macawake

Thanks. I had the advantage of having read many of OP's previous posts and threads he's started and I've also taken part in the recent thread that was supposed to be about what nurses can do to make patients safer, but that pretty much immediately morphed into something else. That and my previous career in law enforcement, where you regularly meet people (criminals) who are quite fond of playing, or at least trying to play, mind games. I'm not the most trusting person and my radar for deceptive behavior is pretty finely tuned. That's not necessarily a good thing though, it's simply a consequence of my previous life/work experience. It's better to have more faith in mankind, so I hope no one feels bad if they assumed that OP was being honest. That's in my opinion a healthier default assumption than my cynicism. Kyrshamarks, trying to prove that people are wrong in this way is in my opinion quite underhanded and simply not nice. If you really had a solid argument to make, you could have made it in the existing thread. Without attempting to deceive people.

What you were trying to do was glaringly obvious to me which is why I waited to respond until you returned with your big reveal. If this yadda, yadda X 4 hadn't already given it away... This certainly did: Talk about obvious. Suicide and homicide as discussed in the other thread you recently participated in. Personally I think it's ridiculous to try to make the case that the damage one mass murderer on a shooting spree can inflict is equivalent the damage one confused voter could possibly do. Confused voters are after all only dangerous when 63 million or so of them manage to congregate at the polls in the same year...

Since you simply copy-pasted the better part of an article (why didn't you include that last paragraph, I found it quite informative....) from a conservative magazine and didn't add a single comment of your own, I take it that you're not interested in sharing your own personal "nurse opinions" on this matter? Are non-medical magazines with a political, ahem..., inclination where you normally go to find medical and epidemiological data? That article that you copy-pasted mentions something that epidemiologists in Germany have supposedly reported, yet there is no link provided to the actual report. Why is that? Perhaps since you deemed this article important enough to share with us, you could find that epidemiological report? I tried and was unsuccessful. I found it quite humorous that tularemia is mentioned in that long list of scary-sounding diseases. You know how that one got its name, right? (Not from Tulare, El Salvador...) It a pretty rare disease, but it seems that the disease occurs between the 30th and 71st parallel north, so those poor Guatemalans and Hondurans are more likely to catch it if they come to the U.S., Germany or Sweden, than if they stay at home. Tularemia - Wikipedia Regarding migrant health in the European region... WHO/Europe | Page not found (For some reason it says "page not found", but the link appears to work, at least for me).

What, no leprosy or smallpox :rolleyes: What's your point, nurse Mulan? I assume you have one since you posted a link and a quote here? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Did you make this post because your heart goes out to human beings living under such squalid conditions? That list is exactly what can be expected when several thousand poor people have been travelling by foot for a couple of months and living rough in cramped "tent cities". You already have all the conditions listed in your domestic population. As nurses we know there's nothing unexpected with this list, but to the public who lack medical knowledge I guess it sounds pretty frightening. It's almost as if the goal is to make migrants sound like a dangerous threat which needs to be kept out at all costs :sarcastic:

