|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
man, people thought they were going to get collusion and criminality, instead all we found out was that Trump is a slimeball. That's a newsflash. Everything that is even possibly important is predicated on Cohen's current interpretation of it. lol.
edit: speaking of collusion
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies!
You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than born people are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions (plus delays), i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this.
as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now.
|
On February 27 2019 14:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies! You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions, i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this. as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now.
Data straight from CDC.
Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13).
1.3% of that is 8296.
Compare to
Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide - Sourced from Wikipedia page on US gun violence.
So no, your stat is wrong unless it has reversed in the last few years.
|
On February 27 2019 14:39 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 14:32 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies! You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions, i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this. as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now. Data straight from CDC. Show nested quote +Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13). 1.3% of that is 8296. Compare to Show nested quote +Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide - Sourced from Wikipedia page on US gun violence. So no, your stat is wrong unless it has reversed in the last few years.
I was looking here
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013
but these are all estimates. still, the number is in the thousands.
|
On February 27 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 14:39 Amui wrote:On February 27 2019 14:32 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies! You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions, i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this. as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now. Data straight from CDC. Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13). 1.3% of that is 8296. Compare to Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide - Sourced from Wikipedia page on US gun violence. So no, your stat is wrong unless it has reversed in the last few years. I was looking here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013but these are all estimates. still, the number is in the thousands.
So guns(homicides) and late term abortions have approximately the same number of incidences per year (within double digit percentages of each other so we'll call them close enough).
Homicides almost all the time are strictly negative outcomes.
Late term abortions have a positive outcome for the mental health of the mother, and a probable benefit to society as a whole (no need to pay/care for an unwanted child). It's not an easy choice for the mother to make anyways. This I would argue is a positive outcome.
I would argue late term abortions benefit society as much as gun homicides detract from society. They should not be compared to each other as if they were equal.
|
On February 27 2019 14:29 Introvert wrote:man, people thought they were going to get collusion and criminality, instead all we found out was that Trump is a slimeball. That's a newsflash. Everything that is even possibly important is predicated on Cohen's current interpretation of it. lol. edit: speaking of collusion + Show Spoiler +
In theory, if Trump knew about the wikileaks in advance and knew Stone communicated with them, Trump committed perjury because in his written answers to Mueller, he said he didn't know.
|
On February 27 2019 15:02 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 14:39 Amui wrote:On February 27 2019 14:32 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies! You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions, i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this. as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now. Data straight from CDC. Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13). 1.3% of that is 8296. Compare to Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide - Sourced from Wikipedia page on US gun violence. So no, your stat is wrong unless it has reversed in the last few years. I was looking here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013but these are all estimates. still, the number is in the thousands. So guns(homicides) and late term abortions have approximately the same number of incidences per year (within double digit percentages of each other so we'll call them close enough). Homicides almost all the time are strictly negative outcomes. Late term abortions have a positive outcome for the mental health of the mother, and a probable benefit to society as a whole (no need to pay/care for an unwanted child). It's not an easy choice for the mother to make anyways. This I would argue is a positive outcome. I would argue late term abortions benefit society as much as gun homicides detract from society. They should not be compared to each other as if they were equal.
to put it mildly, the former is not established and the latter is horrifying.
But my original point is that it does happen, and rarely because the child or mother physically "needs" it.
|
Bernie did a town hall on CNN. He was asked pretty tough questions, did mostly okay in my view.
It has come out that CNN did a poor job of labelling some of the people asking the questions. They had someone who is a student and an intern at a lobbyist firm ask a question and they tagged her as "student". One dude is the CEO of a PR firm and he was tagged as "community organizer". Things like that. It's not exactly the scandal of the century, but I do see an argument that it's fucked up to have people who are quite directly connected to the establishment ask questions under the guise of being random citizens.
