gosnell?
I can provide cold, hard numbers to contradict both of these assertions, from people who are experts in the relevant fields. But you, like Ginsburg, are saying that since you disagree with the evidence for the opposing side that it is “beyond rational belief”. That is the laguage of partisianship, tribalism, and bigotry.
If you compare the number of gun deaths to the number of women who suffer complications during abortion, it’s pretty clear which one is the greater threat to public health. And before someone chimes in that I’m ignoring the deaths of the fetuses, you’re right; I am.
Because you are an advocate of genocide. You are evil.
Your god is the advocate of genocide. Read the book.
If God or the bible advocated genocide there would be a lot more of it.
Not necessarily. There is enough there for him to qualify.
Our God is a God of justice. Sinners on their way to hell….
And of mercy too, bless His holy name.
It is true, for without His mercy I would be lost. I was referencing RandMan’s confusing God’s justice with committing genocide.
I think the confusion may be yours- but you say tomato.
Sorry, RandMan, God must punish sin and that includes yours unless you repent.
Sad that you were taught that. The lie told to children that there is a hell awaiting them is certainly the worst in the bible.
Nope, sorry. But enjoy the blood of the innocents. That is who you are as a people.
Treat yourself to a little research… What happens when a deity with the impulse control of a toddler crosses omnipotence with anger/control issues? You could start w Deuteronomy, Joshua and I Samuel.
Treat yourself to a little New Testament. Jesus never said to kill anyone. Of course the OT/NT distinction is probably lost on you. Your god is the grave. You love death and you know it.
Not as hard a distinction to get as you think. And yes, Michael, when I am not spending the vast majority of my free time loving death (it’s SOOO great!), I am also understanding the sliding apologetic goalpost of NT/OT ‘context’.
You are a death cultist, pseudonym.
Number of gun deaths per what?
The number of gun deaths in the United States versus the number of abortion complications in the United States.
How many gun owners are there compared to how many abortions are performed?
Once you have that, you have a useful metric. Raw numbers almost never are.
In the United States last year there were 12,000 gun deaths and 85,000 non-fatal gun injuries. If abortion produced numbers anything even remotely close to that, admitting privileges would be the least of the industry’s worries.
Without the denominators of abortions performed and guns owned, that doesn’t tell us whether abortion is a relatively safe procedure as compared to the dangers of gun ownership, or vice versa. I suspect I know the answer, but you know, a lot more people die in auto accidents than jumping out of airplanes and nobody’s arguing that being a paratrooper is safer than driving to the corner store.
I understand your argument, but pretty much anything other than guns that poses a heightened risk is heavily regulated. Cars (and driving) are heavily regulated. Jumping out of planes is heavily regulated. I can’t think of another activity that causes nearly 100,000 casualties every year that is virtually unregulated.
Or, would the number of gunshots fired in the US last year be the correct denominator?
No, because no one’s arguing that there should be gunshot control, but gun ownership control.
That’s an irrelevant point. The number of heart disease deaths is higher than the number of gun deaths, but that doesn’t do anything to invalidate any desire to have more gun regulation.
But heart disease is not something that can be addressed by legislation (unless you’re going to force people to diet and exercise). Gun violence can.
Why would you limit diet and exercise? There are ALREADY attempts to ban things like large sugar sodas. Expand that line of thinking out to, say, forcing every eating establishment to have a maximum number of calories in each meal.
Because it’s not just a one-sided inquiry. You have to balance the good done by the regulation to the intrusiveness that it causes. The possibility that the Big Mac I’m eating today will give me heart disease in 40 years isn’t significant enough to tell me I can’t have a Big Mac. And underlying your question is the oft-repeated fallacy of the false alternative: The only two choices are total freedom or total despotism. Well, both the American people and their legislators are better at drawing lines and striking a balance than that. They can see that there’s a huge… Read more »
So the entire argument comes down to our assumptions of what is an appropriate cost of freedom.
“allowing people to privately own nuclear weapons — the reductio ad absurdem of the Second Amendment”
The problem with private ownership of nuclear weapons is that they’re impossible to use responsibly.
Owning a car is a constitutional right? Prove that.
The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment has been held by the courts to include a right to travel, which necessarily includes the right to own the means to travel.
Do you have a cite to support your assertion? A case?
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 SE 579 (1930).
For more detail, here’s a pretty good write-up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
You claimed that a person has a right to own a car. Now you are shifting to the right to travel. These are separate and distinct concepts.
I said the right to travel necessarily included the means to travel.
Just admit you are wrong, pseudonym, just as you are wrong in your abortophilia.
You’re obviously a very angry person looking to pick a fight, even if there’s no fight to pick, so I hope you feel better soon.
You are obviously unable to admit when you are wrong, an unappealing quality in anyone, even an advocate for genocide. I hope you get some help for that soon…oh, wait, you are not even a real person.
Krychek_2
jigawatt
•
4 hours ago
I believe strongly that owning a gun is a constitutional right, and
so is owning a car, but that doesn’t preclude reasonable restrictions on
either.
And you still smell like genocide.
