Random Political News

[bucfanclw]

I agree that he's delivered nothing. And I'm far from a "Trumpeter".... however I do wonder how much, if any, all of the stories are affecting his ability to implement his plans.

Maybe he should try worrying more about being President and less about what the media are saying. People act like this is some new sort of aggression from the media... Hannity was trashing on Obama because he wanted spicy mustard for his burger. The difference was Obama just ignored it. Trump can't seem to stop bitching about it so his acolytes jump to his defense at every turn.

[deltbucs]

Cool story, bro.


I'm fairly certain everyone here agrees that Trump is doing a piss poor job in the Office.

Or is this the smoking gun for the next eight hours?

I don't think you've been reading the board if you think that's the case. It seems most republicans here are quite satisfied with the job he's done. Confirmation bias is strong in partisan politics. Even when Trump does something that you can't deny is shitty or stupid, they rarely criticize him. They just laugh at anyone that they perceive to not be on their team for getting frustrated about it. That's the problem with letting your ego control you.

[mdb1958]

Cool story, bro.


I'm fairly certain everyone here agrees that Trump is doing a piss poor job in the Office.

Or is this the smoking gun for the next eight hours?

I don't think you've been reading the board if you think that's the case. It seems most republicans here are quite satisfied with the job he's done. Confirmation bias is strong in partisan politics. Even when Trump does something that you can't deny is shitty or stupid, they rarely criticize him. They just laugh at anyone that they perceive to not be on their team for getting frustrated about it. That's the problem with letting your ego control you.

ob·struc·tion·ism
əbˈstrəkSHəˌnizəm,äbˈstrəkSHəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
the practice of deliberately impeding or delaying the course of legal, legislative, or other procedures.

[mdb1958]

If only they could wake up!

[mdb1958]

Is Pelosi Corsy's auntie?

[Rocker]

Cool story, bro.


I'm fairly certain everyone here agrees that Trump is doing a piss poor job in the Office.

Or is this the smoking gun for the next eight hours?

I don't think you've been reading the board if you think that's the case. It seems most republicans here are quite satisfied with the job he's done. Confirmation bias is strong in partisan politics. Even when Trump does something that you can't deny is shitty or stupid, they rarely criticize him. They just laugh at anyone that they perceive to not be on their team for getting frustrated about it. That's the problem with letting your ego control you.

I wouldn't categorize Brazen; et al, as a fair representation of Republicans....er....

I take that back.

I consider myself a right leaning moderate. Mayhap my views aren't in line with many others.

Carry on.

[mightyleemoon]

[HamBone]

Anyone following the Charlie Gard case? I'm a little confused about why the parents need to courts permission to take to the States for treatment?

[bucfanclw]

Anyone following the Charlie Gard case? I'm a little confused about why the parents need to courts permission to take to the States for treatment?

Because the courts have a responsibility to the child to avoid prolonging the suffering of the child just so it can be used as a political statement in the US.

[HamBone]

Anyone following the Charlie Gard case? I'm a little confused about why the parents need to courts permission to take to the States for treatment?

Because the courts have a responsibility to the child to avoid prolonging the suffering of the child just so it can be used as a political statement in the US.

So, you believe the parents are intending to use their child as a political statement in the US? What would that statement be?

[bucfanclw]

Because the courts have a responsibility to the child to avoid prolonging the suffering of the child just so it can be used as a political statement in the US.

So, you believe the parents are intending to use their child as a political statement in the US? What would that statement be?

The parents are being parents. The fact that this case is being reported and sold as if the US could save the child when everyone knows that's not the case, is for political reasons.

[HamBone]

So, you believe the parents are intending to use their child as a political statement in the US? What would that statement be?

The parents are being parents. The fact that this case is being reported and sold as if the US could save the child when everyone knows that's not the case, is for political reasons.

From the little I've read there seems to be a Doctor who claims he has a treatment that might help the child's quality of life improve.