Now I wouldn't make that post if this stopped here, but then this happened: because those informations have been found out, the Bernie side (mainly TYT from what I've seen) is now accused of having doxxed these people. Obviously I don't think this is an honest attack, but this is perhaps a discussion worth having. I have no doubt that this situation can cause these people to be harrassed, which is not good. It also seems ridiculous to "dox" someone who willingly put their name on television and associated it to what's going on. And I'm not comfortable with the idea that we can't discuss CNN hiding information in weird fashions because if we do, it's doxxing.
|
I wonder if this was what gave rise to the Buzzfeed article that said that Trump had directed Cohen to lie to Congress. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the actual info that Buzzfeed had as the basis for the story:
EDIT: Nevermind, there is more detail in his written story. It's not the case that Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress though. That was definitely Buzzfeed being fast and loose with the truth.
|
On February 27 2019 15:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 15:02 Amui wrote:On February 27 2019 14:42 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 14:39 Amui wrote:On February 27 2019 14:32 Introvert wrote:On February 27 2019 03:17 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:
No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. Just think of all the straw pregnant women who will use this loophole to have frivolous abortions with the help of their straw doctors. Won’t somebody think of the straw babies! You jest, but even at about 1.3% of abortions, more children are aborted late term every year than are killed with guns in homicides. Also, most research (all that I’ve seen, including by pro choice groups) say that late term abortions are undertaken for the same reasons as earlier stage abortions, i.e., almost never for the life or health of the mother/child. If gun deaths concern you, so should this. as for the part about people claiming health concerns, many of these states count mental health as well... and I think in the case of CA abortion liberalization in the 1960s, "health" became a major "reason." Can't find where I read that though, so feel free to doubt that for now. Data straight from CDC. Abortion Surveillance 2015
In 2015, 638,169 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births.
Compared with 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions for 2015 decreased 2%. Additionally, from 2006 to 2015, the number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 24%, 26%, and 19%, respectively. In 2015, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2006—2015).
Women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and throughout the period of analysis. The majority of abortions in 2015 took place early in gestation: 91.1% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (7.6%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. In 2015, 24.6% of all abortions were early medical abortions (a non-surgical abortion at ≤8 weeks’ gestation). The percentage of abortions reported as early medical abortions increased 114% from 2006 to 2015, with an 8% increase from 2014 to 2015. Source: Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2015. MMWR Surveill Summ 2018;67(No. SS-13). 1.3% of that is 8296. Compare to Firearms were used to kill 13,286 people in the U.S. in 2015, excluding suicide - Sourced from Wikipedia page on US gun violence. So no, your stat is wrong unless it has reversed in the last few years. I was looking here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1363/4521013but these are all estimates. still, the number is in the thousands. So guns(homicides) and late term abortions have approximately the same number of incidences per year (within double digit percentages of each other so we'll call them close enough). Homicides almost all the time are strictly negative outcomes. Late term abortions have a positive outcome for the mental health of the mother, and a probable benefit to society as a whole (no need to pay/care for an unwanted child). It's not an easy choice for the mother to make anyways. This I would argue is a positive outcome. I would argue late term abortions benefit society as much as gun homicides detract from society. They should not be compared to each other as if they were equal. to put it mildly, the former is not established and the latter is horrifying. But my original point is that it does happen, and rarely because the child or mother physically "needs" it.
There's very little more horrifying than forcing a woman to have a baby she doesn't want. It's awful for the parent, it will almost always be awful for the child. Why conservatives care about babies only when they're inside a woman I do not know. Well. Beyond the obvious, non-generous reason.
|
Headlines like this really fucking bug me.
From the Guardian:
Michael Cohen to call Donald Trump a 'racist', 'cheat' and 'conman' in first public hearing
Michael Cohen is to accuse Donald Trump of being a “conman” and a “cheat” who had advanced knowledge that a longtime adviser was communicating with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, according to opening testimony he will deliver to Congress on Wednesday.
Cohen’s prepared remarks, confirmed by the Guardian, include a series of explosive allegations about the presidential campaign.