I'm entirely convinced that upsetting bleedin' hearts is a goal in itself and an extremely enjoyable experience for a certain segment of Trump supporters. Of course not every conservative and not every Republican, but some of Trump's most ardent supporters, sure. I think they welcome cruelty as long as it's directed at those brown "others". I don't think they're in the least bit bothered by seeing the image of a mother in flip-flops running away from a cloud of gas dragging along her two very young daughters in her hands. Do you have any credible data to show us which supports that the "vast majority" aren't legitimately claiming asylum? I ask, because the YouTube clip that you linked to in post #141 in this thread doesn't qualify as evidence for the reasons I explained in post #147. You never commented on my post :) Of course deploying tear gas is an act of violence. Lachrymator agents are chemical weapons. As someone who's inhaled a snoutful of OC gas during training, it's a terrible experience. It causes intense pain (corneas and nasal passages/airways), increased secretions, a powerful choking sensation and causes disorientation and significant anxiety. The feeling that you can't breathe tends to do that... The question isn't if the border guards used violence or not. They did. The question is whether it was a justifiable use of force, or not. Anyone who has worked in any capacity related to law enforcement can, if they happen to be in a sharing, honest mood, tell you that some people are more likely to end up in altercations than others, more often find themselves in situations where suspects resist arrest and generally appear more talented at escalating volatile situations than at defusing them. I'm not saying that individual border agents are to blame for this, but the outcome could likely have been prevented before it ever escalated. The stage was set over a month ago, when the deliberate fear-mongering campaign about the looming "invasion" saw the light of day. In my opinion it took some skill and deliberate planning to CREATE the right circumstances for this cluster F to occur at your border. Caravans of migrants have been coming to your southern border for years, and as far as I know there's never been a situation where tear gas was used before now. So why now? What's changed? A good starting point would be to start processing asylum claims extra slow, like only a hundred per day, when you've had plenty of advance notice that thousands of migrants and asylum seekers are on the way... You then have a large group of people camping out under what's likely rather crappy conditions, with frustration and desperation increasing by the hour. Closing off a bridge, making access harder is another way to frustrate people who've walked 1,000 miles and finally reached their destination.... How many of you would voluntarily wade through what's basically liquid, stinking sewage mess masquerading as a river, carrying your kid and his/her stroller? I know I wouldn't. I see that as an act of desperation. As someone who has actually worked in riots I know not to 100% judge a situation when I wasn't present, but I can share my impressions. I'm not downplaying the damage stones/rocks can do if the people throwing them are close enough and you're unable to take cover. I've had rather largish stones thrown at me, and if they make contact they hurt like ****, even in full riot gear. If they're big/heavy enough, they can knock you over and/or seriously injure you. I've looked at the scenes at the border and I don't see anything that warrants deploying tear gas in the direction where there are clearly children present. Does anyone have any actual footage they can link to that shows a situation with significant rock throwing actually making contact and injuring border agents? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm saying I haven't seen it. Seriously? From what I saw, correct me if I'm wrong, the gas was actually deployed across the border into Mexico. The migrants I saw on TV weren't at the border or across the border in the U.S., they were still in Mexico, admittedly in close vicinity of the border, but not on it. Am I wrong? Do you seriously think that the adults with children were actually planning on STORMING the border, as in forcing their way past all the obstacles in their way, humans in the form of armed guards as well as structural obstacles? Are you aware that according to international law and U.S. law, people actually have a legal right to present at the border and request asylum. There's no guarantee that they'll be granted asylum, but they have a legal right to have their case heard. The thing is though, that a person has to actually show up somewhere along the border and talk to an official/representative of the country they're seeking asylum in, in order to do this. If a person is met by tear gas as they approach the border, that becomes a bit difficult to do.... What is it that you think should stop coming? The caravans? Every single asylum seeker? It is legal to come to the border and apply for asylum. How do you know in advance who has, and who hasn't, legitimate grounds to seek asylum? Isn't that exactly why most countries a process where people state their case at the border (like you used to have), so that it can be determined if an individual qualifies for asylum? This latest development is in my opinion extremely troubling, but sadly completely expected. I think this is a way for Trump to look "tough" and "strong" for his supporters. In my opinion, it's a wholly man-made crisis. I think this is separating young children from their parents, the sequel. Tear gassing young children. Ought to have decent deterrent value. Another low point from an administration rife with them.