If the doctor does truly believe that and the parents are willing to allow Charlie to undergo treatment...why should the parents have to fight for permission in court? That's the "politics" I don't understand.

[uscbucsfan]

So, you believe the parents are intending to use their child as a political statement in the US? What would that statement be?

The parents are being parents. The fact that this case is being reported and sold as if the US could save the child when everyone knows that's not the case, is for political reasons.

Can you post a link stating that Dr. Hirano’s lab at Columbia University isn't really developing experimental therapies for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and that this is just a political game?

Thanks.

[uscbucsfan]

The parents are being parents. The fact that this case is being reported and sold as if the US could save the child when everyone knows that's not the case, is for political reasons.

If the doctor does truly believe that and the parents are willing to allow Charlie to undergo treatment...why should the parents have to fight for permission in court? That's the "politics" I don't understand.

Same. Seems many in the UK believe the same thing.

[bucfanclw]

The parents are being parents. The fact that this case is being reported and sold as if the US could save the child when everyone knows that's not the case, is for political reasons.

Can you post a link stating that Dr. Hirano’s lab at Columbia University isn't really developing experimental therapies for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and that this is just a political game?

Thanks.

We'll find out what he thinks after he examines the child since he has admitted he doesn't know the extent of brain damage the child has from the disease, which is why the court is not ruling to send the child to the US yet. If he can stand by a statement that he believes the child could show a meaningful enough improvement, then we'll see what happens. As of right now, it's all just conjecture putting it firmly in the political arena.

[HamBone]

Can you post a link stating that Dr. Hirano’s lab at Columbia University isn't really developing experimental therapies for mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome and that this is just a political game?

Thanks.

We'll find out what he thinks after he examines the child since he has admitted he doesn't know the extent of brain damage the child has from the disease, which is why the court is not ruling to send the child to the US yet. If he can stand by a statement that he believes the child could show a meaningful enough improvement, then we'll see what happens. As of right now, it's all just conjecture putting it firmly in the political arena.

Why is it even in the courts? Don't the parents have the right to fly Charlie to any nation they believe can treat him?

If not...why? That's the part of the story that I find confusing.

[bucfanclw]

We'll find out what he thinks after he examines the child since he has admitted he doesn't know the extent of brain damage the child has from the disease, which is why the court is not ruling to send the child to the US yet. If he can stand by a statement that he believes the child could show a meaningful enough improvement, then we'll see what happens. As of right now, it's all just conjecture putting it firmly in the political arena.

Why is it even in the courts? Don't the parents have the right to fly Charlie to any nation they believe can treat him?

If not...why? That's the part of the story that I find confusing.

Can a parent of a child with malaria refuse treatment by doctors and rely on prayer, or should the courts get involved?

[HamBone]

Why is it even in the courts? Don't the parents have the right to fly Charlie to any nation they believe can treat him?

If not...why? That's the part of the story that I find confusing.

Can a parent of a child with malaria refuse treatment by doctors and rely on prayer, or should the courts get involved?

I think they should be allowed to...if their religious convictions are that strong.

Do you disagree?

[uscbucsfan]

Why is it even in the courts? Don't the parents have the right to fly Charlie to any nation they believe can treat him?

If not...why? That's the part of the story that I find confusing.

Can a parent of a child with malaria refuse treatment by doctors and rely on prayer, or should the courts get involved?

That's not apples to apples, but they should.

I mean if they are trying to save a terminally ill child, they should be able to do whatever the **** they can afford to save the child's life.

[bucfanclw]

Can a parent of a child with malaria refuse treatment by doctors and rely on prayer, or should the courts get involved?

I think they should be allowed to...if their religious convictions are that strong.

Do you disagree?

So we're saying the child doesn't have the right to choose to live if their parent wants to pray the disease away? Cool. I guess I'm done with this conversation since it's clear we're going to be at an impasse here.

[mightyleemoon]

I think they should be allowed to...if their religious convictions are that strong.