The president’s former lawyer, who will publicly testify before the House oversight committee on Wednesday, will state that Trump was told by Roger Stone that WikiLeaks would publish emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
If Cohen has evidence that Trump broke the law, just say so. This whole 'he said, she said' nonsense just gives Trump supporters ammo and basically undermines the story. Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that both Cohen and Trump are scum, so why is the press indulging their ridiculous war of words, vague accusations and name calling by putting it as the top story on their website?
Half the time it makes me question the motives of the anti-Trump crowd almost as much as the pro-Trump crowd.
|
On February 27 2019 09:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 08:44 iamthedave wrote:On February 27 2019 05:08 xDaunt wrote:On February 27 2019 04:57 Simberto wrote:On February 27 2019 04:42 Slydie wrote:On February 27 2019 04:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 27 2019 03:15 xDaunt wrote:No, there's nothing reasonable about that NY bill. It allows late term abortions not just when the mother's life is at risk, but also when the mother's health is at risk. The law doesn't even define when that is other than leaving it to the discretion of the physician. Considering that pregnancy always is a risk to the mother's health, there is now effectively no limit to late term abortion. 42 § 2599-bb. Abortion. 1. A health care practitioner licensed, certi-
43 fied, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-
44 in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when,
45 according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional
46 judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within
47 twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an
48 absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the
49 patient's life or health. The bill. I've seen you spend alot of time here defining the forbidden zone of what you would be willing to accept on the abortion issue, but I'm not sure you've ever mentioned what you are willing to accept. I'll try and make it as painless as possible for you since im the curious one. a yes/no answer is sufficient: Abortion due to low quality of life for the baby? Abortion due to the lowered quality of life for the mother (i.e. long term issues, infertility, partial loss of ability to funcition independently etc.)? Abortion due to death of baby in utero? Abortion due to life safety risk to the mother? Abortion out of convenience <12 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <18 Weeks? Abortion out of convenience <22 Weeks? Abortion due to financial insolvency (pre-existing)? Abortion due to financial insolvency (sudden)? Abortion due to disolved relationship? Abortion due to age <18? Abortion due to rape? What I just realized is that alot of the people that are against "later" term abortion (i.e.<22 weeks) may not be sensitive to the fact that life doesn't freeze just because you are pregnant. the father that may have been gun ho may have changed his mind and walked out at week 16. a baby that was healthy at week 12 may have been discovered to have an illness. or maybe you lost the family member that was going to watch the baby and now you cant afford daycare so should you really have the baby? all these things factor into people's decisions to have a child and not everyone is lucky enough to have things go as they planned. EDIT: forgot the rape situation mentioned ^ There are even more: -A dead TWIN in the utero. -Abortion of some of multiple fetuses out of convenience. -Very young mothers Etc. Good luck getting xDaunt to commit to anything concrete on any subject whatsoever. He strives in the area where he can be unclear enough that he can always backpedal his statements to claim that you are arguing against strawmen when you try to actually debate anything he says. You mean like this? I'm plenty direct. It's not my fault that most posters either fail to pay attention or simply ascribe some retarded leftist cliche to my positions. You can be pretty direct. Or you can be incredibly evasive. Remember that time me and Green Horizons asked you to explain how the border wall - which you vociferously support - would actually do the things you claim it'll do and you simply never answered the question? And continued to not do so for about four days? Sigh, yet another a case of wildly selective reading of my posts. I most certainly did answer it. But you didn't answer how the border wall - which you vociferously support - would actually do the things you claim it'll do. You only reasserted what you believe the wall will do, but not how. To my amusement you first denounced your own strawmans which no one actually wrote. Good example of xdaunt technique in a nutshell.
|
Congress is going to be lit today. Especially of Trump reimbursed Cohen with a check. And I bet that is the least of the documents he is going to provide.
|
On February 27 2019 18:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Headlines like this really fucking bug me. From the Guardian: Michael Cohen to call Donald Trump a 'racist', 'cheat' and 'conman' in first public hearing Show nested quote +Michael Cohen is to accuse Donald Trump of being a “conman” and a “cheat” who had advanced knowledge that a longtime adviser was communicating with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, according to opening testimony he will deliver to Congress on Wednesday.
