Tarrifs

[moke123]

What you don't seem to get is that Trump is essentially honest.

Essentially honest? As opposed to actually honest?

since they can't control what he says.

Either can he.

He says what he means and he means what he says.

So they're eating pets in Ohio? He's going to deport immigrants here legally to Venezuela?
Women should face some sort of punishment for having an abortion?

So, if he says, the plan isn't his, I believe him. Why would he lie?

I'm sure you do. Perhaps he's lying because it's a highly controversial plan and it hurts his campaign (to stay out of prison.)

 

[moke123]

I've seen the reports. They seem credible.

I really hope you mean this report

Woman behind Springfield Haitian immigrants "eating pets" rumor speaks out

"It just exploded into something I didn't mean to happen," Erika Lee, a Springfield resident, told NBC News on Friday.

www.newsweek.com

You're going to have to find that quote.

It was like the front page of every paper yesterday

Donald Trump vows mass deportations from Ohio town rocked by 'pet-eating' lies

Trump says Springfield in Ohio has been "destroyed" and repeats baseless claim that migrants are eating pets.

www.bbc.com

I need the video tape. It sounds like something taken out of context like "Charlottesville"

 

[Isaac]

It is with a profound sense of bemusement that one contemplates the contemporary nation's proclivity for levying tariffs, a policy which might be more aptly described as an intricate ballet of economic obfuscation. This stratagem, ostensibly designed to safeguard domestic industries, oftentimes devolves into an exquisite tableau of bureaucratic convolution, wherein the mere mortals of commerce find themselves ensnared in a labyrinthine web of impenetrable trade barriers. The imposition of such pecuniary encumbrances serves, paradoxically, not as a bulwark against external market forces, but rather as a venerated exercise in economic solipsism, wherein the nation revels in its own parochial grandeur whilst ostensibly repudiating the siren call of globalization’s efficiencies. Indeed, one cannot help but marvel at the audacity with which this fiscal legerdemain is enacted, a testament to the artful, if somewhat Sisyphean, endeavor of preserving sovereignty at the expense of enlightened economic interdependence.

 

[RogerCooper]

There is nothing the government does that raises my standard of living. The cost of cars, houses, and education especially have risen far more than the raise in inflation all because of government interference. Their goal is control. And it is the petty, useless, rules that increase the cost of products made in the US. That opens the door for cheap stuff from other countries. If those cheap imports threaten national security by destroying some types of manufacturing, then tariffs get applied.

I have a personal comparison regarding how the government has raised the cost of education. My granddaughter went to the same local college as my daughter did and also lived at home due to an easy commute. Thirty years ago I paid $1500 per semester for my daughter. The price for my granddaughter was $15,000 per semester. According to the inflation calculator, the cost should have been $6,300. When the government provides "free" money in the form of grants and loans, the colleges just raise their rates to suck up that money.

College education is a good example of the harm done by well-intentioned government interventions. In effect that government has transferred money from taxpayers to college administrations.

Similarly, a tariff takes money from the general public and transfers it to a group of favored individuals, with the losses from the public exceeding the gains to the favored group. There is some benefit in the form of reducing the budget deficit, but tariffs are an inefficient way of raising revenue because of distortions tariffs create in the economy. A tariff is still a government policy that reduces our standard of living.

So why do you favor a tariff increase Pat? I don't think you take the national security justification seriously. If it was proposed by a Democrat would your view be different?

 

[RogerCooper]

Personally, I would never have forwarded the pet eating report without an actual arrest and police report. As to the catching ducks and geese, there are probably municipal restrictions about killing wildlife but hunters do it all the time during duck season. This would be a case of something natural that turned out to violate local statutes which the Haitians didn't understand and so wouldn't be outrageous at all.

I would like to see the host who is badgering Trump about why he is pro-life badger Harris for supporting murder in the delivery room. Trump's position on abortion is moderate and pretty close to the original Roe v Wade ruling. The problem with Roe V Wade is that it had been so weakened over the 50 years that it was essentially abortion on demand. That was why it had to go. Having the states decide individually won't eliminate abortion. It will be freely available in the blue states and more restricted in the red states but still legal. Women who have been raped generally are aware that it happened or they are aware that they lost consciousness in a dangerous situation. Therefore, they don't need to wait 2 months to miss a second period to confirm the pregnancy. They can go the next day to a doctor or the hospital and get a morning after pill. If they can't get one in their home state, then they may need to go further. Same for incest. If you are having sex with your father, you usually know it.

Pat, your "moderate" position is rather strange. If abortion is murder, why would the circumstances and timing of the pregnancy matter. If it is not murder, than anti-abortion laws are outrageous interference in an intimate personal decision. So which is it? And why do you trust the government to make this decision for people when you rightly don't trust the government to make other decisions for people?

I don't think you should surprised to learn that there have been prosecutions of women who miscarried. My wife had 5 miscarriages, which fortunately did not result any police investigations.

