Tarrifs

[Pat Hartman]

So why do you favor a tariff increase Pat? I don't think you take the national security justification seriously. If it was proposed by a Democrat would your view be different?

I never said I favor blanket tariffs. What I said was - countries who insist on placing tariffs on our exports, need to have reciprocal tariffs placed on their goods. Trade must be RECIPRICAL. Either free, which is my preference which means NO tariffs on either side, or reciprocal. They tax our stuff - we tax their stuff. They cannot get a free ride at our expense.

There are industries which are critical to our national defense. If you think we can depend on France to supply ammunition for our soldiers in time of war, you are flaming nuts. This has nothing whatsoever to do with our relationship with France. It has to do with supply chain management. While it is always good to have alternate sources for critical products, it is suicidal to allow this to destroy critical homeland industries. The key is "alternate" sources. We cannot replace critical industries with imports, and we especially cannot replace critical imports with products from countries who actively work against our best interests. We have allowed China to become the primary source of critical drug ingredients. They are not our friend and will very likely take advantage of this weakness should the opportunity present itself. Look at what they did to the world (us included) by buying up all the available PPE once they let COVID-19 loose on the world.

 

[RogerCooper]

Do you oppose Trump's proposal for blanket tariffs?

 

[Pat Hartman]

When a fetus becomes a human is a subject best left to religion and all of our modern religions and their offspring have differing opinions. The moderate position is that until the fetus is viable, it is not a human and so abortion is not murder. Whether you believe it to be immoral or not is up to you. Personally, I believe that early-stage abortion for reasons other than ra**/incest/health of the mother is immoral. I believe late-stage abortion except to save the mother's life is murder. And this is a hard one since it is hard to believe that performing a c-section couldn't also save a late-term fetus. Our laws need to allow us to distinguish between morality and criminality. Modern science has made huge strides in the area of contraception and life sustaining care should the baby be born early. This should be reflected in our legal system. The Democrat's current position that abortion for any reason is rational and "health care" in the ninth month goes beyond immoral. It is downright evil.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Do you oppose Trump's proposal for blanket tariffs?

Trump isn't proposing blanket tariffs. He is targeting China and specific industries where China is trying to destroy our homeland industries.

 

[moke123]

https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trumps-plan-hike-tariffs-would-spike-shipping-costs-just-like-2018-experts-say-2024-09-12/

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-proposed-blanket-tariffs-would-risk-global-trade-war

 

[Pat Hartman]

@moke123 I know you love your "fact checkers" but they do not actually check facts. They simply repeat erroneous reports from "reporters" who paraphrase Trump and post their interpretation as Gospel. Can you give me any links to the "fact checks" done on the minimum of 25 lies that came out of Kamala's mouth during the debate? Or links to the erroneous "fact checks" the others in the 3-against-1 debate made in real time from memory which of course were lies also? The one that comes to mind is the one about not killing babies after they were born live. There is video of the former Governor of VA explaining that one in painful detail. No one called him out on it. He was explaining how HE handled failed late term abortions. If your "fact checkers" didn't categorize that one as a lie, then you should not believe a word they say. They are lying to you and you are allowing it to happen. I'm sure they also let the "Charlottesville" lie pass yet again also.

 

[moke123]

Can you give me any links to the "fact checks" done on the minimum of 25 lies that came out of Kamala's mouth during the debate?

Fact-checking Harris and Trump’s first presidential debate

It started off friendly. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump shook hands to start their first

www.politifact.com

Why do you choose not to fact check things yourself since you rarely believe anything unless it's from trump.

The one that comes to mind is the one about not killing babies after they were born live. There is video of the former Governor of VA explaining that one in painful detail. No one called him out on it. He was explaining how HE handled failed late term abortions. If your "fact checkers" didn't categorize that one as a lie, then you should not believe a word they say. They are lying to you and you are allowing it to happen

It's in the link above .

Trump: "But the governor before, he said, ‘The baby will be born, and we will decide what to do with the baby.’"

False.

Trump said West Virginia. He meant Virginia.

Former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat and a physician, never said he would sanction the execution of newborns. What he did say during a 2019 radio interview is that in rare, late-pregnancy cases in which fetuses are nonviable, doctors deliver the baby, keep it comfortable, resuscitate it if the family wishes, and then have a "discussion" with the mother.

The issue is that Northam declined to say what that discussion would entail. Trump puts words in the then-governor’s mouth, saying doctors would urge the mother to let them forcibly kill the newborn, which is a felony in Virginia (and all other U.S. states) punishable by a long prison sentence or death.

He was explaining how HE handled failed late term abortions.

wrong. See above. Do you really think pediatric neurologists perform abortions?

 

[Isaac]

My wife had 5 miscarriages, which fortunately did not result any police investigations.

Curious. Why keep trying to have children in this case? Doesn't it carry extremely great risk of something being wrong with the child, injury, death, or more miscarriages? Legitimate question, not criticizing, but always curious on this

 

[Pat Hartman]

wrong. See above. Do you really think pediatric neurologists perform abortions?