Do you disagree?

So we're saying the child doesn't have the right to choose to live if their parent wants to pray the disease away? Cool. I guess I'm done with this conversation since it's clear we're going to be at an impasse here.

Well, are you also suggesting that the child be able to dictate insurmountable debt to the parents if they are unable to afford this life saving procedure? I mean, I would give up everything to save my child. Most people I know feel this way. But, if there are people out there who wouldn't want to assume crippling debt to save their child...should they be forced to do that?

Edit: I haven't been following this conversation. Just going off the last couple posts. So, maybe I'm missing an important piece of this conversation from earlier...

[HamBone]

I think they should be allowed to...if their religious convictions are that strong.

Do you disagree?

So we're saying the child doesn't have the right to choose to live if their parent wants to pray the disease away? Cool. I guess I'm done with this conversation since it's clear we're going to be at an impasse here.

If that's how you wish to interpret my statement...I just believe a parent has the right to choose the care they feel is best for a child. Without court intervention.

Now, if the child is refusing that care or is requesting different care...that is a different matter. But, nowhere in you malaria scenario did you make it apparent that the child was disagreeing with the parents.

I believe in a person/parents right to make decisions...whether or not I agree with their decisions is not important.

If we are not free enough to make poor decisions...then we are not free.

[Buc2]

I think they should be allowed to...if their religious convictions are that strong.

Do you disagree?

So we're saying the child doesn't have the right to choose to live if their parent wants to pray the disease away? Cool. I guess I'm done with this conversation since it's clear we're going to be at an impasse here.

How would you know since you only answer his questions with a question? Come to think of it, that's pretty much what you do anytime someone asks you a question.

[uscbucsfan]

So we're saying the child doesn't have the right to choose to live if their parent wants to pray the disease away? Cool. I guess I'm done with this conversation since it's clear we're going to be at an impasse here.

Well, are you also suggesting that the child be able to dictate insurmountable debt to the parents if they are unable to afford this life saving procedure? I mean, I would give up everything to save my child. Most people I know feel this way. But, if there are people out there who wouldn't want to assume crippling debt to save their child...should they be forced to do that?

Edit: I haven't been following this conversation. Just going off the last couple posts. So, maybe I'm missing an important piece of this conversation from earlier...

No. You are right there and I agree with you.

[Zarniwoop]

This is simple. If parents have the resources they should be able to give all they can for their kids. Courts should not be able to decide what treatments are afforded to parents. I don't care if it's a .00001% chance of the kid getting better....the kids' parents should have every right to do it.

Now if the pursuit of ridiculous treatments is causing the patient so much pain to get to the child abuse stage, then courts can step in just as they would if parents were abusing their child in other ways. The child absolutely deserves protection in those cases.

From the little Ive read of this particular case, it seems we are nowhere near that point

[uscbucsfan]

This is simple. If parents have the resources they should be able to give all they can for their kids. Courts should not be able to decide what treatments are afforded to parents. I don't care if it's a .00001% chance of the kid getting better....the kids' parents should have every right to do it.

Now if the pursuit of ridiculous treatments is causing the patient so much pain to get to the child abuse stage, then courts can step in just as they would if parents were abusing their child in other ways. The child absolutely deserves protection in those cases.

From the little Ive read of this particular case, it seems we are nowhere near that point

I agree with your first point 100%.

I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?

[Zarniwoop]

This is simple. If parents have the resources they should be able to give all they can for their kids. Courts should not be able to decide what treatments are afforded to parents. I don't care if it's a .00001% chance of the kid getting better....the kids' parents should have every right to do it.

Now if the pursuit of ridiculous treatments is causing the patient so much pain to get to the child abuse stage, then courts can step in just as they would if parents were abusing their child in other ways. The child absolutely deserves protection in those cases.

From the little Ive read of this particular case, it seems we are nowhere near that point

I agree with your first point 100%.

I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?

That's a million dollar question.