I found three of the briefs you referenced Ok, one last volley in our dueling experts argument. Did you read Thomas’ dissent? There are some great lines like: Moreover, by second-guessing medical evidence and making its own assessments of ‘quality of care’ issues. . . the majority reappoints this Court as ‘the country’s ex officio medical board with powers to disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.’ . . . And the majority seriously burdens States, which must guess at how much more compelling their interests must be to pass muster and what ‘commonsense inferences’ of… Read more »
I did. I ended up not reading the three briefs since you told me not to bother, but I did read all the opinions in the case. And here’s the problem with Thomas’s argument. Normally, regulations will be upheld if they are somehow connected to a legitimate government purpose (in this case, promoting women’s health; nobody is disputing that promoting women’s health actually is a legitimate government purpose.) However, there is an exception if a regulation’s rationale is so far removed from reality that no honest and reasonable person could believe that that’s the real rationale. it’s a high standard… Read more »
I’m going to reply in a top-level comment.
As always, Krychek_2 seems to be conveniently ignoring the health of the unborn women that are being aborted.
As always, Krychek_2 disagrees with the premise that they are unborn women.
How about “future democrats”?
That abortion would statistically favor Christian and conservative voter numbers, would not those on the left have practical reasons to seek to minimize such?
Sometimes people on both sides of the aisle take principled positions, even though those positions are not necessarily politically advantageous to the people taking them. Opposing gay marriage probably hurts conservative Christians politically, and supporting Obamacare probably hurt progressives politically. But sometimes you have to do what you think is right, even if it doesn’t help your election chances.
I think you’re correct, but in all fairness, democrat voters could have had somewhere around 40-50 million more to their number if they hadn’t aborted themselves out of political leverage and superior numbers. That’s pretty dumb, IMHO.
If you want to talk about the cold, cynical politics of who benefits, it’s a little more complicated than that. Yes, most of those 40-50 aborted fetuses would probably have grown up to become Democrats, but the Democrats would have lost a lot of female voters by opposing abortion. There is also the issue that part of the reason crime rates are down is that unwanted children are more likely to grow up to become criminals, which means a lot of future criminals were probably aborted as well, so society as a whole is probably better off. And unwanted children… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: If you want to reduce the number of abortions, there is a well-documented correlation between lower abortion rates and better government services for the poor. Women don’t abort as often if they have a good education, a good job, and social services. But how often do you hear conservatives talk about that? Does the “well-documented correlation” include the long term affects of socialism and government dependency? Wilson has spoken at length on the agenda of the poverty organizers of socialism. We are seeing a spike in government dependency as the poor are being farmed by socialists. Even those… Read more »
Krychek, it seems right on an intuitive level that excellent social services reduce the number of abortions. But, when I examine Canada’s abortion rate as well as its very good government programs (including a year of paid maternity leave), I do not see the kind of reduction I would have expected. Similarly, the Scandinavian nations, with their extremely generous programs and their more advantaged populations, also show surprisingly high abortion rates. Do you think that American women are different in that they would prefer to carry their children to term if the same programs were available?
I don’t know if American women are different, but I know that in the United States, if you compare abortion rates in states that have good social services to those that don’t, that there are fewer abortions. I don’t know why that would be true here but not in Scandinavia or Canada, but that is true of the US.
On what scientific, biological reasoning is a 35 week old unborn female not recognized as such? It seems that Krychek_2 is not really so concerned about women’s health as he pretends to be.
CONSCIOUSNESS, that rigorously defined, scientifically settled phenomenon that is so easy to understand and explain in accordance with a materialistic worldview – that is where Krychek_2 will go, I think.
But I specified a 35 week old, specifically to avoid Krychek_2’s superstition regarding the mystical arrival of consciousness at 24 weeks.
Ah.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/a_coalition_of_dust_bunnies/#comment-2222410822
On the same basis as the last time we had this discussion, and the time before that, and the time before that, and I don’t understand why you want to keep repeating the same things over and over.
We simply disagree on the status of the fetus, and you are arguing from premises that I simply don’t accept.
I’m underscoring that Krychek_2’s irrational premises are neither scientific, nor biological in nature, and are contrary to them. Notice that Krychek_2 can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the humanness of a 35 week old unborn. Biology goes out the window for him. Krychek_2 is not so concerned about women’s health as he claims to be.
As an aside, Hillary Clinton is a public proponent of unrestricted abortion to the moment of birth. Krychek_2 is voting for Clinton, right?
Can you foresee any medical development that would cause you to change your mind?
Sure, I’ll always look at new evidence.
Consciousness. Hmm, I’m not conscious from 10pm-6am every night…still a human I think. Fully human.
“The issue is”
You heathens do not define the issue.
Just keep telling yourself that.
I am telling you that.
Remember, guys – Doug says that unless a woman has graduated from medical school, she can’t be expected to know that abortion involves killing a baby.
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/abortion-first-degree.html
So Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan are blameless in this, as none of them have graduated from med school.
Ginseberg: We decide what we want and then make the laws fit Ginsberg
You have lost legitimacy. This is war.
One would think that anyone seriously interested in protecting women’s health would approve of regulations that require outpatient surgery centers (like abortion clinics) to meet state standards for outpatient surgical centers.
Shows what I know.
Let us suppose that a Christian-hating legislature, under the guise of protecting men’s health, passed a law that said that no one can go to church without first having a complete physical that includes a digital rectal exam. Even though it’s called a measure to protect men’s health, would you see it as protecting men’s health, or would you see it as harassment of people who want to go to church?
That was essentially the issue here. In response to jigawatt’s comment below, I posted Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, which explains why.
I love these make-believe scenarios! Can you tell us another?
Can you respond to the basic point that these regulations had nothing to do with protecting women’s health and everything to do with making abortions more difficult to obtain?
It had everything to do with trying to hang the abortion mobsters on jaywalking when you can’t get them on murder. Cool?