WV vs V was a slip of the tongue. Those were the words used by the Governer. They were talking about a failed late term abortion. Given that doctors can perform heart surgery in vitro, how is it that they can't identify a life-threatening physical deformity some time before the ninth month?

Why do you choose not to fact check things yourself since you rarely believe anything unless it's from trump.

I listened to Northam when he made the comments. I didn't hear it second hand. Since it wasn't hearsay, I had no reason to fact check it. I heard the Governor say it myself. I do not care what your opinion of the Governor's words are. I do not care what the biased moderator's opinions were. I am relying on my own opinion. You don't need to agree with my opinion and I don't agree with yours. I just listened to it again to remind me of what he said. My opinion hasn't changed. Late term abortion is barbaric and murder. You obviously think it is not barbaric and not murder. I have no doubt that fatal deformities do occasionally slip by the doctors and are not discovered until birth. At that point, if there really isn't anything that medical science can do, then they will make the child comfortable and allow the parents to comfort him while he dies, just as we allow terminally ill people to die when we cannot save them. The difference is that we don't try to kill the elderly or ill first because it is inconvenient to allow them to live.

The "fact checkers" are as biased as the moderators. No surprise there. Trump is a big boy. He went into this debate knowing it was going to be 3 against 1 AND knowing that Kamala would have the questions ahead of time so she could practice. Didn't do her much good though so she used avoidance and rather than answering the question if she couldn't, she attacked Trump at every opportunity, and you know what? The "fair" moderators never pressed her to answer a question she evaded.

I also heard "Charlottesville" live and said to myself, self, Trump is going to be misquoted and have to take a lot of s*** over that sloppy delivery.

 

[moke123]

At that point, if there really isn't anything that medical science can do, then they will make the child comfortable and allow the parents to comfort him while he dies, just as we allow terminally ill people to die when we cannot save them.

Sounds like your paraphrasing Northram.

listen again pat. Where does he say they kill the baby? Obviously a healthy baby does not need to be resuscitated after it's delivered.

 

[RogerCooper]

When a fetus becomes a human is a subject best left to religion and all of our modern religions and their offspring have differing opinions. The moderate position is that until the fetus is viable, it is not a human and so abortion is not murder. Whether you believe it to be immoral or not is up to you. Personally, I believe that early-stage abortion for reasons other than ra**/incest/health of the mother is immoral. I believe late-stage abortion except to save the mother's life is murder. And this is a hard one since it is hard to believe that performing a c-section couldn't also save a late-term fetus. Our laws need to allow us to distinguish between morality and criminality. Modern science has made huge strides in the area of contraception and life sustaining care should the baby be born early. This should be reflected in our legal system. The Democrat's current position that abortion for any reason is rational and "health care" in the ninth month goes beyond immoral. It is downright evil.

I am glad to see that you are pro-choice Pat. Pro-choice means that the woman chooses, it does not mean pro-abortion.

I am not sure what you mean when you talk about late-stage abortion. This almost always involves a pregnancy with serious problems where the fetus would not be viable. For example Texas Attorney General (and convicted criminal) Ken Paxton when to court to block Kate Cox from getting a late-term abortion even though there was little chance of fetal survival and a threat to her future ability to have children. Who should made that choice Kate Cox or Ken Paxton? (She went out of state for the abortion).

 

[Pat Hartman]

I am not sure what you mean when you talk about late-stage abortion.

How was I not clear? a-b the fetus is not viable and b-c the fetus is. It is "b" that is moved by modern science.

We cannot legislate morality. But at some point - and that is the bone of contention - the fetus becomes a human with his own rights and we do legislate murder. Moving this decision to the states, means that each state gets to decide where b is. My opinion doesn't vary depending on the state I reside in. If I had to make the horrific choice to murder an unborn child, I'm not sure I could do it. For ra**, probably yes. Otherwise, I would probably roll the dice and hope for the best. However, if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law in this situation, you are free to make your own choice and live with it.

Some years ago a good friend found herself in an untenable situation. She was in an abusive marriage and had just filed for divorce. She had three children under 5 and the youngest was just out of diapers. Her husband ra*** her as his parting gift and 6 weeks later she found herself pregnant. At least she had a good job that could support the children (she was a programmer). But there was no way she could survive with a pregnancy and baby. She asked me to help her through an abortion. The abortion was legal, so I said yes. I took her to the clinic the next day. Then we spent the next three days sobbing over the life that was lost.

 

[RogerCooper]

I am glad that you

How was I not clear? a-b the fetus is not viable and b-c the fetus is. It is "b" that is moved by modern science.

We cannot legislate morality. But at some point - and that is the bone of contention - the fetus becomes a human with his own rights and we do legislate murder. Moving this decision to the states, means that each state gets to decide where b is. My opinion doesn't vary depending on the state I reside in. If I had to make the horrific choice to murder an unborn child, I'm not sure I could do it. For ra**, probably yes. Otherwise, I would probably roll the dice and hope for the best. However, if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law in this situation, you are free to make your own choice and live with it.

