NPR was trying to find silver linings, but even they were like "This is the beginning of 2020 and the positions were changing back and forth".
I was listening I think it was more they tend to bring on a Republican and a Dem to discuss things. The Bush Jr. guy was basically restating Trumps stuff but the head of MoveOn rocked it out of the park with stats. And when they tried to both sides that she was prepped and knocked it down with more stats and the whole November election.
The ex-NATO ambassador under Bush Jr. just threw up his hands and called it BS.
+14
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
NPR was trying to find silver linings, but even they were like "This is the beginning of 2020 and the positions were changing back and forth".
I was listening I think it was more they tend to bring on a Republican and a Dem to discuss things. The Bush Jr. guy was basically restating Trumps stuff but the head of MoveOn rocked it out of the park with stats. And when they tried to both sides that she was prepped and knocked it down with more stats and the whole November election.
The ex-NATO ambassador under Bush Jr. just threw up his hands and called it BS.
I missed the discussion bit, I'm glad to hear actual facts were presented. And yes, I cringed at first at the Bush ambassador, until he just started lighting a fire under Trump.
I mean I remember we were worried about his talking about the wall from the oval office would move the needle with "low info" voters and everyone was like "What a bunch of bullshit". I know after 2016 were all worried the average joe just laps this up, but they haven't been, hell that's why he probably just went full teleprompter and still was a dbag no one can trust.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Lawmakers in NY cheered in delight that would allow baby to be ripped from a mother's arms moments after birth. Loving babies who will never know life.
Governor of VA, who said he would execute the baby after birth. Asking Congress to pass legislation to ban late term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother's womb.
I've been trying to do some research on these two points- they're the ones my mother and sister have been harping on ever since last night. Is there any evidence to back these points up, or is this pretty much nothing but hot bullshit like the rest of his speech?
Actual OB/GYN say that by that time period the abortion is strictly for reasons outside the mother’s control (her health is at risk, fetus is non viable, etc). Nobody goes through a pregnancy for like six months and is then like “nevermind!”
Lawmakers in NY cheered in delight that would allow baby to be ripped from a mother's arms moments after birth. Loving babies who will never know life.
Governor of VA, who said he would execute the baby after birth. Asking Congress to pass legislation to ban late term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother's womb.
I've been trying to do some research on these two points- they're the ones my mother and sister have been harping on ever since last night. Is there any evidence to back these points up, or is this pretty much nothing but hot bullshit like the rest of his speech?
They're both bullshit. In one case it was referring to a baby who was not viable- a stillbirth that lives for a bit essentially.
The other was just "Yes, if the mother is at risk she can abort even after viability". Which, duh.
Medical ethics, as it currently stands, the life of the mother outweighs the life of the child. Period. If there is a simultaneous set of emergencies you tend to the mother first.
Evangelical lawmakers haven't been exactly coy that they want the child's life to supercede all decision-making regardless of viability.
I am in the business of saving lives.
+39
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
edited February 2019
I'm having trouble finding answers to the Virginia bill, and will continue to look, but New York is pretty clear.
Abortions are allowed before 24 weeks, if the fetus is not viable, or if the pregnancy endangers the mothers health ('In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”')
Edit: It looks like Virginia is just modifying existing rules.
Before the bill, for a third trimester abortion, you need three separate doctors to all say that the pregnancy could likely "substantially and irremediably impair" the mothers mental or physical health.
After the bill, for a third trimester abortion, you need one doctor to say the pregnancy could likely impair the mothers mental or physical health.
Basically, the three doctors thing is fucking ridiculous, and it allows health care professionals the option to make the best decision, instead of worrying about the legality of the health care they are providing.
Brody on
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Lawmakers in NY cheered in delight that would allow baby to be ripped from a mother's arms moments after birth. Loving babies who will never know life.
Governor of VA, who said he would execute the baby after birth. Asking Congress to pass legislation to ban late term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother's womb.
I've been trying to do some research on these two points- they're the ones my mother and sister have been harping on ever since last night. Is there any evidence to back these points up, or is this pretty much nothing but hot bullshit like the rest of his speech?
They're both bullshit. In one case it was referring to a baby who was not viable- a stillbirth that lives for a bit essentially.
The other was just "Yes, if the mother is at risk she can abort even after viability". Which, duh.
It's a lie that would take the better part of a hundred pages to fully unpack his one sentence.
Actual OB/GYN say that by that time period the abortion is strictly for reasons outside the mother’s control (her health is at risk, fetus is non viable, etc). Nobody goes through a pregnancy for like six months and is then like “nevermind!”
Yup every woman I know who has had one done at this stage was devastated because they wanted the baby and were working so hard to carry it to term but some medical thing happens all the medical science wonders are not enough sometimes. Either the baby was already still born or had some massive medical issue that meant it simply was never going to survive to term. Maybe someday medicine will advance to where those issues can be prevented or cured but we are not there yet and until that day these kinds of abortions are something that needs to remain legal.