They got Al Capone for tax evasion, but at least they got him.
Except that jaywalking actually is illegal (albeit rarely prosecuted) whereas performing abortions is not. You’re basically harassing people for engaging in legal conduct that you don’t approve of. Which is why my digital rectal exams for churchgoers is actually more on the mark than you acknowledge: That, too, would be harassing people for doing something they have the legal right to do, just because someone else disapproves of it, all under the guise of protecting the public health.
OK. And?
And you just got smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Eff your courts.
OK. And?
Abortion clinics are required to meet health and sanitation and safety standards. The question is whether, in addition to that, doctors who perform abortions should also be required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals (which often won’t give them admitting privileges because they don’t want bad publicity). And there has been no showing that that’s necessary. Complications rarely arise, and when they do arise they are rarely serious, and if they are serious someone at the abortion clinic can call 911. And Gosnell was actually made possible by these types of restrictions. Because there is a huge mistrust that… Read more »
Complications to abortions tend to be things like perforations of the uterus (which is fatal without treatment, as tends to be the case when someone pokes holes in one’s internal organs) and retention of fetal tissue, which causes sepsis (which is also fatal without treatment, as tends to be the case when rotting flesh is left in contact with healthy tissue). If a doctor is going to perform procedures with those complications as risks, then when (not if, but when) those complications occur, anyone who cares about women’s health should reasonably expect that the doctor would be able to admit… Read more »
Complications to abortions are rare, and doctors who can’t perform them without perforating the uterus shouldn’t be performing them, for the same reason a doctor who can’t perform a colonoscopy without perforating the colon shouldn’t be doing those either. And there is no comparable requirement for doctors who do colonoscopies to have admitting privileges. But what typically happens in rural areas is that hospitals refuse to give admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions, often under threats of violence from radical right-to-lifers. If there is going to be an admitting privileges requirement, would you at least favor requiring hospitals to… Read more »
Complications to abortions are rare
Citation please.
The citations in Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion yesterday.
Cited numbers, please.
This-many-complications out of this-many-abortions.
Anyone can say “this is safe”, but until we see the numbers we can’t run a proper cost-benefit analysis.
Presumably you have the same access to google that I do, but here’s the answer to your question:
“Of the 54,911 abortions studied, just 126 cases involved major complications, which the researchers defined as conditions that required hospital admission, surgery or a blood transfusion. In all, a little less than two percent of the abortions, or 1,030 cases, resulted in minor complications in the six weeks following the procedure.”
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/12/121781/major-complication-rate-after-abortion-extremely-low-study-shows
It’s not my job to prove an assertion you are making. 2% of cases is a reasonably good rate, as far as injury to the mother is concerned. On the other hand, I seem to remember “If it saves even ONE LIFE…” being bandied about as a justification for restriction on other potentially hazardous activities. Still… even if you don’t count them, someone has to die for an abortion to be successful. That means that 33% of females and 99% of males on the business end of of the knives and vacuums end up dead. If that’s acceptable to you,… Read more »
“Complications to abortions are rare, and doctors who can’t perform them
without perforating the uterus shouldn’t be performing them, for the
same reason a doctor who can’t perform a colonoscopy without perforating
the colon shouldn’t be doing those either.”
And you propose to ensure this, how? A time machine, so that doctors who do manage to perforate uteruses/colons (which does happen) get their licenses retroactively revoked?
Since you can’t do that, here’s a possible solution: require doctors who perform invasive procedures using sharp implements to have hospital privileges. I’m surprised no one has thought of that before.
And why do you suppose doctors who perform colonoscopies are not required to have admitting privileges? And if a doctor does not have admitting privileges, do you think no one at the clinic understands how to call 911, and perhaps even the emergency room at the nearest hospital with a heads up that a patient with a perforated uterus is on the way in? And the same question I posed earlier: In a socially conservative area, in which no hospital will voluntarily give admitting privileges to doctors who perform abortions, are you prepared to require such hospitals to give admitting… Read more »
Are you certain that doctors who perform colonscopies are NOT required to have admitting privileges? And do you really think there is no added safety value to the patient having someone with admitting privileges, rather than someone who knows no more than how to call 911? If that’s the case, why do admitting privileges exist? That a reasonable requirement for patient safety might put abortion clinics out of business is not my goal, though it’s obviously something I would consider a positive development. However, the idea that patient safety should be sacrificed to ensure the availability of abortion is abhorrent,… Read more »
I think “krychek” is wrong about that. I just had one, and it was done at a hospital.
I believe that they usually are. The only exceptions I can think of would be fully equipped surgical suites with their own life-saving equipment.
Apart from anything else, the doctors who perform colonoscopies have to be prepared for foolish patients who lie about having had something to eat after midnight, Choking with subsequent brain damage is probably at least as high a risk as perforation.
I am probably being slow about this, but I don’t understand why admitting privileges would be necessary. In the event of an emergency, the abortion doctor would call 911 just as anyone else would. Any hospital with an emergency room would be required to accept the patient until her condition has stabilized.
I would have expected most colonoscopies to be done at the very least in a dedicated surgical suite because of the requirement for anaesthesia.
The thing is with admitting privileges, the doctor wouldn’t call 911 “just like anyone else would.” He would call 911 as an informed healthcare provider, with admitting privileges. That streamlines the process and doesn’t require the ER staff to treat the patients as though her condition is undiagnosed upon arrival.
