bcking

I already said I would consider what she said to be not civil.
 
But that doesn't mean it's a call to violence. She called for protesting. Of the two of you, you are still the only one still repeatedly threatening violence.

I didn't say that. I merely read what you quoted and questioned where she was, either certainty, calling for violence.
 
As I said the closest she came was with the phrase "push back", but that is commonly used in a way that doesn't imply physical pushing.
 
The only actual violence mentioned in your post was your own statement about what YOU would do in the situation. Perhaps this says more about you than anything else?

I'm assuming your wife's life wasnt threatened while waiting to go through "official channels"...

While I will always support civility, we have probably the least civil sitting President ever. It was the primary reason I couldn't vote for him. So I can see how it is hard for other people to act appropriately. 

I have no problem with leftists protesting politicians they disagree with. I also have no problem with them refusing service at resturaunts to people they disagree with (Just like I have no problem with a cake maker refusing to make a cake that conflicts with his religous beliefs). In fact I would encourage leftist resturaunt owners to post signs notifying Trump supporters that they aren't welcome so we know which resturaunts to avoid. What I do have a problem with is leftist groups (or any group) putting out personal information of law enforcement officials and calling for violence against them. I also have a problem with a Congress member calling on her constituents to carry out acts of violence. I also have a problem with leftist "celebrities" calling for the assassination of the president or the sexual assault of his children. No matter how civil or uncivil you think the president is this type of behavior is unacceptable.

While I will always support civility, we have probably the least civil sitting President ever. It was the primary reason I couldn't vote for him. So I can see how it is hard for other people to act appropriately. 

Heck, it seems as though half of Americans don’t understand the difference between democracy and republic.

The 51 vote rule came back to bite the Democrats. Changing the supreme court justice vote to 51 will come back to bite the Republicans at some point too. The senate was not ever intended to be a simple majority rubber stamp. The intent, going all the way back to the beginning, was they would actually work together and try to incorporate some of the minority when needed. 
 
   In the long run, this is going to lead to more extreme/partisan judges on both sides, not really a good thing IMO. 

Well Republicans set the "election year" standard.
 
They made the bed, but of course now they'll argue they don't have to sleep in it.

Nope
 
They harped on how the "people" should have a voice in the matter (which isn't true at all). They have a voice in electing Congress, just like they have a voice in electing the President.
Tell that to Obama's pick, which they blocked purely based on some "voice of the people" argument.

"The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide."
- Mitch McConnell
 
"We should let the American people decide the direction of the court."
- Paul Ryan
 
Of course their opinions will be a little different this time around...

In 2016. It's 2018.
 
Congress has the right to advise and approve the nominee, and the people are voting on a significant number of Congressional seats. Let the people decide who they want in Congress before Congress advises the President.
 
It's the logical conclusion from the GOP point of view in 2016. But as I said I think we'll find their position will be very different now.
 
 

You can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe your discussion about Trump making money in office wasn't about whether the money he was making is "fair". You said he was losing money every day he is in office. Most likely the personal benefits he receives from the tax reform he passed will MORE than make up for the money he is "losing" by donating his salary to charity.
 
That is ignoring the additional money he makes by allowing his companies/properties to benefit from his Presidency (like Mar-A-Lago). He may not run them anymore, but he still financially benefits from their success. 
You never explained where you got this information from by the way.
 
I see no evidence that slaves were ever allowed to vote. The 3/5 compromise was about how they were COUNTED, not how they voted.

Oh sorry ya I missed it.

Chris Christie???

I should also add -
 
I'm not sure Democrats would have acted any better. If opportunities were swapped in 2016 they likely would have done the same, and would likely have tried to flip their logic in 2018 just like the GOP is doing.
 
In US Politics it is all about opportunity. Principles have gone out the window. Supreme Court is now just as political as any other section of government. 
 
I highly doubt we will get anyone Justice quite as principled as Kennedy. I'm sure Trump and the GOP don't WANT someone like that.

Makes sense, thanks for the additional input.

I use the 3 beer rule myself, but I'm sure there are other ways.

There is never certainty. That is partly why we need some due diligence when we are talking about elective and irreversible procedures. One potential risk/harm is "changing your mind", and that can do serious harm.
 
It's not something that should be taken lightly. At the same time though, since we cannot ever be completely certain, we eventually need to fall back on "Autonomy" as a principle. If we have done our due diligence towards the principles of Beneficence and Non-Maleficence, ultimately we will defer to Autonomy unless we have strong concerns. That is where it is an art, and not a "mathematical equation" that we can somehow plug in and give us an answer. 

Sorry I've been busy today so just getting back to this.
 
Medicine is governed by more than one ethical principle. One is Autonomy (of the patient), and yes if we were purely driven by patient Autonomy then whatever the patient wants, the patient gets. 
 