What's so interesting about that clip? Care to spell it out? I wish you'd stop insulting our critical thinking skills by posting links like these. As I'm Swedish I was already aware of this filmmaker before you posted the link to a more recent endeavour of his. Ami Horowitz - Wikipedia He released a so called documentary in 2016 about immigration and crime in Sweden. Many of the statements in his film seem to have been described as false by fact checkers as well as by Swedish authorities, news outlets and criminologists. The following are articles from Swedish media that cover some of the reporting on the documentary. He filmed the police interview for Ami Horowitz that Trump saw: The material was not edited ethically - DN.SE Swedish police featured in Fox News segment: Filmmaker is a madman - DN.SE Six claims and facts about Sweden: a closer look at Ami Horowitz' report - The Local As far as I understand the articles I've just read, the two policemen that were interviewed have said that the film had been edited so that their answer to a certain question the filmmaler asks, are in fact replies to a different question. So they are asked question A and they replied B. They're then asked question C and they reply D. Only according to them, the documentary shows the filmmaker asking question A, directly followed by reply D. The police's version of events appears to have been corroborated by the two cameramen hired for the filming of the documetary. One of them has reviewed the raw footage to make sure that his recollection was accurate. I never watched the "Swedish crime" documentary myself, but I'm guessing this is the same filmmaker as the one in your clip?? Please let me know if I'm wrong. Now to the YouTube clip you linked. There's a taped phone conversation/interview between 4:07 and 4:55. The woman he's interviewing doesn't even seem to be answering the questions we're hearing in the clip. To me the conversation sounds off and that yeah followed by laughter at the end, could be the response to anything. Perhaps it's only me who doesn't think the dialogue "flows naturally", I don't know. At 5:14 he says that at the base camp there's a mobile hospital stocked with enough pharmaceutical drugs to make Keith Richards blush. At the same time the camera shows a table stacked with various medications in boxes. The quality of the film is rather poor but the ones I can make out are Metronidazol, something called Bistatin-F and what looks like Indomethacin. There's also a Diclo???? something or other. Yeah, I bet they'd excite the **** out of Keith Richards. This is followed by him saying there's also plenty of doctors and nurses attending to all the migrant's needs. Imagine that... Doctors and nurses tending to people with medical needs. The world really is going to hell in a handbasket. One of my favorite parts... Directly after this at 5:25 the camera shows him standing in front of a man who may be Hispanic and who may or may not be a member of the "caravan", and he says the following to Hispanic-looking man; America also has very generous benefits for people who live in America, is that something you want to take advantage of as well? Then directly after that the camera shifts to showing ONLY the Hispanic-looking male in the picture frame giving a short reply, and all of a sudden a gigantic concrete pillar has materialized behind the man... (It's magic, I tell you). That pillar WAS NOT THERE when the man was asked the question a second before (well, a second before on the clip at least.. :sarcastic:) There are more instances in the clip where we see people (who knows who they are, how can we possibly verify who they are?) answering questions, when we don't hear the question being asked before the replies (for example 6:46 - 7:06). How can we be certain what they're giving responses to? SC_RNDude, do you think we're stupid? Please be a bit more critical of your sources. Remind me again, what did you find interesting about this clip? What do you think it shows/proves?

Could you please post links to the criminological research that shows that the political "left" are more prone to violence and commit more assaults, bombings and murders than the political "right"? I have no intention of doing that. Why would that shock me? It's what I expect. The difference is that I recognize that having these feelings towards others, is a sad thing. I don't take pride and revel in it. Again, show me the evidence that supports your claim. Because you know, I distinctly remember several occasions when I've had to fight with aggressive violence-prone nazi types. While they've healed by now, I certainly had the bruises and the busted ribs to remember those festive events by. Do you seriously think that only left-leaning perps shoot at the police? That's kind of funny. I've never posted a meme in my life. I'm not about to start now, so I'm not sure what you're saying, The crime stats I don't need to research. I already know them.

No kidding. I'm not really that bothered by your lack of civility, but somehow one expects a slightly more refined level of discourse on a nursing forum. But hey, it's kind of nostalgic. It reminds me of the white noise I'd hear from the cells back when I worked in police stations. Since this is the tone you've chosen to strike, I hope you don't mind if I don't address you as politely as I would someone who writes in a less inflammatory fashion. This is horribly poor logic. You can find examples of people on both the right and the left, as well as people with no particular political preference, who are guilty of the things on your list. I don't even have to go look for sources to corroborate that. With a sample size of over 300 million people, it's pretty much a statistical certainty. What is the point of your list of bad acts? What do you think you've proven? The fact that there exists bad apples all across the political spectrum isn't the issue. One party has a leader who calls Mexicans rapists, who supports policies that seperate even very young children from their parents becuase their parents are suspected of having committed misdemeanors, who says that a judge can't be unbiased because of his Hispanic heritage, who tweets extremely rude insults at all hours of the day and night, who brags about grabbing women between their legs, who admires and cozies up to autocrats who terrorizes and murders their citizens, who expresses the opinion that there is such a thing as nice white supremacists even after a young woman has been brutally and deliberately mown down by a car, who kicks people while they're down as they are fleeing their homes and in some instances getting killed in raging wildfires, who disparages Gold Star parents when they dare express something less than adoring admiration towards him, who repeatedly attacks and attempts to undermine the credibility of the free press (that is an absolutely vital component of a functioning democracy) and continues to single out and target specific media outlets and individual journalists even after they've been sent bombs in the mail by an unhinged supporter. The other party doesn't. There is no equivalency. Some of the worst despots in history were actually elected. Thankfully, history is full of examples when people didn't view that as "taking their turn", but instead had the backbone to fight for freedom, democratic values and respect for all human beings. I must say, that for you as a nurse to make fun of and show condescension towards people who cannot afford medicine, is pretty darn sad. You seem to be feeling a whole lot of contempt for your fellow man. Does having this attitude contribute anything positive to your life? The reason I ask, is that I feel the same level of disdain for people who STILL support Trump. I wish I didn't have those feelings because I don't consider them something to be proud of and they lessen me as a human being. It's safe to say it's one of the uglier aspects of my personality.