Some years ago a good friend found herself in an untenable situation. She was in an abusive marriage and had just filed for divorce. She had three children under 5 and the youngest was just out of diapers. Her husband ra*** her as his parting gift and 6 weeks later she found herself pregnant. At least she had a good job that could support the children (she was a programmer). But there was no way she could survive with a pregnancy and baby. She asked me to help her through an abortion. The abortion was legal, so I said yes. I took her to the clinic the next day. Then we spent the next three days sobbing over the life that was lost.

I am glad that you friend could make her own choice. Why should the choice be made by the state government?

 

[Pat Hartman]

I am glad that you friend could make her own choice. Why should the choice be made by the state government?

Her choice was possible due to the 6-week time frame. The story would have been different if she had waited.

There is always a choice. If a woman is ra****, she probably knows it. Today, we have the option of a morning after pill. In the 70's, that wasn't available. Contraception was barely available for married women, and it was only around this timeframe where it became an option for unmarried women. TODAY is not YESTERDAY. Today's woman does not need to wait to determine if she is pregnant. Tests are available in any drug store so there is simply no excuse for NOT finding out sooner rather than later, so it is the woman's own fault if her state takes away her choice based on an early growth vs human decision.

Why should the choice be made by the state government?

For exactly the same reason that they don't approve of you killing grandpa because he has become inconvenient.

 

[Isaac]

Why should the choice of the baby be made any anyone else?

 

[RogerCooper]

Her choice was possible due to the 6-week time frame. The story would have been different if she had waited.

There is always a choice. If a woman is ra****, she probably knows it. Today, we have the option of a morning after pill. In the 70's, that wasn't available. Contraception was barely available for married women, and it was only around this timeframe where it became an option for unmarried women. TODAY is not YESTERDAY. Today's woman does not need to wait to determine if she is pregnant. Tests are available in any drug store so there is simply no excuse for NOT finding out sooner rather than later, so it is the woman's own fault if her state takes away her choice based on an early growth vs human decision.

For exactly the same reason that they don't approve of you killing grandpa because he has become inconvenient.

I would rather take my chances with my grandchildren, than the legislature.

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."--Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

 

[Pat Hartman]

You fell into the "victim" trap of the left. While unplanned pregnancies do happen due to contraceptive failure, they should never be a surprise unless you don't know how babies are made. The pregnant woman is not a "victim" unless she was ra***. And even then, she is a victim only if she allows herself to become one. If you are female, se*ually active, and not sterile, you need to be vigilant if you are not interested in being a mother at this time. This is 100% the responsibility of the female.

"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."--Gideon J. Tucker (1866)

The problem extends much further than that these days since Congress gave up its power to make laws and handed it off to unelected bureaucrats.

 

[moke123]

Her choice was possible due to the 6-week time frame. The story would have been different if she had waited.

There is always a choice. If a woman is ra****, she probably knows it. Today, we have the option of a morning after pill. In the 70's, that wasn't available. Contraception was barely available for married women, and it was only around this timeframe where it became an option for unmarried women. TODAY is not YESTERDAY. Today's woman does not need to wait to determine if she is pregnant. Tests are available in any drug store so there is simply no excuse for NOT finding out sooner rather than later, so it is the woman's own fault if her state takes away her choice based on an early growth vs human decision.

For exactly the same reason that they don't approve of you killing grandpa because he has become inconvenient.

Should this woman have known?

https://apnews.com/article/trial-ra**-drug-france-husband-wife-5ad00446b8a76f0c8d14f349df9147e3

As someone who has spoken with well over 100 ra** victims, as well as a family member, you couldn't be further from the truth.

My Family member did not find out she was raped for over a month. All she knew is that she fell asleep at her best friends boyfriends house.
When boyfriend/girlfriend had a fight one night he texted her photo's of himself in the act which was then forwarded to my family member. She had no idea it had ever happened. She did learn that she had been drugged and did not just fall asleep. There are countless stories similar to this.

You fell into the "victim" trap of the left. While unplanned pregnancies do happen due to contraceptive failure, they should never be a surprise unless you don't know how babies are made. The pregnant woman is not a "victim" unless she was ra***. And even then, she is a victim only if she allows herself to become one. If you are female, se*ually active, and not sterile, you need to be vigilant if you are not interested in being a mother at this time. This is 100% the responsibility of the female.

The problem extends much further than that these days since Congress gave up its power to make laws and handed it off to unelected bureaucrats.

tell Amber thurman she's 100% responsible. oh, never mind shes dead.

Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable.

At least two women in Georgia died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state, ProPublica has found. This is one of their stories.

www.propublica.org

 

[Isaac]

There are countless stories similar to this

Possibly a slight exaggeration, but it doesn't change a baby being a baby and 2 wrongs don't make a right

 

[Pat Hartman]

f you are female, se*ually active, and not sterile, you need to be vigilant if you are not interested in being a mother at this time. This is 100% the responsibility of the female.

I can tell you from the female point of view, she may have been drugged and so slept through the event but there was evidence after the fact. It is also unlikely that the ra**** was gentle and obviously didn't use protection.

No one expects to be attacked in the home of a friend and that would have been a horrible discovery.