|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States41992 Posts
On August 07 2016 11:16 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:13 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:10 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:03 Aquanim wrote:
I think the point is still being missed.
The point is that defunding the entire military to stop drone strikes or whatever (because you think they are bad) is stupid in the same way as defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions (because you think they are bad) is stupid.
Whether you or I or anybody in particular thinks one or the other of those things is bad or not is completely irrelevant. Defunding the entire military or the entirety of PP is not an appropriate response to either of those problems, no matter what your opinion on those problems is. I will try to say this one more time, hopefully it gets through. Abortion is the issue. If you believe it is child killing, you wouldn't support funding it, espeically when there are other options available. It doesn't matter if PP "does other things." (Their 3% number obfuscates the hundreds of thousands they do, but whatever.) And people do both, if you haven't noticed. Kwark's criticism is dumb because pro-life activists fight abortion everywhere, from government funding to state laws. There is no military to pp equivalence. At least not one worth mentioning. On August 07 2016 11:07 KwarK wrote:They could fund health care groups that don't provide the service. Are the defund PP people advocating funding women's health organizations that don't do abortions? I've not seen any evidence to that. Not including those weird scam ones that have billboards saying "Pregnant and in trouble? Call us" that is. Those just tell women who are 20 weeks pregnant and want abortions that they can absolutely help them with that and to come back in 2 weeks for pre-abortion tests before they schedule it and then tell them the test results will take 2 weeks and then the moment they're past the legal abortion cutoff just kick them out. Fuck those groups. Some did, but the left is ideologically committed to abortion, so it gets drowned out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_AmendmentThey're just fucking with PP at this point. There is no end game. I am aware of that. I never said they directly used government funds. Edit: and the democrats want to get rid of that amendment.
Well if the Democrats want to get rid of that amendment then obviously they should defund the government, Federal, State, municipal, local, all of it. After all it'd be too difficult to fight them on the issue, much simpler to simply defund any organization which contains Democrats. Why argue over laws when you can defund things?
It's probably at this point that you should advocate defunding eSports, given we're on a Starcraft website and seem to be arguing over an issue.
|
On August 07 2016 11:15 KwarK wrote:The Supreme Court are in no way qualified to rule on issues of philosophy and theology, nor would they wish to.
Well somebody actually needs to discuss this, preferably the public, because if you dodge the central ethical concern you end up with the trench war you're complaining about. The sabotage only happens because people have collectively unlearned to actually debate the real issue.
|
On August 07 2016 11:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:03 Aquanim wrote:
I think the point is still being missed.
The point is that defunding the entire military to stop drone strikes or whatever (because you think they are bad) is stupid in the same way as defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions (because you think they are bad) is stupid.
Whether you or I or anybody in particular thinks one or the other of those things is bad or not is completely irrelevant. Defunding the entire military or the entirety of PP is not an appropriate response to either of those problems, no matter what your opinion on those problems is. I will try to say this one more time, hopefully it gets through. Abortion is the issue. If you believe it is child killing, you wouldn't support funding it, espeically when there are other options available. It doesn't matter if PP "does other things." (Their 3% number obfuscates the hundreds of thousands they do, but whatever.) And people do both, if you haven't noticed. Kwark's criticism is dumb because pro-life activists fight abortion everywhere, from government funding to state laws. There is no military to pp equivalence. At least not one worth mentioning. Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:07 KwarK wrote:They could fund health care groups that don't provide the service. Are the defund PP people advocating funding women's health organizations that don't do abortions? I've not seen any evidence to that. Not including those weird scam ones that have billboards saying "Pregnant and in trouble? Call us" that is. Those just tell women who are 20 weeks pregnant and want abortions that they can absolutely help them with that and to come back in 2 weeks for pre-abortion tests before they schedule it and then tell them the test results will take 2 weeks and then the moment they're past the legal abortion cutoff just kick them out. Fuck those groups. Some did, but the left is ideologically committed to abortion, so it gets drowned out.
noone disputes that some people choose to act as they do in regards to it; the point is that they're WRONG, and pushing unsound policy. you're repeating that some people think that way does not matter, as that is not the issue in question.