I don't feel threatened by a difference of opinion either. While it's true that a difference of opinion could actually pose a threat, if enough people shared it and the opinion they shared was corrosive enough to dissolve the fabric of your democratic society, opinions isn't what have me feeling quite scared for you all and the rest of the world. The thing that scares me more than anything is that you/we no longer agree on verifiable, demonstrable truths and facts. In my opinion it started when Spicer angrily claimed in January of 2016 that the inaugural crowd was the biggest ever. PERIOD. Trump's inauguration crowd: Sean Spicer's claims versus the evidence | US news | The Guardian It's only gone downhill from there. The posting of links to sources that peddle outright lies. The starting of threads that cover the latest fake topic that those in power want to foist upon you. And how they abandon that thread as soon as the administration and the more extreme elements of the right-wing do so. It is so obvious when the lie du jour has oulived its usefullness.. They are so clearly a megaphone helping the propaganda department along. This is the threat and this is what infuriates me when I read posts made by the staunchest Trump supporters on this forum. I can't call them out by name, because that would likely be viewed as a personal attack. I wish I could, because I much prefer being straight with people and giving them a chance to respond and explain if they want to. Difference of opinion I can handle. The perpetuation of lies and conspiracy theories that threaten to tear your country apart, is a different kettle of fish. I find some Americans so very naive. I'm Scandinavian and of course that also makes me a European. I've lived in over a dozen countries, both as a child and as an adult. I've lived in several European countries apart from my birth country. Europeans have had two devastating world wars on their soil in the last ~hundred years. We've also seen the rise of several fascist or authoritarian regimes. We've had Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. Millions of people killed. Several countries have had civil wars during the twentieth century. We've had the iron curtain that split our continent in half. We've experienced genocide as recently as the nineties. Today we're seeing troubling signs of authoritarian leaders gaining power in many of our countries and a growing intolerance towards the "others". With the sum of that collective experience affecting how I interpret the world, what I see happening in the U.S. really frightens me. While you as a country have participated in many wars, no one alive today has ever experienced war on your own soil. I think many Americans take freedom and democracy for granted. (@nursej22, I know I quoted your post when I started my post, bit somewhere along the way this post morphed into being directed at everyone and no one in particular. I don't intend for this post to come off as me trying to lecture you). The problem here isn't a difference of opinion. It's that you can't even agree on what is true and factual. As a country you are alienating your traditional allies and expressing admiration and sucking up to authoritarian leaders. You are withdrawing from international treaties designed to make the world a better and safer place for ALL OF US. I watched someone on the TV the other day say something that I think was a very accurate conclusion. I can't remember who the person was or what his qualifications are, but he was in my opinion right. He said that Trump views the world as a zero-sum game. In his mind if it's France +2, that automatically means that it's U.S. -2. That of course means that he has to lash out at France in one form or another. He can't grasp the fact that multilateral deals and cooperation between countries actually leads to France +2 and U.S. +2. It's definitely true that no poster has ACTIVELY defended each and every lie or vile remark. The thing is though, if a poster repeatedly links to obviously inaccurate sources (ie LIES) and keeps on doing it even after it's been pointed out to them, AND they defend let's say a third or a fifth (or whatever percentage) of the lies and vile remarks, I WILL draw my conclusions. I don't require a 100% perfect track record. It's not primarily the opinions that bug me, it's the willingness to embrace and perpetuate lies and the refusal to cede even an inch, even when they are demonstrably PROVEN to be wrong. No, and unless things drastically change, I don't think it's likely you'll see it happen. Back in the day when I'd regularly placed people under arrest, I would rarely celebrate the fact that Perp101 that I nabbed for assaulting John, Matt and Peter, didn't also beat up Mike and happened to have donated $100 a worthy charity the morning of the assault. Sure, giving money to a charity is a good thing and I guess that at least Mike could argue that not being beaten up is a good thing. But ya'know.... I was still kind of miffed that Perp101 had beaten John, Matt and Peter. So I didn't place an ad in the local paper recognizing Perp's generous donation. (I'm not claiming that the things Trump does are the equivalent of felony assaults (or any kind of crime). My example was just to illustrate good/positive vs bad/negative deeds and why you in some instances won't get much credit even when you manage to perform the odd positive act. I haven't in honesty seen that many of them, just trying to be generous here). I could not agree more.

