Just how Crazy is Donald Trump!

[SalesServiceGuy]

Reality TV Star vs Movie Star! Who would win the Presidency?

TOM CRUISE 2020 - Presidential Campaign Announcement - YouTube

[bsm2]

[copier addict]

Has he reached the pinnacle of pathetic?
"Suburban women, please like me". Haha. What a buffoon.

[SalesServiceGuy]

WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci is criticizing a declaration by a group of scientists that supports the concept of “herd immunity,” which the White House is using to bolster a push to reopen schools and businesses amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.

https://globalnews.ca/news/7398495/fauci-herd-immunity-coronavirus-total-nonsense/

Fauci says backing herd immunity — the idea that a disease will stop spreading once nearly everybody has contracted it — is “total nonsense.”

The top U.S. infectious disease expert says: “If you talk to anybody who has any experience in epidemiology and infectious diseases, they will tell you that that is risky and you’ll wind up with many more infections of vulnerable people, which will lead to hospitalizations and death,” he told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Thursday.

On Monday, the head of the World Health Organization also warned against the idea that herd immunity might be a realistic strategy to stop the coronavirus pandemic, dismissing such proposals as “simply unethical.”

"Never in the medical history of pandemics has a nation state endorsed the concept of herd immunity".

[SalesServiceGuy]

Amy Coney Barrett's extreme views put women's rights in jeopardy



Recently, news broke that Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s deeply-conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, supported an anti-choice group whose extreme views include criminalizing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. In a 2006 newspaper advertisement signed by Barrett, St. Joseph Right to Life advocated for defending “the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

Amy Coney Barrett's extreme views put women's rights in jeopardy | TheHill


Jackie Appleman, the group’s executive director, told the Guardian that St. Joseph Right to Life “would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF process.”

Barrett’s anti-choice record was already alarming and well-documented. Still, her decision to support such a group is an example of just how far outside the mainstream she and other anti-choice politicians are regarding reproductive rights.
It is also a reminder that the extreme anti-choice agenda threatens access to abortion care and people’s ability to become parents, start families and ultimately control their own lives.

That’s why Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) mad rush to confirm Barrett to a lifelong appointment just weeks before the election is a stunning abuse of power that will spell political trouble for Republicans for years to come.

Millions of Americans conceive through IVF each year, and 1 in 8 of us struggle with infertility. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), whose two daughters were conceived with the help of IVF, implored her Senate colleagues to oppose Barrett’s nomination, writing that “Barrett’s decision to associate her name to such an organization is disqualifying and, quite frankly, insulting to every parent, hopeful parent or would-be parent who has struggled to start a family.”

[Phil B.]

Amy Coney Barrett's extreme views put women's rights in jeopardy



Recently, news broke that Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s deeply-conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, supported an anti-choice group whose extreme views include criminalizing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. In a 2006 newspaper advertisement signed by Barrett, St. Joseph Right to Life advocated for defending “the right to life from fertilization to natural death.”

Amy Coney Barrett's extreme views put women's rights in jeopardy | TheHill


Jackie Appleman, the group’s executive director, told the Guardian that St. Joseph Right to Life “would be supportive of criminalizing the discarding of frozen embryos or selective reduction through the IVF process.”

Barrett’s anti-choice record was already alarming and well-documented. Still, her decision to support such a group is an example of just how far outside the mainstream she and other anti-choice politicians are regarding reproductive rights.
It is also a reminder that the extreme anti-choice agenda threatens access to abortion care and people’s ability to become parents, start families and ultimately control their own lives.

That’s why Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) mad rush to confirm Barrett to a lifelong appointment just weeks before the election is a stunning abuse of power that will spell political trouble for Republicans for years to come.

Millions of Americans conceive through IVF each year, and 1 in 8 of us struggle with infertility. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), whose two daughters were conceived with the help of IVF, implored her Senate colleagues to oppose Barrett’s nomination, writing that “Barrett’s decision to associate her name to such an organization is disqualifying and, quite frankly, insulting to every parent, hopeful parent or would-be parent who has struggled to start a family.”

if you missed it she is only ONE in a set of nine. She is a junior jurist so therefore has not so much of a say in things. ONE person cannot over turn Roe v Wade... all fear mongering

[SalesServiceGuy]

if you missed it she is only ONE in a set of nine. She is a junior jurist so therefore has not so much of a say in things. ONE person cannot over turn Roe v Wade... all fear mongering

She is the 5th swing vote of nine votes.

She is on record as being against invitro fertilization which is necessary for many women in the USA to get pregnant.

A group of fertility doctors published a letter in the medical journal Fertility and Sterility voicing their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation—the first such statement in the history of the 70-year-old publication.

[FrohnB]

A group of fertility doctors published a letter in the medical journal Fertility and Sterility voicing their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation—the first such statement in the history of the 70-year-old publication.

Kind of like the "first such endorsement" (endorsing a presidential candidate - biden) from the liberal magazine Scientific American in it's 175 year history!
Funny, They're calling it "an undoing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's progress and an enduring step backwards for womens' individual liberty." as if she's already done something at the SCOTUS level! I'm thinking they should stick to science and not politics.
It's all right though, they have the freedom to make their bias known, and I applaud them for being so "transparent" with their bias. Makes it that much easier to forget about them, and drop 'em like a bad habit!

[Phil B.]

Kind of like the "first such endorsement" (endorsing a presidential candidate - biden) from the liberal magazine Scientific American in it's 175 year history!
Funny, They're calling it "an undoing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg's progress and an enduring step backwards for womens' individual liberty." as if she's already done something at the SCOTUS level! I'm thinking they should stick to science and not politics.
It's all right though, they have the freedom to make their bias known, and I applaud them for being so "transparent" with their bias. Makes it that much easier to forget about them, and drop 'em like a bad habit!

you have to remember brother... He *ssg-ca-bsm2* ONLY look at/read liberal information. EVEN the CDC has been known to have a majority of liberal people working there... hence the rejection of ANYTHING TRUMP conservative.

what I think these people don't realize is.. even as conservatives we DO look at ( if ever reported ) the other side of the spectrum! And with 98.5% of the shit the 'report' being NEGATIVE about anything Trump, it explains their bias in reporting. Sad because this has been festering for decades from their side. And it amazes me that CNN still touts the "fair and balanced" reporting .. hell even Acosta said they don't report the truth.

[Phil B.]