What would be the last straw for you, as a Trump supporter?

[Paratus]

@Atreus21

Rulings on Roe v Wade :

The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman's ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] Since the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable under the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[6]

Roe V. Wade allows for restrictions in the third trimester. Therefore your claim of "allows no restrictions" is false.

 

[ch33zw1z]

@Atreus21

Rulings on Roe v Wade :

The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman's ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] Since the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable under the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[6]

Roe V. Wade allows for restrictions in the third trimester. Therefore your claim of "allows no restrictions" is false.

It's almost like he sources his disinformation from conservative agitprop outlets.

 

[fskimospy]

@Atreus21

Rulings on Roe v Wade :

The Court settled on the three trimesters of pregnancy as the framework to resolve the problem. During the first trimester, when it was believed that the procedure was safer than childbirth, the Court ruled that the government could place no restriction on a woman's ability to choose to abort a pregnancy other than minimal medical safeguards such as requiring a licensed physician to perform the procedure.[6] From the second trimester on, the Court ruled that evidence of increasing risks to the mother's health gave the state a compelling interest, and that it could enact medical regulations on the procedure so long as they were reasonable and "narrowly tailored" to protecting mothers' health.[6] Since the beginning of the third trimester was normally considered to be the point at which a fetus became viable under the level of medical science available in the early 1970s, the Court ruled that during the third trimester the state had a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life, and could legally prohibit all abortions except where necessary to protect the mother's life or health.[6]

Roe V. Wade allows for restrictions in the third trimester. Therefore your claim of "allows no restrictions" is false.

To be clear his argument is because what is necessary to protect the mother's life or health is left up to medical professionals that anything could be determined to fall under that category, therefore Roe prohibits any and all restrictions on abortion. This would probably be news to a lot of the abortion providers legislated out of business by various right wing governments, but that's his position.

 

[dank69]

I hate stepping into abortion topics.
isnt that 1% figure based mostly upon fetuses that have been damaged in the womb and most would not survive outside of the womb?
like Mom is in a horrible car accident the baby has taken an enormous impact and is too broken to survive.

Conservative media counts on people like Atreus to extrapolate <1% of abortions happening after 24 weeks into 12000 babies are murdered for no reason the day before they are born.

 

[ch33zw1z]

To be clear his argument is because what is necessary to protect the mother's life or health is left up to medical professionals that anything could be determined to fall under that category, therefore Roe prohibits any and all restrictions on abortion. This would probably be news to a lot of the abortion providers legislated out of business by various right wing governments, but that's his position.

Maybe we should just let the GOP legislate things they have no idea about, lol

This Ohio anti-abortion bill says that ectopic pregnancies can be moved to the uterus — but that isn't scientifically possible

"We just don't have the technology. So I would suggest removing this from your bill, since it's pure science fiction," wrote a doctor

www.cbsnews.com

 

[thraashman]

Lets be honest. The people who've supported Trump up to now through all his evil bullshit would stop supporting him for exactly one reason. If he suddenly turned black.

 

[IronWing]

To be clear his argument is because what is necessary to protect the mother's life or health is left up to medical professionals that anything could be determined to fall under that category, therefore Roe prohibits any and all restrictions on abortion. This would probably be news to a lot of the abortion providers legislated out of business by various right wing governments, but that's his position.

To be clear, his argument boils down to any system in which Atreus21 doesn't make decisions concerning women's health is an unacceptable system. Atrius21 also chooses to not specify what damages to their health he thinks women ought to endure to satisfy his need for control.

 

[thilanliyan]

Lets be honest. The people who've supported Trump up to now through all his evil bullshit would stop supporting him for exactly one reason. If he suddenly turned black.

Russia, if you're listening...PLEASE hack his tanning bed!!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Russia, if you're listening...PLEASE hack his tanning bed!!

Dummy it is those new fangled LED lights that make him look Orange. The President said so, dear leader wouldn’t lie.

 

[thilanliyan]

I don't think so. I'm sure many people similarly opposed segregation while Plessy was still in effect.

Why do you think doctor's would randomly prescribe and/or participate in an abortion especially so late as you bring up?

Heck my doctor hates giving out antibiotics, I find it hard to believe docs okay and/or do abortions willy nilly for dubious reasons.

 

[nakedfrog]

Why do you think doctor's would randomly prescribe and/or participate in an abortion especially so late as you bring up?

Heck my doctor hates giving out antibiotics, I find it hard to believe docs okay and/or do abortions willy nilly for dubious reasons.

Obviously they hate babies, that's why they became abortion doctors.

/s

 

[ShookKnight]

Conversely, what would bring posters here to vote for Trump?

 

[brycejones]

Conversely, what would bring posters here to vote for Trump?