Oh, Tweety! Did I read this right?? (You know English isn't my first language, and I'm hoping I've misunderstood). Since I'm not an American I have no idea who I should urge you to contact, but I hope that you are getting help if you're dealing with feelings like this. If you haven't already, please reach out to someone who's in a position to help in real life. No one should have to struggle with thoughts like you just described, alone. Hugs my forum friend! Take care!

I personally would like to see as few abortions as possible being performed. But just as you mentioned in your post, I don't think the government or various religious groups have any right whatsoever to reach into my uterus and dictate how I should decide one of the most personal decisions of my life. As I wrote in my first post, I think it's only natural for the woman to think of the fetus as her baby. But the difference between a ten-week fetus and a full-term fetus/newborn infant is more than semantics. If a pregnancy is terminated by abortion after ten weeks, I don't see that as a baby being killed. I see that as what would have eventually become a baby, not being born. Is it really accurate that most people on the right support policies which would guarantee affordable healthcare, quality schools, nutritious food and good housing for children in all low-income families? Bologna? Do you mean toomuchbaloney? Do try to keep your sausages straight. After reading your posts here, I don't think you and I have any common ground. While I don't agree with Daisy4RN on a lot of things that she's written in this thread, she's said some things I do agree with. She's also doesn't seem as rigid in her view of the world. Despite her personal convictions, and I respect her right to have them, she seems to have a more realistic and emphathetic view of the world. So despite my disagreeing with a lot of the things she says, it is still possible for me to find common ground with her on this issue. How do you take a break from what research tells you? This thing about being research-literate isn't something you just turn on and off at will to suit your religious (?) convictions. You either accept that statistics show that women do not have fewer abortions simply because someone bans them, or you stick your head in the sand and deny FACTS. It doesn't matter if you're in the breakroom, or not. Semantics.... So hypothetically.. if worldwide, 1,000 babies who would not have born were actually born.. and the price paid for that was 1,000,000 dead women. That's a good trade-off? Why do you keep on pretending that there is any evidence that countries where abortions aren't legal actually result in fewer abortions in those countries, than in countries where abortions are legal? Care to clarify what this statement means? To me there's a bit of misogyny lurking in its depths. I think you're being either quite naive, blind or disingenuous, if you claim that there has never been a desire in society to control women. I'm sure a desire to control women isn't what motivates each and every person who opposes a woman's right to choose, but you can't pretend that it isn't a factor for some. Again, show me the evidence that fewer abortions are performed when they are made illegal. Zero abortions? How does that work? So you support forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child? So you support forcing a woman carry her pregnancy to term even when it threatens her life? So you support incest victims being forced to give birth to their own sibling? If I told you what I think of this, I would likely be banned from this forum until the 23rd century. I'd assume it would extend to cover all citizens, legal residents and if you want to be a good person you should probably consider to also offer every individual who presents at an ER with an immediately life-threatening condition, care regardless of their legal status. Physicians, nurses and other healthcare professions in different settings; hospitals, clinics etc. provide the healthcare. I'll leave the technicalities of how you provide access to affordable healthcare for you guys to decide. Of course. It's an integral part of women's health/healthcare. The people who directly and indirectly benefit from it. That would be all of you. That last sentence sounds unhinged. Beating boys and offering euthanasia??? What on earth are you talking about? When I said the next generation, I meant exactly that. I was referring to how we socialize boys and girls. You do realize that I never claimed that anyone is actively teaching anyone to DISrespect women, don't you? You're twisting my words. What I said was that we should actively teach the next generation to respect women's bodily integrity and autonomy. There was recently a thread on the yellow side where a female poster asked for advice regarding how to ward off unwanted attention from a male coworker. She received multiple replies, most of them from other women, that she should tell the "amorous" coworker that she was quite happily married and therefore not interested in him. There are obviously many women out there who've been socialized to believe that it isn't enough to simply say that, I don't want your attention, but who feel it's necessary to use the marriage as a crutch when rejecting the coworker's unwelcome advances. So when I say the "next generation" I mean just that. You're interpreting my statement through your own filter, and it's distorted by your biases and preconceived notions. Who has continued the narrative that all men are rapists unless taught otherwise? I know that I haven't since I don't believe that to be true. Again, I refer you to reflect on how your personal filter affects your interpretation of my statements. I find this viewpoint quite selfish and as I've already pointed out, it ignores the fact that our world is interconnected and that what happens in the Far East, Europe, South America or Africa, actually has ramifications even in your zip code area. I don't know if you were active on this board when some of the posters of the "America First" persuasion were experiencing a major Ebola-related panic attack and supported all sorts of draconian and medically unnecessary measures just because they were so afraid? That's exactly what I expect from myopic me, me, me people who don't look outside their own countries' borders. Why not make sure that money is spent on discovering, manufacturing and distributing vaccines to the countries most plagued by the scary disease, instead of screaming about closing your borders? This is a prime example of why I think that any decent and intelligent person ought to care about healthcare in other countries. So for anyone who asks; what's in it for ME? Now they know. So the persons you referred to in your first post as "others" in fact includes yourself. I suspected as much. Your original statement was this: "Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?". This is clearly not about being aware that you can't save every person on planet earth, which is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Your original statement is clearly transactional in nature. You were arguing that some people don't think paying for healthcare in other countries is worthwhile because there's NOTHING in it FOR THEM. Doesn't have a thing to do with the fact that not all human lives can be saved. That is so damn cold. So when a (financially) poor woman with five children in desperation has an illegal UNSAFE abortion because someone saw fit to make access to safe abortions almost impossible or outright banned them, and she dies and leaves the five already alive children without their mom, that was her choice? (@TMB, you know I don't think of you as a sausage :D :wavey: :inlove:)