also, you refusing to see the equivalence doesn't matter, because the analogy is clearly pertinent. dunno why you refuse to accept that.
|
On August 07 2016 11:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:15 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:12 Nyxisto wrote:I think the big problem with the abortion debate in the US is that Roe v. Wade has circumvented the central problem, which is the status of personhood of the fetus and has declared it an issue of privacy and bodily autonomy although this should have happened the other way around. Singer has summed this problem on the pro choice side up as well The Supreme Court are in no way qualified to rule on issues of philosophy and theology, nor would they wish to. Well somebody actually needs to discuss this, preferably the public, because if you dodge the central ethical concern you're end up with the trench war you're lamenting. The sabotage only happens because people have collectively unlearned to actually debate the real issue.
the issue has been discussed thoroughly. there will be no general agreement because people are working off different axioms (and most people have opinions and are terribly unqualified on questions of ethics anyways).
there really isn't much ground to cover that hasn't already been covered very extensively.
|
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have options on their websites allowing supporters to set up recurring credit-card donations to their campaigns. But unlike Clinton’s, Trump’s website has no option to cancel those donations. This little bit of trickery came to light after a disgruntled Trump supporter emailed CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond, who tweeted the message on Wednesday. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/761015802459856896 Mic writer James Dennin then dug in and confirmed what the frustrated Trump supporter above found — “there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump’s donation site.” Dennin set up a $1 recurring payment and then tried to cancel it. Couldn’t do it. The only option available was switching out one credit card for another. In the interest of fairness, Dennin also set up a recurring donation to the Clinton campaign, which provided an option to remove the linked credit card and end the donations. To say it’s impossible to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign isn’t accurate. As others have noted, it can be done, but it’s a huge pain in the ass. Money says the way to do it is to reach out to the campaign through its general “contact” page and ask for the donation to be canceled. Or call your credit-card company and have them cancel it. There’s a third option for the extra lazy: Just keep giving the recurring donations for the next few months until the election ends — and hope that the Trump campaign decides to stop taking them at that point.
Source
|
I'm probably voting for Hillary now. The trump dream has died. Discuss
|
United States41992 Posts
On August 07 2016 11:21 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:15 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:12 Nyxisto wrote:I think the big problem with the abortion debate in the US is that Roe v. Wade has circumvented the central problem, which is the status of personhood of the fetus and has declared it an issue of privacy and bodily autonomy although this should have happened the other way around. Singer has summed this problem on the pro choice side up as well The Supreme Court are in no way qualified to rule on issues of philosophy and theology, nor would they wish to. Well somebody actually needs to discuss this, preferably the public, because if you dodge the central ethical concern you're end up with the trench war you're complaining about. The sabotage only happens because people have collectively unlearned to actually debate the real issue.
It can't work like that. For a significant portion of the public the only authority on the matter is the Pope. For another group there is no authority but themselves on matters of conscience. The Supreme Court were right to look at the issue through the lens of bodily autonomy because that's the area in which it overlaps with the state.
|
On August 07 2016 11:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:16 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:13 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:10 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:03 Aquanim wrote:
I think the point is still being missed.
The point is that defunding the entire military to stop drone strikes or whatever (because you think they are bad) is stupid in the same way as defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions (because you think they are bad) is stupid.