According to CNN Polling the viewing audience skewed heavily Republican. This says to me that most Democrats decided they gave very few fucks about what Donald had to say and didn't bother watching.
Generally speaking, this thread is for discussing the narrow context of the SOTU, not a blanket thread for discussing whatever policies were covered therein.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As I recall that's how these usually go. People show up to watch their guy but not the others'.
And really who would expect otherwise? Nobody really wants to tune in and watch their team get dunked on, except maybe Browns fans.
I'm a Browns fan, and I did not watch the SOTU, probably for the first time in twenty years
Yeah, but is that because the expectations of the SOTU was the worst it's been in 20 years, or is it for the first time in 20 years as a Browns fan you have optimism?
Cause last year, 0-16, anything was a step up. Now you've got Baker Mayfield, you're starting to judge things as potentially worse than your football franchise.
Trump is horrible to have to listen to so I'm not surprised only people who like him tuned in.
This. I watched most or all of GWB’s speeches, even as a bitter opponent of everything he did. I wanted to see how he was packaging his message, watch the response, it was part of the narrative. It’s impact was limited, but it at least felt like it mattered.
I’ve spent the last two years avoiding watching Trump speak. There’s just no reason. His delivery is awful and the content itself...when it’s not pure word salad...is just obvious lies strung together. Plus, unlike GWB, the real content is gonna be spewed on Twitter tomorrow morning. So yeah, no need to spend an hour of my time listening to him try and convey what his priorities are for the year, or whatever...I can play Blood Bowl instead.
It’s not that he’s the opposition. It’s that he’s entirely illegitimate, and nothing he says matters for more than a minute, until Ann Coulter tells him to say something else.
I think at a minimum, the speech says even Trump knows he fucked up. Based on the (wonderful) annotation provided in this thread, that speech read almost conciliatory. I mean yeah the content was still bullshit, but that's the first time in his presidency I think I've seen Trump talk about unity and togetherness - I'm sure his legion of trolls was none to happy to hear it either. Perhaps someone finally convinced the orange moron just how much political capital he pissed away with his wall tantrum.
Generally speaking, this thread is for discussing the narrow context of the SOTU, not a blanket thread for discussing whatever policies were covered therein.
Sorry about that, Jeffe. I just needed info and didn't mean to drag the thread off-topic like that.
To stay on topic, though, I wouldn't trust a damned thing that came out of Trump's mouth. I mean, the SOTU is nice and all, but it's a speech. How many of the points he made is he actually going to stick to? He's not exactly got a great record for sticking to one message (except "brown peepul r bad"); much less keeping the same views from day to day. I'd more trust what he posts on Twitter for his actual views, because there's no way in blazes he wrote that speech.
But as far as not wanting his wall any more? Yeah, I'll wait until after the end of the three-week CR to see if he's still wanting that. Especially from a Republican politician, and especially from Trump, words don't have any value; it's his actions that prove what his real views are.
Do we have stats on just how many people watched? I know this date wasn't a cleared scheduled TV day, and I think there was a college basketball game on. How hard did that hit things?
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Just under 46.8 million people — 46.79 million, to be precise — watched President Trump's address to Congress across 12 networks, about 3 percent more than watched a year ago.
Just under 46.8 million people — 46.79 million, to be precise — watched President Trump's address to Congress across 12 networks, about 3 percent more than watched a year ago.
For reference, we have a ~0.5-1.0% population growth rate year over year.
I wonder how much the shutdown prompted people to tune in.
Just under 46.8 million people — 46.79 million, to be precise — watched President Trump's address to Congress across 12 networks, about 3 percent more than watched a year ago.
For reference, we have a ~0.5-1.0% population growth rate year over year.
I wonder how much the shutdown prompted people to tune in.
Don't forget, there was also the duality of potential circuses that were speculated on, for those who didn't pay attention to news during the day (where both were kinda dismissed).
Because people who aren't completely out of touch newswise, probably know that the government is due to shut down again in a week, and it's possible that'd be a focus of the speech (unity was only on the news on the same day as the speech), or that a declaration of emergency (only counted out late Sunday, I believe?) was a way forward.
And even if they knew that, given this President's lack of self-control, and potential to go off-script*, it's possible this could be a spectacle, that seeing live would be significant.
* I'm actually kinda surprised he didn't lose it when Pelosi condescendingly clapped at him.
Posts
I was listening I think it was more they tend to bring on a Republican and a Dem to discuss things. The Bush Jr. guy was basically restating Trumps stuff but the head of MoveOn rocked it out of the park with stats. And when they tried to both sides that she was prepped and knocked it down with more stats and the whole November election.