If I've understood things correctly, impeachment proceedings would be initiated by the House but would ultimately end up in the Senate where they'd need a super majority in order to convict. Is this accurate? Whether impeachment is justified or not, seems to be a moot point considering how unlikely it is that two-thirds of the current Senate would support it. Perhaps when and if Trump is found to have done something so truly bad that enough sycophants and enablers will finally abandon him, but right now I'm not seeing it. At this point in time, I think all that impeachment proceedings would result in, is yet another bout of victimized whining about being persecuted by the left. It would just be more of the witch-hunt narrative. It just gives them a chance of doing a repeat performance of the Kavanaugh spectacle with a ton of butthurt, melodramatic umbrage on display. I'm sick and tired of listening to their symphony orchestra consisting entirely of teeny-tiny whiny violins... If this was my government, for now I'd want Democrats to try to implement policies that are important to the voters, as best they can considering the political/partisan "profile/mix" of the current U.S. Congress, and use the various House committees to investigate matters that sorely needs investigating. (The list is long).

I would expect an expectant mom to refer to what's growing in her uterus as "her baby". That's absolutely fine and normal for the mom. However as nurses, you and I know that the correct term in utero is either embryo or fetus, depending on gestational age. I suspect you used the word "babies" on purpose in the above quote, and I resent what your sentence implies. While it might be true that it won't do any harm to put forth a meaningful argument, it is in all likelihood a complete waste of time. I've already provided a meaningful argument in this thread and I'm willing to bet that it didn't manage to sway you even a fraction of an inch. ? ? ? It's a fact that banning abortions won't save the lives of embryos and fetuses. The only thing that happens is that women choose unsafe abortions when they are denied access to safe abortions. We know this. All a ban accomplishes are more injured and dead women, but no more alive babies. Is this fact ever going to register with so called pro-lifers? Or are you being wilfully blind to the fact that trying to make abortions illegal is a completely meaningless exercise, unless the purpose is really about control, rather than saving lives. (The reason I wrote "so called" is that as long as a person supports policies that kill women, I don't consider them pro life at all. I have complete respect for women who don't want to have an abortion for themselves. I have no respect for someone who promotes policies that negatively affect women's health and autonomy). If you, like I do, want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, it's much more meaningful to provide sex ed, make sure that all human beings of fertile age have access to healthcare and birth control as well as actively work ( partly with the help of the law, but more importantly how we teach the next generation to respect women and their bodily integrity and autonomy) to minimize the number of rapes committed against women. Who are these vague "others" you refer to? What kind of a supremely selfish person cares only about saving lives if and when, it directly benefits them? I am so lucky that I don't know a single such person. If you ever have the chance to have a discussion with one of these "others", please tell them from me that they are extremely callous and also pretty ignorant. Even if one is blessed with the moral core of a sociopathic toad and doesn't give a crap if people outside one's own country live or die, in today's interconnected world we ALL benefit when global health status is improved. Even if it's in countries continents away. Countries with healthy and prosperous populations are more stable and that's a win-win for all of us, and unless you plan on permanently shutting down international flights, contagions will reach your shores. As I've already said and demonstrated, it doesn't work that way. All the rule does is to pose a grave danger to women's health and lives. I don't understand how any research-literate healthcare professional can support it, regardless of their individual religious convictions. In case you actually happen to be interested in my viewpoint, I've really tried to make it crystal clear

