ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

Xavderion wrote:

Moloch must be super hungry because Democrats have been pushing for baby murder really hard lately. Crazy Christian Lady has to get on the court and save the babies.

"

Proposed Idaho Law Would Treat Abortion as Murder

"

(CNSNews.com) -- On Tuesday, Jan. 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Idaho state lawmakers released the draft of a proposed law that would treat abortion as murder and allow it to be prosecuted as such.

The Idaho Abortion Human Rights Act, drafted by Idaho state representatives John Green (R) and Heather Scott (R), would repeal a section of Idaho law that prohibits the prosecution of abortion.

Currently, section 18-4001 of the Idaho Code defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus.” In addition, under Idaho Code 32-102, “a child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests, in the event of its subsequent birth.”

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Meanwhile in Idaho...

"

Proposed Idaho Law Would Treat Abortion as Murder

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/emily-ward/proposed-idaho-law-would-treat-abortion-murder

"

(CNSNews.com) -- On Tuesday, Jan. 22, the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Idaho state lawmakers released the draft of a proposed law that would treat abortion as murder and allow it to be prosecuted as such.

The Idaho Abortion Human Rights Act, drafted by Idaho state representatives John Green (R) and Heather Scott (R), would repeal a section of Idaho law that prohibits the prosecution of abortion.

Currently, section 18-4001 of the Idaho Code defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being including, but not limited to, a human embryo or fetus.” In addition, under Idaho Code 32-102, “a child conceived, but not yet born, is to be deemed an existing person so far as may be necessary for its interests, in the event of its subsequent birth.”

If that passes in Idaho, expect the Pro "choice" crowd to push it under Roe V. Wade right up to SCOTUS... Where it will be the benchmark case for States' Rights in these and other matters. ='[.]'=

"

Xavderion wrote:

Another Russian collusion truther theory falls apart. Womp womp.



Also daily reminder that Veselnitskaya was in the US on a special exemption visa from Loretta Lynch and met with Fusion GPS (the firm which hired a foreign agent to gather Russian intelligence for Hillary) dude Glenn Simpson before and after the Trump Tower meeting. Really makes you think (unless you're an NPC).

"

鬼殺し wrote:

"

鬼殺し wrote:

...Well, that's one way to skip gaily into a trap I guess.

Speaking of, I grabbed that latest one, Team of Vipers, because I figured if Trumpty Dumpty's going to decry it and deny it, it has to be at least a little good. Well, of course I should have thought a little bit more because Trumpty Dumpty decries and denies by instinct. He hasn't read a word of it because if he did, he'd like it. Cliff Sims openly calls Trump a political genius on several occasions -- the vast majority of the book is, appropriate to the title, an attack on the people around him. The implication is almost that if he'd surrounded himself with less toxic people, he'd have done much better.

That's why it was so funny - Trump clearly hadn't read it, going by your description, and so looked like a real idiot.

"

Charan wrote:

Not sure I agree but one's for sure. This guy was definitely more 'than just a gofer' or a 'low level staffer'. And he's still a believer, which is also interesting. So tonally the book is easily the closest to pro-Trump as I'm likely to read in a hurry. I tried to make a hierarchy in my head as to which of the trump books I've read were the most sympathetic and which were just aggressive, but it's not that simple. None of the books were 100% anti-Trump invective but they all had their share of criticisms. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the tangle of perspectives, but I figure if you don't accumulate those perspectives, you'll never get even close to it. The only perspective I'm not interested in is of course Trump's, because in my judgment he's the defendant in my personal query 'is this man a worthy President', not a witness. And he's an infamously deceptive one, so that just makes it easier for me to dismiss whatever he says.

Multiple perspectives are essential. Maybe it's learned from Agatha Christie books as a kid, or maybe I always liked mutliple perspectives and so her books resonated with me.

Being just a dabbler on this topic, it's not something I'm going to be following up on but I like reading what you say about it.

"

Charan wrote:

...Probably the most amusing thing about it is it has censored swear words.

What I mean by this

Just the other day my mid 30s GF used 'Fuck' on her carefully curated Facebook and she got a rare email from her dad over in the US telling her to watch her language and that this wasn't becoming for a college grad. We just both pissed ourselves laughing. THIS is why he can't come here for our wedding. The fucking culture shock would put the poor old dude in the grave.

Spoiler

Hahaha oh man. Cannot imagine him when people start dropping [Removed by Support] into the banter, as tends to happen. So pleased you've brought your GF over to the filthy side XD

"

Charan wrote:

Anyway, this book so far is like reading 'from the Victors' perspective' for a war I felt they never should have won. That's what makes it hard to enjoy, but as I said, all eyewitness perspectives welcome.

Yeah, that makes sense.