However, we are also governed by Beneficence, Justice and Non-Maleficence. We have to balance those four. There isn't a "perfect equation". Generally speaking Autonomy is the "over-riding" principle when we are talking about REFUSING care (patients can decline, and we need their consent). However, when we talk about receiving care Autonomy cannot act alone. You cannot force a physician into doing a procedure if they feel it may violate the other principles (primarily Beneficence and Non-Maleficence). An obvious example would be opioid administration. Patients don't have the right to just come to the ED and ask for narcotics and get them. Physicians can say no because doing so would violate our principles of Beneficence and Non-Maleficence (definitely Non-Maleficence, Beneficence is a little more murky).
 
In this case, it is reasonable for physicians to attempt to address both beneficence and non-maleficence before undertaking a procedure like this. In particularly given that it is elective and irreversible. The requirements to undergo the procedure all essentially fit into this "due diligence". 

I think there is a healthy medium somewhere.
 
Doctors aren't technicians you can just order to do something. We have a responsibility to take what we do seriously and not just do whatever a patient asks. It's reasonable to make sure that a person requesting such a massive and irreversible procedure is confident and has a history demonstrating that this isn't a transient choice.
 
Hence why I said the surgeon in his example was irresponsible and unprofessional if all he wanted was a note saying the patient was "healthy enough" to undergo the procedure. Unfortunately plastic surgery is one of those fields that can fall into the "money making" trap more easily than others.

While I also do not agree with the treatment of Sarah Sanders, particularly the latter part of the ordeal, race and job description are not comparable.
 
You are born with your race.
 
You are not born working for Donald Trump, or anyone.

You don't need to tell your marital status to your doctor...  

A few things:
 
1. Just so everyone isn't confused - The "American College of Pediatricians" is not one of the more well attended, well recognized Pediatrics groups. It was only formed in 2002, and the name is pretty obviously intended to confuse people with the "American College of Physicians", which is a large well recognized and well respected group. The actual major Pediatric groups would be the AAP, the ABP, and to a lesser extent the APA. The group was formed because they didn't like that the AAP was supporting gay couples adopting. It has about 500 members, compared to the AAP which has over 60,000.
 
2. "Human sexuality is binary....either you have a Y chromosome or you don't" (I'm paraphrasing) - Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is actually a well trained Pediatrician (I know nothing about her), she knows that what she is saying is wrong, and she knows she is being misleading. It is far more complicated than that, even if we JUST focus on physical identity (Not going to get into the whole sexual orientation thing again here). It has more to do with the SRY gene than it does the actual Y chromosome.
 
3. "6500 genetic differences" - That is true. A study found 6500 genes were expressed differently between men and women. Though that doesn't mean most of them are necessary and sufficient to define a man or a woman (physically, or mentally). Most are likely neither.
 
4. No you can't walk into an office and suddenly get signed up for a double mastectomy because you say you're a man. Yes you could lie your whole way through the process and eventually get it if you wanted it...but that would say more about you than it would the doctor.
 
5. There are many features that are strongly genetically inherited and you still don't have 100% concordance between twins. Even with identical twins, you have epigenetic changes that can impact features. On the topic of Gender Identity - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22146048 - ~40% concordance between monozygotic twins, compared to 0% among same-sex dizygotic twins.
 
6. Andy's parents would not be told "this is who Andy really is" when he states he is a girl at the age of 5. It would be a long road before they come to that decision together with Andy.
 
7. I can't seem to find anything on the AAP's website where they have issued a statement supporting/encouraging double mastectomy at age 16. 

A few things:
 
1. Just so everyone isn't confused - The "American College of Pediatricians" is not one of the more well attended, well recognized Pediatrics groups. It was only formed in 2002, and the name is pretty obviously intended to confuse people with the "American College of Physicians", which is a large well recognized and well respected group. The actual major Pediatric groups would be the AAP, the ABP, and to a lesser extent the APA. The group was formed because they didn't like that the AAP was supporting gay couples adopting. It has about 500 members, compared to the AAP which has over 60,000.
 
2. "Human sexuality is binary....either you have a Y chromosome or you don't" (I'm paraphrasing) - Giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is actually a well trained Pediatrician (I know nothing about her), she knows that what she is saying is wrong, and she knows she is being misleading. It is far more complicated than that, even if we JUST focus on physical identity (Not going to get into the whole sexual orientation thing again here). It has more to do with the SRY gene than it does the actual Y chromosome.
 
3. "6500 genetic differences" - That is true. A study found 6500 genes were expressed differently between men and women. Though that doesn't mean most of them are necessary and sufficient to define a man or a woman (physically, or mentally). Most are likely neither.
 
4. No you can't walk into an office and suddenly get signed up for a double mastectomy because you say you're a man. Yes you could lie your whole way through the process and eventually get it if you wanted it...but that would say more about you than it would the doctor.
 
5. There are many features that are strongly genetically inherited and you still don't have 100% concordance between twins. Even with identical twins, you have epigenetic changes that can impact features. On the topic of Gender Identity - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22146048 - ~40% concordance between monozygotic twins, compared to 0% among same-sex dizygotic twins.
 
6. Andy's parents would not be told "this is who Andy really is" when he states he is a girl at the age of 5. It would be a long road before they come to that decision together with Andy.
 
7. I can't seem to find anything on the AAP's website where they have issued a statement supporting/encouraging double mastectomy at age 16.