• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brain cancer patient DJ Daniel faces 3 new tumors after inspiring President Trump, law enforcement

So, I've got a couple things I need a bit of help with, and I'd accept it from either left or right leaning members...probably good to get it from both, to be honest...hehe..

1) Does anyone have the video footage of the Democrat party not applauding this kid? I have looked up and down youtube and while I saw the speech, I did not see a lot of shots of the Dems, it was mostly Trump, and this kid being hoisted in the air a bunch of times and looking like he ought to be at home.

2) Is honoring people in this way common in this kind of speech? Like, legitimately asking, I have no idea.

3) Did everyone know the kid would be honored that night?

If anyone could help me with this, I'd really appreciate it.
 
CharisRose said:
They sat and they also did not clap. A double for The Democrats.
Click to expand...

I remember watching and thinking to myself, how cruel, and out of touch could most Democrat partisans be?
The heartless who decided not to applaud this young man who was in remission from brain cancer deserved the slamming that came afterwards. TBF, not all Democrats acted like assholes. Their applause was very faint as I remember though.
 
I remember discovering trump's CUTS to cancer research, and asking myself, how can anyone support these?

I remember thinking to myself, why don't those posters on this thread who seem to be so upset re this child's tragic plight OPPOSE trump's cuts to cancer research?

I remember concluding, sadly, that they don't really support the child and other cancer victims but are simply exploiting this boy's cancer for crude political purposes.
 
Glad to hear there were some who did applause faintly. Good for them!
 
Lovebug said:
Go Devarjaye, I hope you beat this monster inside you.
Kid, don't let the WH use you as a prop.
Click to expand...

Oh just stop. Nobody is using this kid as a prop.

There were plenty of State of the Unions were children and teens were invited guests from the party who was in office. Stop pretending he was the first child with health problems ever to have been invited to the Capitol.

Yes, Democrats have invited individuals with cancer to the State of the Union address in the past, often to highlight healthcare issues, cancer research, or the importance of policies like the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Here are a few notable examples:
  1. 2016 State of the Union (President Barack Obama):
    • During President Obama’s final State of the Union address on January 12, 2016, he announced the Cancer Moonshot initiative, led by then-Vice President Joe Biden, to accelerate cancer research and improve treatments. While specific cancer patients weren’t highlighted as guests in the speech, the focus on cancer was personal for Biden, whose son, Beau Biden, had died of brain cancer in 2015 at age 46. Many Democratic lawmakers and the administration emphasized cancer patients’ stories in related events and advocacy, with the initiative aiming to unite efforts for patients and survivors.

  2. 2022 State of the Union (President Joe Biden):
    • On March 1, 2022, President Biden reignited the Cancer Moonshot during his State of the Union address, setting a goal to cut cancer death rates by 50% over 25 years. While specific guests with cancer weren’t named in the speech, the White House and Democratic lawmakers highlighted stories of patients and survivors to underscore the need for better access to care, screening, and research. The American Cancer Society noted Biden’s call to action, and Democrats supported this by inviting advocates, researchers, and potentially affected individuals to related events, though exact guest lists for cancer patients at the address aren’t always publicly detailed.
  3. 2023 State of the Union (President Joe Biden):
    • On February 7, 2023, Biden continued to push the Cancer Moonshot agenda, emphasizing progress in cancer screening, prevention, and treatment. The White House highlighted efforts to support patients and caregivers, and Democrats often invited guests to symbolize these priorities. For example, while not directly named in the speech, cancer survivors and advocates were frequently present as guests of Democratic lawmakers to draw attention to healthcare access, affordability, and research funding. The exact identities of cancer patients as guests vary by year and aren’t always fully documented publicly, but the tradition of inviting individuals to represent key issues like cancer is common. Grok/AI
 
Republicans: de-fund child cancer research

Also republicans: string up child dying of cancer as a political prop
 
Just the facts.

Inviting guests to the State of the Union is a longstanding practice where the president, first lady, and members of Congress and both Democrats and Republican have brought individuals of all ages to highlight policy priorities. Democrats have often invited cancer patients, survivors, or advocates to underscore the need for healthcare reform, protection of pre-existing conditions under the ACA, and increased funding for cancer research through agencies like the National Cancer Institute. Specific names and stories may be mentioned in the speech, but often guests are acknowledged in the gallery or through related press releases and media coverage by lawmakers.

Grok/AI
 
Sure, you are. How do we know?

You refuse to condemn trump's CUTS to cancer research.

If you truly cared about cancer victims - especially pediatric cancer victims - you'd be up in arms and protesting what trump has done.

Yet here you are, not upset at all, and using this poor kid's misfortune - his dying - to attack Democrats.
 
Your point is that he’s not even a prop since republicans de-funded child cancer research?

Well, I guess that’s a … that’s an argument you could make.
 
Absentglare said:
Your point is that he’s not even a prop since republicans de-funded child cancer research?