Whether you or I or anybody in particular thinks one or the other of those things is bad or not is completely irrelevant. Defunding the entire military or the entirety of PP is not an appropriate response to either of those problems, no matter what your opinion on those problems is. I will try to say this one more time, hopefully it gets through. Abortion is the issue. If you believe it is child killing, you wouldn't support funding it, espeically when there are other options available. It doesn't matter if PP "does other things." (Their 3% number obfuscates the hundreds of thousands they do, but whatever.) And people do both, if you haven't noticed. Kwark's criticism is dumb because pro-life activists fight abortion everywhere, from government funding to state laws. There is no military to pp equivalence. At least not one worth mentioning. On August 07 2016 11:07 KwarK wrote:They could fund health care groups that don't provide the service. Are the defund PP people advocating funding women's health organizations that don't do abortions? I've not seen any evidence to that. Not including those weird scam ones that have billboards saying "Pregnant and in trouble? Call us" that is. Those just tell women who are 20 weeks pregnant and want abortions that they can absolutely help them with that and to come back in 2 weeks for pre-abortion tests before they schedule it and then tell them the test results will take 2 weeks and then the moment they're past the legal abortion cutoff just kick them out. Fuck those groups. Some did, but the left is ideologically committed to abortion, so it gets drowned out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_AmendmentThey're just fucking with PP at this point. There is no end game. I am aware of that. I never said they directly used government funds. Edit: and the democrats want to get rid of that amendment. Well if the Democrats want to get rid of that amendment then obviously they should defund the government, Federal, State, municipal, local, all of it. After all it'd be too difficult to fight them on the issue, much simpler to simply defund any organization which contains Democrats. Why argue over laws when you can defund things? It's probably at this point that you should advocate defunding eSports, given we're on a Starcraft website and seem to be arguing over an issue.
The point is, you used the Hyde amendment as a part of your argument, while the other side of aisle is campaigning for it's removal. The fact that the government doesn't directly fund abortions is a smokescreen.
And does TL receive government funding? I would oppose that.
|
United States41992 Posts
On August 07 2016 11:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:19 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:16 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:13 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:10 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:03 Aquanim wrote:
I think the point is still being missed.
The point is that defunding the entire military to stop drone strikes or whatever (because you think they are bad) is stupid in the same way as defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions (because you think they are bad) is stupid.
Whether you or I or anybody in particular thinks one or the other of those things is bad or not is completely irrelevant. Defunding the entire military or the entirety of PP is not an appropriate response to either of those problems, no matter what your opinion on those problems is. I will try to say this one more time, hopefully it gets through. Abortion is the issue. If you believe it is child killing, you wouldn't support funding it, espeically when there are other options available. It doesn't matter if PP "does other things." (Their 3% number obfuscates the hundreds of thousands they do, but whatever.) And people do both, if you haven't noticed. Kwark's criticism is dumb because pro-life activists fight abortion everywhere, from government funding to state laws. There is no military to pp equivalence. At least not one worth mentioning. On August 07 2016 11:07 KwarK wrote:They could fund health care groups that don't provide the service. Are the defund PP people advocating funding women's health organizations that don't do abortions? I've not seen any evidence to that. Not including those weird scam ones that have billboards saying "Pregnant and in trouble? Call us" that is. Those just tell women who are 20 weeks pregnant and want abortions that they can absolutely help them with that and to come back in 2 weeks for pre-abortion tests before they schedule it and then tell them the test results will take 2 weeks and then the moment they're past the legal abortion cutoff just kick them out. Fuck those groups. Some did, but the left is ideologically committed to abortion, so it gets drowned out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_AmendmentThey're just fucking with PP at this point. There is no end game. I am aware of that. I never said they directly used government funds. Edit: and the democrats want to get rid of that amendment. Well if the Democrats want to get rid of that amendment then obviously they should defund the government, Federal, State, municipal, local, all of it. After all it'd be too difficult to fight them on the issue, much simpler to simply defund any organization which contains Democrats. Why argue over laws when you can defund things? It's probably at this point that you should advocate defunding eSports, given we're on a Starcraft website and seem to be arguing over an issue. And does TL receive government funding? I would oppose that.
No, but if it did then I'm sure you'd oppose it through the abolition of taxes and the defunding of society in general. 
Ends justify means etc etc.
|
On August 07 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:
I'm probably voting for Hillary now. The trump dream has died. Discuss
Were you originally going to vote for Trump? If so, what was the breaking point to decide to vote for a different candidate?