That makes sense. I had not thought of that. I wonder if all abortion doctors are as conscientious as they should be in reporting problems. One would think that the caller could say, This is the Thanatopsis Women’s Clinic, and a post-abortion patient has shock and uncontrollable bleeding.
I also started wondering about what the clinic staff tells the patients. Do they ask patients if they have health coverage in the event of anything going wrong? Is an abortion clinic financially liable for medical errors? Would a clinic be willing to perform an abortion on a woman who is uninsured (and I would expect that quite a few are)?
I’m quite certain of it because it was in one of those amicus briefs Jilly and I were discussing earlier. Colonoscopies, tonsilectomies and oral surgery all have far higher rates of complication than abortions do, but none of those procedures require the doctor performing them to have admitting procedures.
You would have a point if there were a tradition of requiring any doctor doing an outpatient procedure to have admitting privileges, but there isn’t. Abortion was singled out for special treatment. And singling out disfavored groups for special unfavorable treatment is bound to raise judicial suspicions.
Thanks, I didn’t know that. It occurs to me that doctors who perform colonoscopies aren’t required to have privileges because it’s not necessary to require it. Any doctor who performs colonoscopies is going to need privileges in order to maintain a viable PCP or specialty practice. It’s sort of the same as the reason why there’s no law requiring bowling allies to provide shoes for rental. Abortion is an exception because not only do hospitals frequently not want to be associated with abortionists, but even those who do, find themselves dealing with people whose medical reputation is so bad that… Read more »
nothing to do with protecting women’s health and everything to do with making abortions more difficult to obtain?
You say that like the two are mutually exclusive.
Your wormings fool none.
The hell with your courts.
The hell with your laws.
We do NOT submit to you.
clear?
Nobody’s telling you to have an abortion. But women who want abortions do not submit to you.
I pay for them. This is war.
You smell of genocide. Your whole movement does.
Murderers all. (spits)
Methinks you are far more offended by the fact that they aren’t submitting to you than by the fact that they are having abortions. I know, nothing quite so irritating as women making their own decisions.
Not at all.
We are not the same people.
Women are just as capable of evil as you are and they, like you, are destroying yourselves every day.
You must get over your silly notion that you dominate us, that we submit to you. We do not. We are the Lord’s.
When you do evil, and it is evil that you do, it grieves us. It grieves us because we are of Him.
and because of this God gave them over to a debased mind…
You are sickening to behold. repent.
You must get over your silly notion that I give a crap about what you do, so long as you’re not trying to use the legal system to impose your values on me. I can’t imagine a worse, more distasteful job than having you be in submission to me.
The hell with your legal system. What part of “we are not the same people” don’t you get?
We are Christian, you are not.
Our laws are not your laws.
My people are not your people.
Mine is the culture of life, yours of death.
This is not coexistence, this is war.
We win; you lose.
easy peasy.
We’ll see. Try not to let your resentments give you an ulcer in the meantime.
Abortophile.
Its not resentment. Its sadness. It is sad to see a people choose their hell. It is boring as hell dealing with you heathen. We will beat you. Your courts will not save you, your laws will not save you, your culture feeds on itself.
Good God what a mess.
Don’t impose your blood-soaked values on us.
trying to use the legal system to impose your values on me
Iiiiiironyyyy~
“We are not the same people.” That says it well, and succinctly.
“I will vote third party, or a write-in candidate, about which more later as events unfold.”
me too. I’m curious to know how many Christians are going to do the same. The reason I want to know is that I keep hearing in the media how “christians” are going to vote for Trump but I am skeptical. If the the media said “nominal christians” I would believe it. In my tiny circle, I don’t know anyone in church who is going to vote for him.
That’s me as well. I suppose he, Trump, could say something that would get me to vote for him in November… anythings possible…but I can’t think of anything. And seeing how I just googled how to change my party affiliation…
It seems that many good folks, who don’t like Trump, are making the case that we “have to” support him to keep Hillary out of the White House, and that abstaining is “doing nothing”. A few of my thoughts in response to that are here: http://www.benzornes.com/a-pledge-of-abstinence. However, the essence is that abstaining and/or voting 3rd party does not constitute “doing nothing”. It isn’t picking up our toys and going home; it is a firm rebuke to those who would have our vote, that there is a significant slice of the electorate who refuses to lend their support to the schlubs… Read more »
Would you offer the same defense of abstaining from voting when McCain or Romney (or any of the others before them) were the nominees?
I think this sums it up: http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hypocrites-left-building/
“Trump may very well not be a real conservative. But a Trump presidency would not do nearly as much damage to the conservative movement as those — like Goldberg and Will — who protested little as the Republican party sold the American people a toxic mix of globalization and foreign intervention and claimed it was conservatism.”
If you vote for someone, that is cast your vote, I think that’s great! If ever there were an election to want to sit out it would be this one. But. I. Just. Can’t. We all should vote, even if the write in is your mom, or for the Raving Monster Looney Party of the UK. I’m starting to see the current election as a test of faith. Both candidates are terrrrible, and it could be easy to want to vote Trump to try to deny Hillary the Presidency. However we aren’t called to be on the winning side, we… Read more »
I’m a Christian and I’m not going to vote for Trump, so add one more to your count. I don’t know of a third party candidate I could vote for who will be on the ballot. I don’t see the point of voting for a write-in, unless there is a more or less organized movement to write in a particular name it wouldn’t even accomplish what a third party vote might. That leaves Clinton. So, I guess I don’t vote for President this year.
If the same “Christians” voted for Romney, McCain, Dole, etc., I seriously question their judgement.