 

[RogerCooper]

Do you oppose Trump's proposal for blanket tariffs?

 

[moke123]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trumps-plan-hike-tariffs-would-spike-shipping-costs-just-like-2018-experts-say-2024-09-12/

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-proposed-blanket-tariffs-would-risk-global-trade-war

 

[moke123]

Can you give me any links to the "fact checks" done on the minimum of 25 lies that came out of Kamala's mouth during the debate?

Fact-checking Harris and Trump’s first presidential debate

It started off friendly. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump shook hands to start their first

www.politifact.com

Why do you choose not to fact check things yourself since you rarely believe anything unless it's from trump.

The one that comes to mind is the one about not killing babies after they were born live. There is video of the former Governor of VA explaining that one in painful detail. No one called him out on it. He was explaining how HE handled failed late term abortions. If your "fact checkers" didn't categorize that one as a lie, then you should not believe a word they say. They are lying to you and you are allowing it to happen

It's in the link above .

Trump: "But the governor before, he said, ‘The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby.’"

False.

Trump said West Virginia. He meant Virginia.

Former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat and a physician, never said he would sanction the execution of newborns. What he did say during a 2019 radio interview is that in rare, late-pregnancy cases in which fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, keep it comfortable, resuscitate it if the family wishes, and then have a "discussion" with the mother.

The issue is that Northam declined to say what that discussion would entail. Trump puts words in the then-governor’s mouth, saying doctors would urge the mother to let them forcibly kill the newborn, which is a felony in Virginia (and all other U.S. states) punishable by a long prison sentence or death.

He was explaining how HE handled failed late term abortions.

wrong. See above. Do you really think pediatric neurologists perform abortions?

 

[Isaac]

My wife had 5 miscarriages, which fortunately did not result any police investigations.

Curious. Why keep trying to have children in this case? Doesn't it carry extremely great risk of something being wrong with the child, injury, death, or more miscarriages? Legitimate question, not criticizing, but always curious on this

 

[moke123]

At that point, if there really isn't anything that medical science can do, then they will make the child comfortable and allow the parents to comfort him while he dies, just as we allow terminally ill people to die when we cannot save them.

Sounds like your paraphrasing Northram.

listen again pat. Where does he say they kill the baby? Obviously a healthy baby does not need to be resuscitated after it's delivered.

 

[RogerCooper]

When a fetus becomes a human is a subject best left to religion and all of our modern religions and their offspring have differing opinions. The moderate position is that until the fetus is viable, it is not a human and so abortion is not murder. Whether you believe it to be immoral or not is up to you. Personally, I believe that early-stage abortion for reasons other than ra**/incest/health of the mother is immoral. I believe late-stage abortion except to save the mother's life is murder. And this is a hard one since it is hard to believe that performing a c-section couldn't also save a late-term fetus. Our laws need to allow us to distinguish between morality and criminality. Modern science has made huge strides in the area of contraception and life sustaining care should the baby be born early. This should be reflected in our legal system. The Democrat's current position that abortion for any reason is rational and "health care" in the ninth month goes beyond immoral. It is downright evil.

I am glad to see that you are pro-choice Pat. Pro-choice means that the woman chooses, it does not mean pro-abortion.

I am not sure what you mean when you talk about late-stage abortion. This almost always involves a pregnancy with serious problems where the fetus would not be viable. For example Texas Attorney General (and convicted criminal) Ken Paxton when to court to block Kate Cox from getting a late-term abortion even though there was little chance of fetal survival and a threat to her future ability to have children. Who should made that choice Kate Cox or Ken Paxton? (She went out of state for the abortion).

 

[RogerCooper]

I am glad that you

How was I not clear? a-b the fetus is not viable and b-c the fetus is. It is "b" that is moved by modern science.

We cannot legislate morality. But at some point - and that is the bone of contention - the fetus becomes a human with his own rights and we do legislate murder. Moving this decision to the states, means that each state gets to decide where b is. My opinion doesn't vary depending on the state I reside in. If I had to make the horrific choice to murder an unborn child, I'm not sure I could do it. For ra**, probably yes. Otherwise, I would probably roll the dice and hope for the best. However, if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law in this situation, you are free to make your own choice and live with it.

Some years ago a good friend found herself in an untenable situation. She was in an abusive marriage and had just filed for divorce. She had three children under 5 and the youngest was just out of diapers. Her husband ra*** her as his parting gift and 6 weeks later she found herself pregnant. At least she had a good job that could support the children (she was a programmer). But there was no way she could survive with a pregnancy and baby. She asked me to help her through an abortion. The abortion was legal, so I said yes. I took her to the clinic the next day. Then we spent the next three days sobbing over the life that was lost.

I am glad that you friend could make her own choice. Why should the choice be made by the state government?