Cohen’s prepared remarks, confirmed by the Guardian, include a series of explosive allegations about the presidential campaign.
The president’s former lawyer, who will publicly testify before the House oversight committee on Wednesday, will state that Trump was told by Roger Stone that WikiLeaks would publish emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. If Cohen has evidence that Trump broke the law, just say so. This whole 'he said, she said' nonsense just gives Trump supporters ammo and basically undermines the story. Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that both Cohen and Trump are scum, so why is the press indulging their ridiculous war of words, vague accusations and name calling by putting it as the top story on their website? Half the time it makes me question the motives of the anti-Trump crowd almost as much as the pro-Trump crowd.
I agree. The prepared remarks can be found here:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/636-michael-cohens-congressional-t/3a1530b333230e775df5/optimized/full.pdf?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#page=1
and is more interesting that some public oration techniques. In fact most media have picked up on the least interesting thing possible. What can possible be more interesting than that Cohen will go out and exhibit Trump's corruption?
There are prepared exhibits to his testimony, and there are loads of damning anecdotes of his time with Trump, from racism to other contemptible behaviour - from one of the man closest to Trump at the election and in power.
|
On February 27 2019 20:43 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2019 18:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Headlines like this really fucking bug me. From the Guardian: Michael Cohen to call Donald Trump a 'racist', 'cheat' and 'conman' in first public hearing Michael Cohen is to accuse Donald Trump of being a “conman” and a “cheat” who had advanced knowledge that a longtime adviser was communicating with WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign, according to opening testimony he will deliver to Congress on Wednesday.
Cohen’s prepared remarks, confirmed by the Guardian, include a series of explosive allegations about the presidential campaign.
The president’s former lawyer, who will publicly testify before the House oversight committee on Wednesday, will state that Trump was told by Roger Stone that WikiLeaks would publish emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. If Cohen has evidence that Trump broke the law, just say so. This whole 'he said, she said' nonsense just gives Trump supporters ammo and basically undermines the story. Its obvious to anyone with half a brain that both Cohen and Trump are scum, so why is the press indulging their ridiculous war of words, vague accusations and name calling by putting it as the top story on their website? Half the time it makes me question the motives of the anti-Trump crowd almost as much as the pro-Trump crowd. I agree. The prepared remarks can be found here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/636-michael-cohens-congressional-t/3a1530b333230e775df5/optimized/full.pdf?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage#page=1and is more interesting that some public oration techniques. In fact most media have picked up on the least interesting thing possible. What can possible be more interesting than that Cohen will go out and exhibit Trump's corruption? There are prepared exhibits to his testimony, and there are loads of damning anecdotes of his time with Trump, from racism to other contemptible behaviour - from one of the man closest to Trump at the election and in power.
I read the PDF of yesterday's statement, and I don't feel like there was anything in there I hadn't already heard before. It was just talked about more formally.
|
It will be the first time it is said before congress is such detail. I’m also excited to see the Republicans try to bully Cohen, a dude who has likely dealt with a few people more intimidating that House members. And who is already going to prison.
|
On February 27 2019 20:23 Plansix wrote:
Congress is going to be lit today. Especially of Trump reimbursed Cohen with a check. And I bet that is the least of the documents he is going to provide.
Kinda sounds like everything Cohen will say is being revealed beforehand... Hope I'm wrong though.
|
Still sounds like there's potential for some big reveals, especially if any of the "documents" he's bringing along end up being authentic and pointed.
|
I wasn't expecting much of an earth-shattering testimony from Cohen because what he promised was already long in the public record or well-established with Trump. Nice to get proof and testimony from an insider though, I guess.
|
Don’t pay for campaign finance violations by personal check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