I’ll be voting for Trump as a protest vote, just as I’ve voted for Constitution/Libertarian Party candidates as protest votes since the 1990s. At least Trump isn’t a milquetoast, compromising, lamestream Republican.
I’m tempted to do the same for very similar reasons, although I haven’t voted for anyone in over a decade (although I have voted on referenda, bond issues, etc.)
Those of you puzzled by the thought that any Christian could possibly support Trump (and that includes our host), I would appreciate your response to this article: https://theopolisinstitute.com/a-very-good-joke/ This article grapples with something I’ve been saying, in various ways, in my discussions with others on this subject: is it not possible that Trump could turn out to be a Samson, or a Nebuchadnezzer? An imperfect man who is nevertheless on the right side, and who, if he does nothing else, is used by God to do serious damage to our enemies? It would be helpful if this point, along with… Read more »
“is it not possible that Trump could turn out to be a Samson, or a Nebuchadnezzer?”
I’m not optomistic about that being the case, but if it turns out that way I’ll be more than happy to be wrong.
That’s about how I approach it. I have lots of doubts, and no predictions. It’s just that this sort of thing has happened before in the providence of God, but I see hardly any Christians even acknowledging the possibility.
“it not possible that Trump could turn out to be a Samson, or a Nebuchadnezzer”. Or a Tiglath-pileser.
Let us hear Donald Trump’s own testimony first of all. Let us hear him confess he was wrong about not needing God’s forgiveness. Let us see him follow the example of Zaccheus. Or maybe the example of Chuck Colson.
Then I would believe him. But he still wouldn’t be qualified to be President. Then again, maybe as a Christian he would no longer want to be.
And who has been qualified to be president (in either party) over the last 30-50 years?
Short answer: Compared to Trump everybody who has been elected. Slightly longer answer: Compared to Trump everybody who has been elected, but some not so much as others, and the current one least of all. Now, I realize that no matter who I might cite as having been qualified or a decent President, somebody will hoot and sneer and cite reasons why the man was a disaster. Their reasons might be factual and relevant, or they might be factual and irrelevant to the question. They might be lies, or they might be true, but stupid objections. Or they might be… Read more »
As just one example, I’d put Trump above John McCain for his views on immigration and Brexit alone. I agree with this article: McCain was the anticonvervative nominee:
http://humanevents.com/2008/02/01/john-mccain-the-anticonservative/
And then there’s McCain calling conservative Christians “agents of intolerance” and changing his pro-abortion stance only when expedient. (Perhaps it’s the same with Trump, but at the least McCain is no better in that area.)
You’d put Trump above McCain because you like the opinions Trump has expressed (who knows which ones he actually holds?) on those two issues, which doesn’t make him any less clueless or more competent, or for that matter, interested in doing the job, when it comes to the general business of governance. Nor, would it make up for everything wrong with him even if he were spot on correct on those issues. McCain was no worse than a Democrat, and that’s bad enough, however, the point is not that McCain as President was a good idea, it’s just that Trump… Read more »
Nah, I’m not playing that game. You’re the one who said “But he still wouldn’t be qualified to be President.” So the burden of proof is on you. What makes one qualified? And why is a Trump presidency more farcical than a McCain, Obama, Hillary, Billary, Sanders, Romney or “W” one? Because he’s been on reality TV and is a business tycoon, while the rest have largely been career politicians? Because he’s dealt with business bankruptcies, while all the rest have contributed to national bankruptcies (economically, morally and in many other ways)? That makes the rest less qualified in my… Read more »
Trumps lack of qualification has nothing to do with the question. You’re the one who asked who has been qualified to be president over the last 30-50 years, so I just expanded the time frame. Since you won’t play the game, neither will I. “Because he’s been on reality TV and is a business tycoon, while the rest have largely been career politicians?” Yes, that, for one big thing. Trump has not only been on reality TV, Trump and reality TV were made for each other; a pop-culture candidate; a walking circus for the masses. I may have said it… Read more »
What Republican nominee in the last 30 years would take the pro-Brexit stance that Trump did?
James Dobson reports that Trump is a new Christian.
We don’t have the same situation, but we do have the same dynamic. We do have similar forces in motion. We also have pointy-headed elites and we also have an out-of-control immigration system. Our sorrow is that the point of coalescence was the great American hustler. I have felt this conflict as well. I’m glad that The Establishment is getting it handed to them by a fed-up former constituency, but I have no idea why people think they’ve finally found, in Donald Trump, a candidate who will actually fight for them and keep his promises. It’s kinda like when I… Read more »
We’re not voting our way out of this.
Nope.
We tend to prefer the simple black/white solutions to problems, and can’t seem to adequately grasp both/and thinking. Brexit, as you note, is not without its difficulties and limitations, and anyone who is maintaining that is either deluded or selling something! Likewise, I read articles and posts seeming to extol Trump as if he is the saviour of all things American, and others that paint him as the Anti-Christ. Obviously, the truth is a good deal more complicated in some ways. As I’ve noted here numerous times, regardless of the outcome of the election in November, we in the church… Read more »
Brett Stevens just wrote about that exact topic. http://www.amerika.org/politics/no-conservatives-return-to-god-is-not-the-answer/
Thanks for the link!
I am quite content to let things continue as they always have.
God is sovereign.
I do not let the enemy define my strategy, ops or tactics. I rest in Him.
Dude.
This is the time to have fun. This is the time to be a Christian in full.