He became honest, intelligent, and compassionate while respecting the Constitution and the environment.

 

[fskimospy]

He became honest, intelligent, and compassionate while respecting the Constitution and the environment.

If he committed fewer crimes that could probably help too.

It's kind of a silly question though as the issue I have with Trump is that he's a mentally ill criminal. This means Atreus21's fundamental question is what could a mentally ill criminal do that would make me vote for him.

 

[brycejones]

If he committed fewer crimes that could probably help too.

It's kind of a silly question though as the issue I have with Trump is that he's a mentally ill criminal. This means Atreus21's fundamental question is what could a mentally ill criminal do that would make me vote for him.

i lumped committing fewer crimes in with becoming honest. But basically unless he completely changed as a human being and made very different policy decisions there is nothing he could do at this point that would get me to vote for him. He has a record now, and it isn't a good one.

 

[fskimospy]

i lumped committing fewer crimes in with becoming honest. But basically unless he completely changed as a human being and made very different policy decisions there is nothing he could do at this point that would get me to vote for him. He has a record now, and it isn't a good one.

Exactly, more than any particular policy he lacks the personal characteristics necessary to be president and realistically there's no way to change that. He's just not capable of doing the job.

 

[local]

I was never a supporter but I was cautiously optimistic on day 0, that lasted until the inauguration crowd size thing happened.

One thing I have never done is vote against someone, I am an idealist. I will vote for what I feel is the best option given the choices available to me without consideration on if they can actually win. That means I vote all over the place but for the last several cycles I have voted Lib for Pres. I think for the first time though I may actually vote against someone by voting against Trump.

The one single issue that drove me to be against him was the abandonment of the Kurds. Before that I didn't like him but nothing really effected me enough to go against him. And while this did not personally effect me it was just so wrong and damaging to the US that I cannot brush it under the rug.

 

[thilanliyan]

I was never a supporter but I was cautiously optimistic on day 0, that lasted until the inauguration crowd size thing happened.

One thing I have never done is vote against someone, I am an idealist. I will vote for what I feel is the best option given the choices available to me without consideration on if they can actually win. That means I vote all over the place but for the last several cycles I have voted Lib for Pres. I think for the first time though I may actually vote against someone by voting against Trump.

The one single issue that drove me to be against him was the abandonment of the Kurds. Before that I didn't like him but nothing really effected me enough to go against him. And while this did not personally effect me it was just so wrong and damaging to the US that I cannot brush it under the rug.

Please go tell all your friends/relatives to do the same!

 

[local]

Please go tell all your friends/relatives to do the same!

LOL, I am surrounded by die hard Trumpians and with the exception of my wife I don't know anyone that isn't fully on the Trump train. Every once in a while I get one of them to admit something was not handled right and even they agree someone should take his Twitter away but no budge on their overall support.

 

[Jhhnn]

LOL, I am surrounded by die hard Trumpians and with the exception of my wife I don't know anyone that isn't fully on the Trump train. Every once in a while I get one of them to admit something was not handled right and even they agree someone should take his Twitter away but no budge on their overall support.

Trump messes with their minds. It's a form of mass hypnosis.

 

[Vic]

So I see that this has been rehashed enough, with the one Trump supporter with the courage to rationally stand up for his opinions tarred and feathered... but the problem here lies with the thread topic itself. Because that answer is nothing. Stop wishing for otherwise. Start realizing that you don't need to.

 

[dawp]

I think the only way a trumpie would not support trump is if he keeled over, but then they'd vote a corpse into office rather than voting for a dem.

 

[ShookKnight]

How about declaring himself total wielder of authority on live television? Would that be the last straw?

 

[HomerJS]

I have one. One of the hosts of the weekend version of Fox and Friends finally had enough of Trump. Guess what it took? Her actually contracting COVID-19. The very thing they belittled for weeks even during the time our health agencies wanted the public to shelter in place and social distance. I guess when you own life is on the line you realize supporting Trump is just a job and that you really don't believe all the bullshit you tell your audience. Even the owners of Fox News in their personal lives practiced social distancing while their minions mocked it.

‘Fox & Friends’ Weekend Co-Host Jedediah Bila Blasts Donald Trump For Chris Wallace Criticism: “Seriously. Enough.”


https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fox-friends-weekend-co-host-013201716.html

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

Trump wasn't the greatest on the covid response. He's been decent. He could have done better no doubt. So could have a lot of other countries.
So the answer is Biden? Seriously. I'm not talking in Republican talking points here. It's the truth. Joe Biden likely took a bribe from Ukraine. I don't have any idea about the rape stuff but he is undeniably a creepy old man. And he is showing signs of dementia. That's the alternative?