 

[Isaac]

Why should the choice of the baby be made any anyone else?

 

[RogerCooper]

Her choice was possible due to the 6-week time frame. The story would have been different if she had waited.

There is always a choice. If a woman is ra****, she probably knows it. Today, we have the option of a morning after pill. In the 70's, that wasn't available. Contraception was barely available for married women, and it was only around this timeframe where it became an option for unmarried women. TODAY is not YESTERDAY. Today's woman does not need to wait to determine if she is pregnant. Tests are available in any drug store so there is simply no excuse for NOT finding out sooner rather than later, so it is the woman's own fault if her state takes away her choice based on an early growth vs human decision.

For exactly the same reason that they don't approve of you killing grandpa because he has become inconvenient.

I would rather take my chances with my grandchildren, than the legislature.

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."--Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

 

[moke123]

Her choice was possible due to the 6-week time frame. The story would have been different if she had waited.

There is always a choice. If a woman is ra****, she probably knows it. Today, we have the option of a morning after pill. In the 70's, that wasn't available. Contraception was barely available for married women, and it was only around this timeframe where it became an option for unmarried women. TODAY is not YESTERDAY. Today's woman does not need to wait to determine if she is pregnant. Tests are available in any drug store so there is simply no excuse for NOT finding out sooner rather than later, so it is the woman's own fault if her state takes away her choice based on an early growth vs human decision.

For exactly the same reason that they don't approve of you killing grandpa because he has become inconvenient.

Should this woman have known?

https://apnews.com/article/trial-ra**-drug-france-husband-wife-5ad00446b8a76f0c8d14f349df9147e3

As someone who has spoken with well over 100 ra** victims, as well as a family member, you couldn't be further from the truth.

My Family member did not find out she was raped for over a month. All she knew is that she fell asleep at her best friends boyfriends house.
When boyfriend/girlfriend had a fight one night he texted her photo's of himself in the act which was then forwarded to my family member. She had no idea it had ever happened. She did learn that she had been drugged and did not just fall asleep. There are countless stories similar to this.

You fell into the "victim" trap of the left. While unplanned pregnancies do happen due to contraceptive failure, they should never be a surprise unless you don't know how babies are made. The pregnant woman is not a "victim" unless she was ra***. And even then, she is a victim only if she allows herself to become one. If you are female, se*ually active, and not sterile, you need to be vigilant if you are not interested in being a mother at this time. This is 100% the responsibility of the female.

The problem extends much further than that these days since Congress gave up its power to make laws and handed it off to unelected bureaucrats.

tell Amber thurman she's 100% responsible. oh, never mind shes dead.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

www.propublica.org

 

[Isaac]

There are countless stories similar to this

Possibly a slight exaggeration, but it doesn't change a baby being a baby and 2 wrongs don't make a right

 

[moke123]

I can tell you from the female point of view,

She can tell you from the victim point of view. Hadn't the faintest clue. Only woke up in the morning wondering why am I still here and was told she fell fast asleep on the couch. Nothing unusual for young kids. Didn't think anything of it and had no reason to. Even worse couldn't prove ra** despite the seminal DNA and the photos as they didn't clearly show penetration, a required element of the crime. He went to prison for disseminating the photos.

 

[Mike Krailo]

My Family member did not find out she was raped for over a month. All she knew is that she fell asleep at her best friends boyfriends house.
When boyfriend/girlfriend had a fight one night he texted her photo's of himself in the act which was then forwarded to my family member. She had no idea it had ever happened. She did learn that she had been drugged and did not just fall asleep. There are countless stories similar to this.

That's terrible moke123, probably not a common thing to happen to a young woman though. So no one else in that house including her best friend knew what happened at all? That is an extremely weird circumstance and hope that idiot gets prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where do they get these drugs from?

 

[moke123]

probably not a common thing to happen to a young woman though.

More common than you'd think. Often unreported. I've had many cases involving date ra** drugs. Some knew right away but there were others that didn't know till they found out they were pregnant. Lots of different scenarios.

The A-hole only got 2 years and was out in 1 with good time. When your unconscious and have no memory and there were only 2 people in the room it can be difficult to prosecute. DNA alone proves nothing. Often winds up being an indecent assault.

 

[RogerCooper]

Curious. Why keep trying to have children in this case? Doesn't it carry extremely great risk of something being wrong with the child, injury, death, or more miscarriages? Legitimate question, not criticizing, but always curious on this

After the 5 miscarriages (all early in the pregnancy), there were 2 live, healthy births (16 months apart). This is not unusual as the immune system "learns" to not reject the fetus. As my wife was in her 40's at the time, we were monitoring for pregnancy carefully. Many women might not have noticed the early miscarriages, seeing only a delayed, heavy period.

After each miscarriage a D&C was done in an abortion clinic, just make sure no tissue was left behind. There was no risk for trying again except for the normal risks of a 40+ pregnancy.