The ex-NATO ambassador under Bush Jr. just threw up his hands and called it BS.
I missed the discussion bit, I'm glad to hear actual facts were presented. And yes, I cringed at first at the Bush ambassador, until he just started lighting a fire under Trump.
He’s also really creepy into committing sexual assault
pleasepaypreacher.net
I've been trying to do some research on these two points- they're the ones my mother and sister have been harping on ever since last night. Is there any evidence to back these points up, or is this pretty much nothing but hot bullshit like the rest of his speech?
I can has cheezburger, yes?
They're both bullshit. In one case it was referring to a baby who was not viable- a stillbirth that lives for a bit essentially.
The other was just "Yes, if the mother is at risk she can abort even after viability". Which, duh.
Evangelical lawmakers haven't been exactly coy that they want the child's life to supercede all decision-making regardless of viability.
Abortions are allowed before 24 weeks, if the fetus is not viable, or if the pregnancy endangers the mothers health ('In what is considered a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.”')
Edit: It looks like Virginia is just modifying existing rules.
Before the bill, for a third trimester abortion, you need three separate doctors to all say that the pregnancy could likely "substantially and irremediably impair" the mothers mental or physical health.
After the bill, for a third trimester abortion, you need one doctor to say the pregnancy could likely impair the mothers mental or physical health.
Basically, the three doctors thing is fucking ridiculous, and it allows health care professionals the option to make the best decision, instead of worrying about the legality of the health care they are providing.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
It's a lie that would take the better part of a hundred pages to fully unpack his one sentence.
Yup every woman I know who has had one done at this stage was devastated because they wanted the baby and were working so hard to carry it to term but some medical thing happens all the medical science wonders are not enough sometimes. Either the baby was already still born or had some massive medical issue that meant it simply was never going to survive to term. Maybe someday medicine will advance to where those issues can be prevented or cured but we are not there yet and until that day these kinds of abortions are something that needs to remain legal.
Calls for unity were mostly heard by Republican ears.
Generally speaking, this thread is for discussing the narrow context of the SOTU, not a blanket thread for discussing whatever policies were covered therein.
And really who would expect otherwise? Nobody really wants to tune in and watch their team get dunked on, except maybe Browns fans.
I'm a Browns fan, and I did not watch the SOTU, probably for the first time in twenty years
Yeah, but is that because the expectations of the SOTU was the worst it's been in 20 years, or is it for the first time in 20 years as a Browns fan you have optimism?
Cause last year, 0-16, anything was a step up. Now you've got Baker Mayfield, you're starting to judge things as potentially worse than your football franchise.
This. I watched most or all of GWB’s speeches, even as a bitter opponent of everything he did. I wanted to see how he was packaging his message, watch the response, it was part of the narrative. It’s impact was limited, but it at least felt like it mattered.
I’ve spent the last two years avoiding watching Trump speak. There’s just no reason. His delivery is awful and the content itself...when it’s not pure word salad...is just obvious lies strung together. Plus, unlike GWB, the real content is gonna be spewed on Twitter tomorrow morning. So yeah, no need to spend an hour of my time listening to him try and convey what his priorities are for the year, or whatever...I can play Blood Bowl instead.
It’s not that he’s the opposition. It’s that he’s entirely illegitimate, and nothing he says matters for more than a minute, until Ann Coulter tells him to say something else.
Sorry about that, Jeffe. I just needed info and didn't mean to drag the thread off-topic like that.
To stay on topic, though, I wouldn't trust a damned thing that came out of Trump's mouth. I mean, the SOTU is nice and all, but it's a speech. How many of the points he made is he actually going to stick to? He's not exactly got a great record for sticking to one message (except "brown peepul r bad"); much less keeping the same views from day to day. I'd more trust what he posts on Twitter for his actual views, because there's no way in blazes he wrote that speech.
But as far as not wanting his wall any more? Yeah, I'll wait until after the end of the three-week CR to see if he's still wanting that. Especially from a Republican politician, and especially from Trump, words don't have any value; it's his actions that prove what his real views are.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
For reference, we have a ~0.5-1.0% population growth rate year over year.
I wonder how much the shutdown prompted people to tune in.
Don't forget, there was also the duality of potential circuses that were speculated on, for those who didn't pay attention to news during the day (where both were kinda dismissed).
Because people who aren't completely out of touch newswise, probably know that the government is due to shut down again in a week, and it's possible that'd be a focus of the speech (unity was only on the news on the same day as the speech), or that a declaration of emergency (only counted out late Sunday, I believe?) was a way forward.
And even if they knew that, given this President's lack of self-control, and potential to go off-script*, it's possible this could be a spectacle, that seeing live would be significant.
* I'm actually kinda surprised he didn't lose it when Pelosi condescendingly clapped at him.