Of course it's impossible to for us forum posters to ascertain the individual danger each and every person in than caravan poses. Statistically speaking, as in any group of thousands of individuals regardless of ethnicity, there are likely a few shoplifters, someone who's committed an assault, perhaps a few rapists and definitely folks who've jaywalked or haven't paid their parking tickets or committed similar minor legal transgressions. These people are also all around you already. What do you really know about your friends, coworkers and neighbors? The point here is if the threat is of such a nature that can't be dealt with through the normal vetting procedures and investigating done by border/immigration/law enforcement authorities? Is there really evidence that this needs to be met with the might of your armed forces? I don't see any and it doesn't seem that the threat assessment done by your military points to that either. I think it's a safe bet that the deployment of troops to the border is 100% politically motivated. It kinda is a white thing... Are you arguing that Trump voters aren't more likely to be white, male and not have a college degree than being black, female and having a college degree? You'd be wrong if you were. Of course not every single person who voted for Trump is white. I don't think anyone has tried to say that. However, even though members of all minorities voted for Trump, a Trump voter is more likely to be white than a Clinton voter is. Do you think that a white person (please note that doesn't mean every white person, just a random white person) is more likely to agree with the claim that judges of Mexican heritage can't perform their duties in an unbiased way because of their heritage or that Mexicans are rapists, than a random hispanic would? Expressed a different way, which demographic do you think are more likely to agree with statements that are inherently prejudiced against hispanics? Whites or hispanics? Again, please understand that if you identify one group as being more likely to agree, it doesn't mean that each individual belonging to that group shares that view. The fact that some white people are racists doesn't mean that every white person is racist, but it's foolish to pretend that no white people are racists. Behind Trump's victory: Divisions by race, gender and education Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump | FiveThirtyEight (the first two links are from one day after the 2016 election and september of 2016 respectively and the last one is an analysis of the results published on Nov 22, 2016. I find the fivethirtyeight one really interesting if you take the time to analyze the numbers).

Again with the General? Why are you incessantly asking posters if they disagree with his statement? I can neither agree nor disagree with his statement. It's so vague that I don't even know what I'd be agreeing or disagreeing with. I'm surprised that isn't obvious to you. It should be obvious to anyone. I obviously don't know the General and have no idea what prompted him to phrase his statement the way he did. But let me tell you, it's exactly how I would phrase it if I was a four-star general, who realized that it would be a really stupid career move to release a statement that boils down to that I think that my Commander-in-Chief is exaggerating or lying about threats. I'd write something vague and noncommittal. For the umpteenth time. There's nothing in your quote that warrants deploying 5,000-15,000 troops. What do you picture the military doing anyway? They can't act in a law enforcement capacity on U.S. soil and the refugees aren't exactly arriving in M1 Abrams tanks. Migrant Caravan: Border Troops Preparing for Threat of Armed, Unregulated Militias, Leaked Documents Show Please note that historically only about 20% of the total of refugees and migrants in the caravans, ever reach your border. The military appear to be more concerned about the unregulated militias who've taken upon themselves to "help" the trained law enforcement and border protection professionals who safeguard your borders on a daily basis. I'm pretty convinced that these professionals would be happier if the yahoo militia types stayed away. The militias will in all likelihood only make their job harder and more dangerous. The militias have likely been galvanized into action by this irresponsible and untrue talk of an "invasion", when in fact we're talking about refugees and migrants. And of course, they probably feel real tough with their pretend uniforms and guns. What a farce.