Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
He has explicitly said he used IVF. Per NYTimes: "In April, the Tim Walz for Governor campaign office mailed out a fund-raising letter in an envelope that read: 'My wife and I used I.V.F. to start a family.'" Even without that I absolutely thought he'd done IVF from the way he's spoken about it, though he does often say "treatments like IVF."
What he did was IUI. I don't think this is some big gotcha or anything but I do actually wish he were clearer about that; my wife and I have been through a couple of IUI treatments (without success) and I've discovered that a lot of people are unfamiliar with it (which is likely part of why Walz refers to IVF instead); would love if he were raising awareness, IUI is much cheaper than IVF, and it's still a path that can end in IVF, so it's all relevant to the discussion. Knowing there are cheaper options might offer some hope to people who discount IVF out of hand because of cost.
Is it possible that, when trying to start a family, they tried IVF and it didn't succeed so they kept trying and did multiple different methods?
When my sister and brother-in-law were trying to conceive there were various methods discussed and attempted. You can use IVF to start a family even if the other methods end up being successful.
It's just more of the GOP morons trying to "catch" him in a lie like with the service record bullshit. "Ahhh but you said you ate a whole sleeve of Oreo cookies that night when our video evidence shows you only had 8 individual cookies. Explain that, sir!"
Nah, that's pretty unlikely. At least in my experience fertility clinics will recommend 2-4 cycles of IUI before moving on to IVF rather than the other way around - it's cheaper ($3-4k vs $16-20k), and it's less invasive, and if IVF doesn't work IUI almost definitely will not (IVF has a way better success rate). If someone were to jump straight into IVF, there'd be little point in trying IUI after if it didn't work.
It would be great if the polling data didnt show he was gonna get whipped and its just 2016 in reverse. What would he do if he clearly lost by 100 electoral votes. ( thats what I wish would happen so theres zero leeway on the legal side )
Biden won by 74. I don’t know if those additional 26 electoral votes would somehow cow someone who generally has no connection reality.
The big win wouldn't be winning by a ton of electoral votes, it would be having the race called on election night to avoid the bullshit claims of stolen or made up votes (because mail-in ballots take longer to count for some godforsaken reason; I don't understand why they're not counted ahead of time).
Is it possible that, when trying to start a family, they tried IVF and it didn't succeed so they kept trying and did multiple different methods?
When my sister and brother-in-law were trying to conceive there were various methods discussed and attempted. You can use IVF to start a family even if the other methods end up being successful.
It's just more of the GOP morons trying to "catch" him in a lie like with the service record bullshit. "Ahhh but you said you ate a whole sleeve of Oreo cookies that night when our video evidence shows you only had 8 individual cookies. Explain that, sir!"
Nah, that's pretty unlikely. At least in my experience fertility clinics will recommend 2-4 cycles of IUI before moving on to IVF rather than the other way around - it's cheaper ($3-4k vs $16-20k), and it's less invasive, and if IVF doesn't work IUI almost definitely will not (IVF has a way better success rate). If someone were to jump straight into IVF, there'd be little point in trying IUI after if it didn't work.
I can confirm this as well. In fact, in hindsight my partner and I found IUIs to be a complete waste of time and wished we had just gone straight to IVF
Nah, that's pretty unlikely. At least in my experience fertility clinics will recommend 2-4 cycles of IUI before moving on to IVF rather than the other way around - it's cheaper ($3-4k vs $16-20k), and it's less invasive, and if IVF doesn't work IUI almost definitely will not (IVF has a way better success rate). If someone were to jump straight into IVF, there'd be little point in trying IUI after if it didn't work.
I can confirm this as well. In fact, in hindsight my partner and I found IUIs to be a complete waste of time and wished we had just gone straight to IVF
This. My wife tried two IUI sessions that went from uncomfortable to painful. Almost two years, one unsuccessful, and then one successful IVF egg implantation later we have our wonderful son!
All that said, I had described an IUI to friends as similar to IVF.
Nah, that's pretty unlikely. At least in my experience fertility clinics will recommend 2-4 cycles of IUI before moving on to IVF rather than the other way around - it's cheaper ($3-4k vs $16-20k), and it's less invasive, and if IVF doesn't work IUI almost definitely will not (IVF has a way better success rate). If someone were to jump straight into IVF, there'd be little point in trying IUI after if it didn't work.
I can confirm this as well. In fact, in hindsight my partner and I found IUIs to be a complete waste of time and wished we had just gone straight to IVF
I also wish we'd gone straight to IVF, in part because I'm fortunate enough to work for a company that offers a family planning benefit that would've covered a round of IVF but after two rounds of IUI we'll have to pay out of pocket for about 1/3 of it.
Flip side is, it was pretty scary to think about only getting one or maybe two shots on goal, since I think if IVF doesn't work we'll either move on to adoption or make peace with it.
No. I want this fucker to suffer til his last breath while in a jail cell watching reruns of CSI Cyber on an infinite loop.
That’s great you want Trump to lose, but being delusional about the state of the race and what the polls currently show maybe isn’t helpful. If the election happens today and the polls are completely accurate, it’s basically Bush v Gore close in PA or MI. It’s not time to start fantasizing about a 100 point EV blowout.