These cats have nothing. Rejoice in it. have fun. Save some souls and piss off a few demons.
We are Christians, it is what we do.
It’s like that.
Its the political expression of an extra-political position. The battle lines have been drawn, insults are being exchanged…this is war.
“If Trump is elected, the wrecking ball has come to establishment Washington, and not just to the Republican Party.”
Isn’t that the idea?
Problem is, it won’t be a controlled demolition.
Was it ever going to be?
Maybe could have been. I used to hear people talk about how Cruz didn’t have a single friend, Republican or Democrat, in the Senate, as if that were a bad thing.
And then he blamed Trump for the riots that shut down Trump’s event in Chicago. Cruz had the opportunity to be a taming and domesticating force in the reaction against DC, but mistakenly chose to take cheap, dishonest shots at those who were the driving force. Now, Cruz may or may not have been able to make the most of the opportunity, since I imagine most people don’t think that Cruz could have done as much as Trump portrays himself as being capable of. But Cruz (and Rubes) adopted the framing provided by the Left, and he was left in… Read more »
There are good and bad reasons to be friendless.A major problem with Cruz is that his loyalties are not with the people he’s asking for votes from, nor are his incentives aligned with them.
Do you think Trump’s are?
Based on what he’s said and done, yes. Trump has refused to apologize for his supporters and has shown loyalty to people attacked by the press while working for him. Trump’s investment in American real estate mean that the well-being of his family depends on the general health of the US economy (specifically I would contrast this to people in finance, such as Cruz’s wife).
Huh? Based on what he’s said and done Trump’s loyalty is strictly to Trump. It’s not like Trump’s personal financial well being has been dependent on the general success of his business ventures, or how anyone else made out from those ventures, so I wouldn’t count on him worrying over much about the general health of the US economy.
James Dobson reports that Trump is a new brother in Christ.
Let’s hear Trump say that, and be able to explain it. For starters. By the way, I think Paula White had something to do with what Dobson is reporting. If someone has better information I’ll stand corrected on that point, but that’s my understanding right now.
James Dobson has conveyed that Trump is a new Christian.
My worries are that it is too small…but then it is Trump which = YUGE
I am curious what you think about direct democracy type votes, even when you agree with the outcome. Is this a good way to do government?
That’s not the American way, friend. Voting is good, so long as the correct results come out.
I wasn’t educated here, but I thought the whole point of the Constitution and the Electoral College was to avoid direct democracy. I live in California where most important issues seem to be decided by referenda. If the state is trying to decide how large a chicken coop must be, I like to think that elected officials consult agriculturalists and veterinarians regarding the wellbeing of the chickens. I fondly dream that they ask economists how an increase in coop size might affect the price of eggs. Then I hope that the people we elected to the assembly and senate study… Read more »
You know more about chickens than the average politician (who, in turn, knows more about chickens than the average politician after hearing from all the “experts”.)
The center of the problem is that the state is deciding how large that coop should be!
My optimism on Brexit is strictly limited. The EU was a creation of Anglo-American communism, and the people, money, and outlook that produced it are still active in the UK. If a faction of England’s elites develops a sudden interest in the well-being of English people, then there is some hope, but this isn’t yet a sign of it.
It amazes me how many people have such strong opinions on the political and economic alliances of countries they don’t live in and have no connection to. Lefties and Righties both, all going nuts over whether Britain, a country they don’t live in, belongs to the EU, an organization they aren’t a member of. I do find it odd that such a thing could be decided on a 52-48 margin. It seems like 2/3 would be more reasonable. As for conventional wisdom, in 2008 and 2012 conventional wisdom had it exactly right. Conservatives, positive that everyone else hated Obama as… Read more »
So do you therefore also think it would have been “more reasonable” for the UK government to invalidate the original joining into the EU since it wasn’t passed with a 2/3 referendum vote?
Invalidate, no, but yes I would want joining the EU to require a similar margin. I don’t know what the perfect margin is, but 52-48 for that kind of decision is way too low.
Fair enough. So what kind of margin would you like to see for redefining marriage as per Obergefell?
Not sure how detailed an answer you are looking for, but I distinguish between the “concept” and the “practice” of marriage. “Concept” is more fundamental, society’s definition of which arrangements count as marriage and which don’t. “Practice” refers to limitations on what society is willing to allow within that concept. For an example of the latter, currently you can’t marry your sister/brother, not because you literally can’t marry them, but because it has been deemed unpalatable and will not be recognized. Another example is past bans on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court is adequate for addressing issues with the practice… Read more »
What did conservatives have to do with the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections?
Why does it amaze you that politically active people care about one of the most significant political developments of the decade?
The emotion about it is what amazes me. I’ve read a surprising number of stories that declare a 52-48 Brexit vote to be a global endorsement of isolationist xenophobia, or a sign of the impending collapse of the devil that is the EU. For an American, this development has basically no effect on daily life.
Can you deny that Texit gained some awareness and at least another degree of legitimacy because of Britain’s EU secession?
I think that depends mostly on the outcome for the UK. If their economy and society goes down the tubes, as half the internet would have me think is inevitable, then other secession movements will lose legitimacy.
Whatever effect on America that future developments in the UK have is no reason to deny the effects that Brexit is currently having.
The significance of both the rise of President Trump and of the Brexit vote is the increasing ability for people to express previously-unthinkable thoughts. The precise details of either are less important than this general effect.