We have child services when it comes to physical abuse and neglect.

I'm not sure who could determine it in medical cases...but clearly there could be parents who put their kids through hell in holding out for a miracle cure.

I imagine some sort of consortium of health professionals? Any limit I would set would need to be incredibly high though for treatments to seem abusive

[bucfanclw]

This is simple. If parents have the resources they should be able to give all they can for their kids. Courts should not be able to decide what treatments are afforded to parents. I don't care if it's a .00001% chance of the kid getting better....the kids' parents should have every right to do it.

Now if the pursuit of ridiculous treatments is causing the patient so much pain to get to the child abuse stage, then courts can step in just as they would if parents were abusing their child in other ways. The child absolutely deserves protection in those cases.

From the little Ive read of this particular case, it seems we are nowhere near that point

I agree with your first point 100%.

I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?

That was my point. Hambone wanted to know why courts are involved in the treatment of the child so I presented a case that shows WHY courts should be involved in some circumstances. The problem in this case is we have a child that has enough brain damage that he can't even breathe without a respirator and the doctors are saying that the child is suffering. The parents don't want to "give up" on their child as any parent would, but the court has to rely on the doctors that say the experimental procedure did not show any possibility that the child would have any meaningful improvement to quality of life at this stage. The doctor promoting the procedure admitted he didn't know how much brain damage had been suffered so the courts felt at that point putting the child through said procedures is abusive.

Unfortunately, some people wanted to promote this as some sort of failure of the UK medical system when it is actually the tragic story of a child born with an extremely rare, terminal disease for which there is no cure.

[uscbucsfan]

I agree with your first point 100%.

I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?

That was my point. Hambone wanted to know why courts are involved in the treatment of the child so I presented a case that shows WHY courts should be involved in some circumstances. The problem in this case is we have a child that has enough brain damage that he can't even breathe without a respirator and the doctors are saying that the child is suffering. The parents don't want to "give up" on their child as any parent would, but the court has to rely on the doctors that say the experimental procedure did not show any possibility that the child would have any meaningful improvement to quality of life at this stage. The doctor promoting the procedure admitted he didn't know how much brain damage had been suffered so the courts felt at that point putting the child through said procedures is abusive.

Unfortunately, some people wanted to promote this as some sort of failure of the UK medical system when it is actually the tragic story of a child born with an extremely rare, terminal disease for which there is no cure.

No one hates the UK medical system more than citizens of the UK, so they do take everyone opportunity to do that.

[HamBone]

I agree with your first point 100%.

I think there's too much ambiguity on your second point. Too much pain is subjective. Who determines that?

That was my point. Hambone wanted to know why courts are involved in the treatment of the child so I presented a case that shows WHY courts should be involved in some circumstances. The problem in this case is we have a child that has enough brain damage that he can't even breathe without a respirator and the doctors are saying that the child is suffering. The parents don't want to "give up" on their child as any parent would, but the court has to rely on the doctors that say the experimental procedure did not show any possibility that the child would have any meaningful improvement to quality of life at this stage. The doctor promoting the procedure admitted he didn't know how much brain damage had been suffered so the courts felt at that point putting the child through said procedures is abusive.

Unfortunately, some people wanted to promote this as some sort of failure of the UK medical system when it is actually the tragic story of a child born with an extremely rare, terminal disease for which there is no cure.

I couldn't find an article that stated the child was suffering...maybe you could provide a link.

However, I did find an article from the Guardian that stated


"But Katie Gollop QC, who led Great Ormond Street’s legal team, suggested further treatment would leave Charlie in a condition that gave him “no benefit”. The therapy proposed in the US was “experimental” and would not help Charlie, she said.

Gollop said nobody knew whether Charlie was in pain, “because it is so very difficult because of the ravages of Charlie’s condition. He cannot see, he cannot hear, he cannot make a noise, he cannot move.”

Sounds more like the government is against Charlie receiving the treatment...because it is experimental.