heybruce

"...the resulting embryo is an unborn human child." And every acorn is an unborn oak tree. Does that make squirrels tree killers? Actually the squirrel analogy has some merit. Squirrels eat many unborn oak trees, but not all of the unborn oaks that they bury. Many of them become real oak trees, resulting in the oak tree killing squirrels actually creating oak trees that otherwise would not have existed. IVF serves the same function, leading to babies being born to families that very much want them and will take care of them. Babies that otherwise would have never existed.

"Suddenly major investors are pulling out/steering clear of New York." A claim like that is much more believable when it comes with a link to a credible source.

No. Just give referenced sources showing what data has been authenticated and explain how it incriminates President Biden in any illegal activity. I eagerly await your response, which will confirm that you've got nothing.

You guess everyone who disagrees with you is a leftist. It's you go-to rebuttal when you've got nothing.

Did you really just argue that men are better qualified to decide the abortion issue than women? What did I post that is wrong? What is narrow about stating the obvious; women understand the issue better, have more at stake, are intellectually and morally at least as qualified as men on deciding the issue, and should take the lead on this issue?

Ownership of the laptop is not the issue. The issue is the credibility of the data, and the possible existence of any credible data that President Biden is implicated in anything illegal. So far there is no credible evidence that President Biden did anything illegal.

You're absolutely correct. My bad.

In this instance, the conspiracy promoted by Yellowtail that anyone who tries to help Trump will be the target of political prosecution. Please don't comment if you haven't been keeping up.

Much easier to bribe Trump. Not difficult at all, may already have been agreed to.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be (or a fortiori, that has been) repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, some theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory Please explain how god is a scientific theory.

So everyone who does not live in your paranoid, conspiracy promoting echo chamber is a leftist? I'm not at all surprised that is your definition of a leftist. Most people would call such people informed and rational.

Not when compared to the alternative.

Obama wanted a bi-partisan response to the Russian interference in the election. Providing one should have been a no-brainer. Mitch McConnell refused because he was afraid it might make the Democrats look good. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/24/580171396/biden-mcconnell-refused-to-sign-bipartisan-statement-on-russian-interference

I'm pretty sure such actions are illegal. Unfortunately I think the applicable laws were written with the assumption that no President would actually break such obvious and necessary laws so penalties and procedures for prosecution were not specified. Considering Trump's contempt for laws with actual penalties, what are the chances he'd pay attention to laws with no penalties specified? Ethics requirements for POTUS and other elected officials, and the penalties for violating them, need to be seriously rethought and rewritten now that Trump has demonstrated what can go wrong.

Did Saudi Arabia have a valid reason to invest $2 billion in a start-up with no track record or investors of demonstrated competence? A reason other than Kushner's connections and any favors or agreements he may have made while "working" for the US government?

My point is that no man understands this issue like women do. They have far more at stake, they bear the burden for the pregnancy and birth, they usually bear the majority of the burden for raising the children, and their appreciation for the sanctity of life is at the very least as great and well informed as that of men. I would like to see men get out of this debate entirely and leave the matter to women. They are clearly better qualified to make these decisions than men are. Would this lead to more or fewer abortions? I don't know. But I'm confident that it would lead to more intelligent regulation of the practice. In summary: Guys, let's back out of this one and let the women handle it. They'll do a much better job than we can.

Have you gone full tin-foil hat on us? Anyone who helps Trump in a legal manner has nothing to worry about. Trump would have nothing to worry about if he'd followed the law.

How many children have you given birth to? What is the experience that you base your comment on?

I shudder to think what Trump's "I have a dream" speech would be.

I think even you might be able to grasp this: Is there a downside to having a POTUS who is deeply indebted to China or Saudi Arabia? If you can't answer that one correctly, there is no help for you. And before you post your deflection, remember the topic is about Trump and his need to come up with $355 million.

No, and if you are too dim to comprehend what I posted there is no point in debating you.

And that is a predictable response from the echo chamber.

Fox opinion pieces aren't getting better, they're predictable, uninformative, and only taken seriously by fools.

err, sources?

A Fox news opinion piece stating that the judgment should be vacated. Wow! Who didn't see that coming?