Trump did as well as he did because so far the only voters he’s needed are the Republican base, and the way the nominating process is set up, he didn’t even need that many of them. Come November, he’s going to have to appeal to moderates, to non-whites and to people who don’t find middle-school discourse an effective way to run the country. At this point, barring a major unforeseen event, Hillary Clinton could spend the next four months at the beach (or whatever she does to relax) and still win.
Ah, the oh-so-intelligent people with high-school level discourse weigh-in. Some of us actually understand what Trump is doing rhetorically. It’s not surprising Hillary fans don’t get it, though.
The question is whether the voters will get it. I think they will, and the only real question at this point is whether Hillary Clinton will get 40 states or 45. Did you happen to notice that the latest polling shows Texas is now competitive for the Democrats?
I’ll take that bet. How much is your prediction of a Hillary landslide worth to you?
I’m agreeable to a wager, with a couple of caveats. First, we need a more specific term than just “landslide.” If we make a bet, the results have to be objectively quantifiable. Also, my predictions are based on current conditions. If the GOP establishment succeeds in depriving Trump of the nomination at the convention, then my prediction is no longer valid. If Clinton gets indicted (which I think has a low probability, but not a zero probability), then my prediction is no longer valid. If either Trump or Hillary drops dead of a heart attack between now and November, then… Read more »
WOW!! There’s a lot of reasons to hope for an invalidated wager!
Sounds like you aren’t as confident as I originally thought. :-)
I am confidant that if the election were held today, Hillary Clinton would kick Trump’s ample butt. I am not confidant that something unexpected won’t come out of left field between now and election day.
Maybe so. But Trump hasn’t been campaigning like the election will be held today. Even if nothing “surprising” happens, there’s a lot we haven’t seen yet. (Plus, Hillary’s campaign staffers manifestly hate her and want her to lose.)
Did the Pope lie to me? I thought Protestants weren’t allowed to gamble!
I really don’t know what to say other than “Bless your heart”.
Not all Protestants are Southern Baptists, jilly
No offense to SBs, but if that were the only Protestant option, a lot more of us would swim the Tiber or cross the Bosphorus.
I think the country is too polarized for that level of landslide. More likely we’re talking a 2012 or maybe a 2008 result.
Unfortunately, most voters probably won’t get it. What Mencken said long ago–“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”–is so unbelievably true now. It’s hard to fathom that we may soon elect a woman who belongs in jail and has been involved in scandals for decades.
or whatever she does to relax
Drudge has a picture of her and her “assistant” with a caption HILLARY AND HUMA SHOW GAY PRIDE
The man has shown no capacity to do what you say he’s going to have to do. Many thought that after his presumptive election, he’d become more presidential. He hasn’t by any stretch.
Yup, sadly.
The referendum was not legally binding upon the UK government. Unless the UKIP party wins the next election, don’t be surprised if they don’t actually exit the EU. The losers are already calling the referendum flawed and unenforceable.
The EU is likely to collapse and break up on its own, economically, before the results of the BREXIT come up for enforcement.
I believe I am previously on record, saying that the Donald’s campaign theme should be “wrecking ball” by Miele Cyrus !????
Am I a “prophet” or what?!????
Crap Tornado (R – NY) versus Grifter of Treason (D – NY)
Not an enviable choice.
If it reaches the point where this is truly the choice, you gotta take the sewage over the sellout.
Also, being in Texas, I completely resent having to choose between two New Yorkers…
TEXIT?
It’d have to be preceded by a Mexodus.
THAT is a bumper sticker in the making!
And…here it is!
https://pdf.buildasign.com//Proof.ashx?tcid=3262442B4D6A592B766E4837746153526B37583838413D3D&width=700&height=450&watermark=false&r=1467124169108
I designed it just now and have 25 being shipped to my house. :)
Anybody want one??
http://s648.photobucket.com/user/Windflier/media/VRWC/Simple.jpg.html
H’ is a “New Yorker” every bit as much as she is a New York Dodgers fan!
Or, as they say in Texas, as much as a steer is a bull!????
Idagone!
3’rd party vote will be a wasted vote and a vote for Hillary (and probably Elizabeth Warren as VP).
And a vote for Trump will profit a man, how? The Republican party does not own my vote. And I will not vote for a thrice-married, serial adulterer, proud fornicator, and someone who knows not the need of God’s grace who actually tramples the blood of Jesus underfoot as an unholy thing.
I appreciate your writings very much. However, even though I am hugely critical of the EU, I would have voted against Brexit by a very slight margin had I been eligible (I am a German citizen living in the UK). Things are not as one-sided and clear-cut as you portray them. A substantial part of the vote was motivated by xenophobia and racism (sorry for these PC terms, I usually can’t stand them but they do apply here). Immigration was in reality never a big problem for the UK, they are not even part of Schengen. Also, it won’t go… Read more »
The elites in Brussels were the creation of the elites in England and America. Brexit may eventually prove to benefit Europe more than Britain.
I think you have excellent points, and I have also been worried over the motivations behind the Brexit vote. However, as with many important policy votes, sometimes I think a coalition must be made with people who do not share the same values, sometimes with those who have repulsive values, in order to push some things through. Whether this leads to those policies being poisoned beyond utility is a very important question, and one I hope leaders in Britain will consider.
Thanks for voicing your concerns!
“If Trump is elected, the wrecking ball has come to establishment Washington, and not just to the Republican Party.”
And this would be a problem how?
I read this far…
but there is a radical difference as well.
And rolled up my cuffs in anticipation of a donnybrook. You are forewarned. …
Edit: and then I read your next paragraph, rolled down my cuffs and sighed. Goodness, there is no fight in ye. Ye are globswallered.
