Nope, he said “born”, and this one time, that’s actually what he meant.
The problem is, his “idea” is even stupider than you think it might be. He’s talked before about this, in a slightly clearer fashion. He really believes that there are some doctors and/or hospitals out there where they allow a baby to be born normally, but then convene a little debate committee to decide if that baby should still be aborted. And if they decide “yes”, they kill the baby.
TRUMP: “Democrats are aggressively pushing late-term abortion allowing children to be ripped from their mother’s womb, right up until the moment of birth. The baby is born and you wrap the baby beautifully and you talk to the mother about the possible execution of the baby.” — rally in Panama City Beach, Florida, on Wednesday.
“You have some states that are allowed to kill the child after birth, and you can’t allow that,” Trump insisted.
“Look, the Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth,” he doubled down.
“Even after birth, you’re allowed to terminate the baby,” he claimed.
We have a household policy of turning off the sound on any devices when he speaks, keeps our blood pressure down. When I heard about this “speech”, I broke the rule…
I thought it was a new improved AI deepfake. I guess not.
I see, in that context it is understandable. He just missed “and killed” between “born after nine months” and “this is wrong, this has got to stop”.
A good example that he doesn’t understand the things he is saying.
Is it a standard NY accent he has? The few videos I watch of the orange incompetent, every sentence ends with a decrescendo, which does not inspire confidence. The last few words kind of fade out, whereas most public speakers would put “punch” into every word.
It sounds weak and lazy, which I guess is appropriate.
Sometimes, if a baby is born with extremely serious birth defects that leave them with absolutely no chance of survival -such as the absence of a brain or functional lungs- the standard practice is to keep the infant comfortable for the very short duration - sometimes minutes- of their life.
This is something that’s always been, because their really is no other reasonable course of action.
However, in this age of reliable pre-natal testing and (until recently) legal abortion, many parents choose to terminate a non-viable pregnancy. This keeps the mom from running the very high risk of a spontaneous miscarriage, which may happen at a time and place when medical services are not immediately available. It also spares the mother the trauma of carrying a non-viable pregnancy to term.
Pro-life conservatives are against such intervention, mostly because they believe in miracles over medicine. The irony is that such people often think that the “wrap up the baby and hold them until the inevitable death” is a positive experience for the mother, and they sometimes use stories of this experience as a reason for not allowing the abortion of non-viable fetuses.
Everything said here is eminently sensible and I do get it. I think my problem is cognitive dissonance, I simply do not understand how anyone who can put one foot in front of the other (let alone garner millions of votes to lead an important country) can ‘think’ things like that.
Not in 1933. But in the following year when Hitler failed to get a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag to approve his Enabling Act, Hindenburg dissolved the Reichstag. In the new Reichstag election that ensued, the Nazis got 43%, but the other right wing parties agreeing to coalition with them made it a simple majority. By promising to protect the rights of the Catholic church, Hitler got the Catholic Centrist party on board and that gave him the supermajority he needed to become dictator.
Granted, this was hardly a fair election because the leftist parties had already been driven underground, but the form and appearance of a democratic process was maintained.
Probably not, but it’s in line with the level of strategery Trump employs
If people seem excited about it over the coming weeks, go ahead and do it and say you always planned it that way.
If not, just say it was obviously a joke, who would put a guy in a wheelchair on the ballot, the media was once again misrepresenting him by using his exact words, etc.
There’s no down side while the primaries are still going on to floating any number of VP candidates and later on pretending to have had a Machiavellian plan in place. It won’t fool anybody paying attention, but anybody paying attention already disregards the veracity of anything he says
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that “form excludes the content”, that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas. Thus rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for this reason. Owing to this shortcoming, politics and religion are diluted, and “news of the day” becomes a packaged commodity. Television de-emphasizes the quality of information in favor of satisfying the far-reaching needs of entertainment, by which information is encumbered and to which it is subordinate.