Yes this is unfortunately the reality. And probably will be the reality until November 5th.
Post by FortSteuben on Aug 21, 2024 7:26:23 GMT -5
Do you all think that if Kamala wins the Dems might look back on this whole timeline and say, that maybe its better to have a shorter election season? I know they are starting to do this by steering away from the Iowa caucuses. I think just having like 5/6 weeks of primaries with 8-10 states a week that rotate every cycle leading to the convention would be better than spending almost 2 years of campaigning where you have nobody candidates traversing NH and IA instead of doing their actual jobs. And where factions of the party are at each other's throats for extended periods of time. I know its a pipe dream because these people obviously want that sweet campaign money and exposure, but its hard to look at the momentum of this campaign compared to Trump who's been campaigning since the day he left office and not think that maybe they should replicate this in the future.
Do you all think that if Kamala wins the Dems might look back on this whole timeline and say, that maybe its better to have a shorter election season? I know they are starting to do this by steering away from the Iowa caucuses. I think just having like 5/6 weeks of primaries with 8-10 states a week that rotate every cycle leading to the convention would be better than spending almost 2 years of campaigning where you have nobody candidates traversing NH and IA instead of doing their actual jobs. And where factions of the party are at each other's throats for extended periods of time. I know its a pipe dream because these people obviously want that sweet campaign money and exposure, but its hard to look at the momentum of this campaign compared to Trump who's been campaigning since the day he left office and not think that maybe they should replicate this in the future.
I think there is no doubt in the world that a shorter election season is better, but then there will also be some ambitious young politician who sees the rise of Mayor Pete and declares for the primary 2 months after the midterm election that sets the whole thing off again. The shortened season only works when you have a selected universally agreed upon candidate and I can’t really imagine a world where that ever happens again other than an incumbent and with an incumbent the next election season essentially starts the day they take office.
Do you all think that if Kamala wins the Dems might look back on this whole timeline and say, that maybe its better to have a shorter election season? I know they are starting to do this by steering away from the Iowa caucuses. I think just having like 5/6 weeks of primaries with 8-10 states a week that rotate every cycle leading to the convention would be better than spending almost 2 years of campaigning where you have nobody candidates traversing NH and IA instead of doing their actual jobs. And where factions of the party are at each other's throats for extended periods of time. I know its a pipe dream because these people obviously want that sweet campaign money and exposure, but its hard to look at the momentum of this campaign compared to Trump who's been campaigning since the day he left office and not think that maybe they should replicate this in the future.
if Kamala wins the next open primary would be 2032
Do you all think that if Kamala wins the Dems might look back on this whole timeline and say, that maybe its better to have a shorter election season? I know they are starting to do this by steering away from the Iowa caucuses. I think just having like 5/6 weeks of primaries with 8-10 states a week that rotate every cycle leading to the convention would be better than spending almost 2 years of campaigning where you have nobody candidates traversing NH and IA instead of doing their actual jobs. And where factions of the party are at each other's throats for extended periods of time. I know its a pipe dream because these people obviously want that sweet campaign money and exposure, but its hard to look at the momentum of this campaign compared to Trump who's been campaigning since the day he left office and not think that maybe they should replicate this in the future.
if Kamala wins the next open primary would be 2032
Okay, plenty of time to prepare and get my 2 months / 6 weeks of primaries plan into place.
Do you all think that if Kamala wins the Dems might look back on this whole timeline and say, that maybe its better to have a shorter election season? I know they are starting to do this by steering away from the Iowa caucuses. I think just having like 5/6 weeks of primaries with 8-10 states a week that rotate every cycle leading to the convention would be better than spending almost 2 years of campaigning where you have nobody candidates traversing NH and IA instead of doing their actual jobs. And where factions of the party are at each other's throats for extended periods of time. I know its a pipe dream because these people obviously want that sweet campaign money and exposure, but its hard to look at the momentum of this campaign compared to Trump who's been campaigning since the day he left office and not think that maybe they should replicate this in the future.
if Kamala wins the next open primary would be 2032
And here comes what we all knew was inevitable (especially after that July video call leak) - RFK will bow down and kiss Trump's ring in order to get a spot in his cabinet. For him it was ALWAYS about helping the orange asshat, while screwing over the Democrats. This worm-infested fuckhead can kick rocks.
Post by braundiggity on Aug 21, 2024 19:05:13 GMT -5
I'm not overly concerned with RFK dropping out. He wasn't going to make it on the ballot in a ton of states anyhow; his base of support seems like primarily double-haters (who came home to the dems when the candidate they hated dropped out, but won't get the same chance with the GOP). Trump will pick up a little support, and yes, every vote matters this year, but the energy is best spent elsewhere than getting scared/frustrated/angry about it.
I'm not overly concerned with RFK dropping out. He wasn't going to make it on the ballot in a ton of states anyhow; his base of support seems like primarily double-haters (who came home to the dems when the candidate they hated dropped out, but won't get the same chance with the GOP). Trump will pick up a little support, and yes, every vote matters this year, but the energy is best spent elsewhere than getting scared/frustrated/angry about it.
True that. I myself just loathe RFK, but I'm not worried about him dropping out. I agree with your take - Trump will most likely see just a minor bump up, and I doubt it'll be anything too significant.