The principles are the same, the means are different due to circumstance.
I posted elsewhere that Dobson reports that Trump is a Christian. Have you considered that miracle?
Bill Clinton is a “christian” too.
So is Hillary , on days when she is not “Jewish”.
Obama is a “christian” as well.
No “miracles” to consider here!????
I think “A” dad has been waiting to use that line.
Although, between Trump, the Clintons, and Obama, it seems that Trump wanders untethered, farther, and much more freely across the landscape, which I believe makes him far more likely to stumble over faithfulness to Jesus than the others.
All presidents are God’s servants, whether they know it or not!????
I would disagree. Trump’s entire being is centered in his pride, his pure narcissism, his belief that he needs no savior (as he said himself).
The others may rebel against Christ’s commands, but Trump makes himself out to be sinless.
I disagree.
What part? He clearly said that he’s never asked for forgiveness.
You think that a man who has, even if but pragmatically, surrounded himself with men like Falwell Jr. or James Dobson is still less likely to respond in the obedience of faith and repentance to the Gospel than the likes of the Clintons and Obama?
Yes, especially when those same people are willing to ignore his failings and pretend that he’s doing just fine.
In fact, James Dobson has recently attested to the recent conversion of Trump.
I acknowledge that Trump has said what he has said publicly, and that I don’t particularly pay too much attention to Dobson or FotF, but it’s fair to think that you’d have to do something with that.
Has Trump attested to his own conversion?
Would you believe him if he had?
If he came out with a seemingly genuine heart, proclaimed his conversion, and asked forgiveness for what he’s done, then yes, I would believe him.
If Trump has said that, I really hope he is sincere and that his conversion lasts past the election season. What worries me is that if an influential adviser told Trump, “You really need the evangelical vote, and here’s how to get it,” do we really believe he would decline that suggestion, regardless of his beliefs? Any more than Hillary would have done?
Well, and that’s why, when it comes to who I would vote for, I don’t put too much stock in it either way. Each side (pro- or anti- Trump) are going to seize upon any little thing they can to justify and built up their own side. That’s a scary context to be in for Trump when it comes to his obedience to and faith in Christ and His Kingdom — but that’s an aside. Trump’s appeal is less about his moral character, per se, and more about his apparent willingness and potential ability to accomplish those things he has… Read more »
Nope. Obama has done everything possible to shove things like LGBQT down the throats of Christians (letter to schools about bathrooms, lighting up the White House after the Obergfell decision, inviting LGBQTs to the White House for any/every occasion). He’s more passive-aggressive and displays a very saccharine sense of false humility. This makes him much more dangerous than Trump–who is at least very up front in his pride.
I would probably agree that Obama is more dangerous to the country, but that wasn’t the point of my post. I was talking about who was seemingly closer to accepting Christ’s salvation. Only one of those men have claimed that they don’t need forgiveness.
Okay, now you’re just taking silly positions because you have to. Trump hangs out with hardcore, old guard Southern Baptists while Obama lights up the White House in rainbow colors to celebrate Obergefell and said on a public platform “God bless you, Planned Parenthood.”
If you think Obama views himself as needing forgiveness, I’d like to ask you what do you think he thinks he needs forgiveness for?
Yep, again Obama may try to appear humble at times, but it’s quite clear he’s a narcissist who absolutely loves “fundamentally changing America” (i.e., undermining anything left that’s remotely Christian). He played up the Christian part in the 2008 election (under Jeremiah Wright, no less)http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/10/check-out-what-rev-jeremiah-wright-says-about-jesus-during-pointed-speech-about-palestinian-justice/
Since coming to the White House, he appears to be a “church on Easter and Christmas only” type. He must not need too much forgiveness.
Trump hangs out with those people because he’s running for the republican party filled with Christians to bamboozle. He most definitely didn’t hang out with them when it wasn’t useful for him. I see a difference between people who think they are justified and people who don’t. The religious leaders of the Bible hung out with all the right people, read the scriptures all the time, etc., yet they were the most opposed to Jesus’ message, even more so than the pagan gentiles who probably committed a whole lot more visible sin. Why? Does Obama think he needs forgiveness? I… Read more »
Trump hangs out with those people because he’s running for the republican party filled with Christians to bamboozle. He most definitely didn’t hang out with them when it wasn’t useful for him. Yep, and that doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. I see a difference between people who think they are justified and people who don’t. The religious leaders of the Bible hung out with all the right people, read the scriptures all the time, etc., yet they were the most opposed to Jesus’ message, even more so than the pagan gentiles who probably committed a whole lot more visible sin.… Read more »
If he does seek forgiveness, what would it be for? Not doing enough for LGBQTs? Being too hard on Muslims? Not dividing the country even more on racial issues? Those appear to be the only things that convict him.
Americans love porn, meth and abortion. They just do.
Krychek_2 and I have had a conversation here about yesterday’s ruling in Women’s Health. There have been some side conversations as well as some defining of terms and a rabbit trail or two, but it boils down to this. There are two sets of medical experts whose opinions the judges were presented with in this case. In her concurring opinion with the majority, after citing the pro-abortion side, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women This is a very strong statement. Krychek_2, an attorney,… Read more »
At heart they are authoritarians/totalitarians. They will only stop when everything is conformed to their views. These people are full of hate, and do not tolerate or respect anyone, especially dissenters.
I am really not sure this “Krychek” is a lawyer.