Well, I guess that’s a … that’s an argument you could make.
Click to expand...

It's an argument you made, a fallacy, a strawman argument.

Not my pov, sorry, but you lose.
 


You can't get much lower than politicising brain cancer.

That's just sick!
 
partisan poster IS partisan
 
trixare4kids said:
It's an argument you made, a fallacy, a strawman argument.

Not my pov, sorry, but you lose.
Click to expand...
Oh so he is a prop then? Because you pretended to deny it by claiming the democrats did it, too.

Except the democrats passed Obamacare, which helped children with cancer, and republicans cut child cancer research, which hurt children with cancer. So only one side actually used them as just a prop, rather than as a policy example.

I was actually impressed your post supported democrats so effectively.
 
Anyone see the latest tweets, TruthSocial posts, or mentiond by Trump on the condition of this kid?

None?

Yea, thought so.
 
Shameful crass politicization of a sick child’s battle with cancer.
 
I'm hoping that family has good health insurance or at least a large GoFundMe.
 
eohrnberger said:
It would be in character for the Dems, in character as much as not standing for that boy at the state of the union address.
Click to expand...
Explained in post #58.
eohrnberger said:
So why wouldn't the Dems in congress stand for the boy during the state of the union address?
Click to expand...
Democrats are never going to stand for a lying demagog. That child was being used by Trump as he uses everyone and everything for his own political posturing.
eohrnberger said:
I think the dark, evil hyper-partisanship world that you see is shown in exactly in that lack of standing up.
Click to expand...
 
Agreed.
This is an instance where someone is trying to push 'rule for thee, but none for me' strictly along party lines, and nothing more.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Explained in post #58.
Click to expand...
Not a convincing argument in the least, and goes to show the hyper-partisanship being displayed by the Dems in congress.
Can't even clap or stand for a terminally sick child, that's sick in and of itself.

The AntiDonald said:
Democrats are never going to stand for a lying demagog.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm quite aware of the Dem's compliant and complicit MSM propping up that smear / propaganda campaign.

The AntiDonald said:
That child was being used by Trump as he uses everyone and everything for his own political posturing.
Click to expand...
See posts #106 and #121.
 
eohrnberger said:
Agreed.
This is an instance where someone is trying to push 'rule for thee, but none for me' strictly along party lines, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Mmm... not sure if it's an equivalent. The times cancer patients were included in the other examples provided were connected to announcements regarding funding increases for fighting cancer.

In contrast, this appears to be in connection with support for police, I'm not sure how the cancer factors in, especially given that Trump's policies are actively diminishing America's ability to engage in research and treatment of cancer.

Given the failure to present an equivalency in the post you're responding to, I'm thinking you picked the wrong slogan. Which is only to say better "whataboutery" examples need to be found, if they exist, for you to make this accusation in this context.
 
Pyrite said:
But the same trump went on to CUT funding for cancer research!
Click to expand...
And Schumer used Pediatric Cancer Research funding for political extortion. Where was your fauxrage then?

The narrative that you are pushing requires much closer examination that what you are giving it, but then again, the purpose of that push narrative isn't to inform, isn't to be accurate, isn't to be precise, it's to mislead with partial information and generate fauxrage, i.e. that push narrative is the typical propaganda from the left, and here you are parroting it.
 
OlNate said:
Mmm... not sure if it's an equivalent. The times cancer patients were included in the other examples provided were connected to announcements regarding funding increases for fighting cancer.
Click to expand...
No, its most certainly is a 'rule for thee, but none for me', in essence its Republicans shouldn't have gallery visitors who are cancer patients, while Democrats may.
I guess we'd have to have @Lovebug elaborate what she meant by her post.

OlNate said:
In contrast, this appears to be in connection with support for police,
Click to expand...
So take the lack of clapping and standing by congressional Democrats for the kid as showing a lack of support for police?
OK.
Well, the Dems did start and support the 'defund the police' bullshit, so I guess that'd be accurate.

OlNate said:
I'm not sure how the cancer factors in, especially given that Trump's policies are actively diminishing America's ability to engage in research and treatment of cancer.
Click to expand...
This requires closer examination as I referred to in post #124.
Of the 'cuts' implemented, many of them actually impacted 'indirect costs' (i.e. overhead expenses), not cancer research efforts themselves.

Indirect Cost Caps: A key policy involved capping "indirect costs" (e.g., facilities, utilities, administrative support) for NIH grants at 15%, down from an average of 30-50%. This was estimated to save $4 billion annually but was criticized by researchers as effectively cutting research capacity, as these costs are essential for maintaining labs and clinical trials. For example, the University of Washington projected losses of $90-110 million, potentially halting trials for cancers and other diseases. A federal judge blocked this cap in March 2025, citing "irreparable harm" to research and patients, so it has not been fully implemented.​

and even those were 'not been fully implemented'. So what's the real truth behind this push narrative from the left?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…