|
On August 07 2016 11:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have options on their websites allowing supporters to set up recurring credit-card donations to their campaigns. But unlike Clinton’s, Trump’s website has no option to cancel those donations. This little bit of trickery came to light after a disgruntled Trump supporter emailed CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond, who tweeted the message on Wednesday. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/761015802459856896 Mic writer James Dennin then dug in and confirmed what the frustrated Trump supporter above found — “there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump’s donation site.” Dennin set up a $1 recurring payment and then tried to cancel it. Couldn’t do it. The only option available was switching out one credit card for another. In the interest of fairness, Dennin also set up a recurring donation to the Clinton campaign, which provided an option to remove the linked credit card and end the donations. To say it’s impossible to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign isn’t accurate. As others have noted, it can be done, but it’s a huge pain in the ass. Money says the way to do it is to reach out to the campaign through its general “contact” page and ask for the donation to be canceled. Or call your credit-card company and have them cancel it. There’s a third option for the extra lazy: Just keep giving the recurring donations for the next few months until the election ends — and hope that the Trump campaign decides to stop taking them at that point. Source
I think he said he was aggressively fundraising now.
|
|
|
On August 07 2016 11:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 11:31 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:19 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:16 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:13 KwarK wrote:On August 07 2016 11:10 Introvert wrote:On August 07 2016 11:03 Aquanim wrote:
I think the point is still being missed.
The point is that defunding the entire military to stop drone strikes or whatever (because you think they are bad) is stupid in the same way as defunding the entirety of Planned Parenthood to stop abortions (because you think they are bad) is stupid.
Whether you or I or anybody in particular thinks one or the other of those things is bad or not is completely irrelevant. Defunding the entire military or the entirety of PP is not an appropriate response to either of those problems, no matter what your opinion on those problems is. I will try to say this one more time, hopefully it gets through. Abortion is the issue. If you believe it is child killing, you wouldn't support funding it, espeically when there are other options available. It doesn't matter if PP "does other things." (Their 3% number obfuscates the hundreds of thousands they do, but whatever.) And people do both, if you haven't noticed. Kwark's criticism is dumb because pro-life activists fight abortion everywhere, from government funding to state laws. There is no military to pp equivalence. At least not one worth mentioning. On August 07 2016 11:07 KwarK wrote:They could fund health care groups that don't provide the service. Are the defund PP people advocating funding women's health organizations that don't do abortions? I've not seen any evidence to that. Not including those weird scam ones that have billboards saying "Pregnant and in trouble? Call us" that is. Those just tell women who are 20 weeks pregnant and want abortions that they can absolutely help them with that and to come back in 2 weeks for pre-abortion tests before they schedule it and then tell them the test results will take 2 weeks and then the moment they're past the legal abortion cutoff just kick them out. Fuck those groups. Some did, but the left is ideologically committed to abortion, so it gets drowned out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_AmendmentThey're just fucking with PP at this point. There is no end game. I am aware of that. I never said they directly used government funds. Edit: and the democrats want to get rid of that amendment. Well if the Democrats want to get rid of that amendment then obviously they should defund the government, Federal, State, municipal, local, all of it. After all it'd be too difficult to fight them on the issue, much simpler to simply defund any organization which contains Democrats. Why argue over laws when you can defund things? It's probably at this point that you should advocate defunding eSports, given we're on a Starcraft website and seem to be arguing over an issue. And does TL receive government funding? I would oppose that. No, but if it did then I'm sure you'd oppose it through the abolition of taxes and the defunding of society in general. Ends justify means etc etc.
Now now, you have to have some taxes 
|
On August 07 2016 11:23 SolaR- wrote:
I'm probably voting for Hillary now. The trump dream has died. Discuss
Welcome to the party, its great to have you here. Now we just need to ride out the nightmare.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Sanity suggests that Hillary Clinton is the only viable option for president for this election. I'm pretty sure that almost everybody agrees with that.
The problem is that she's a shitty option and the only reason that she has any chance of winning is because the Republican Party is ass backwards beyond belief and is literally dangerous to social progress. The Dems have been allowed to get away with a shitton of internal dysfunction simply because the other party would be a fringe group in any other country.
|
United States41992 Posts
The Republican establishment fielded some legitimate candidates, albeit not their strongest crop. Their problem was the Trump hijack which in turn means their problem was how responsive elements of their base are to candidates like Trump.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Those candidates were legitimate by Republican standards. Cruz, Kasich, Bush, Walker, Rubio, etc., are all at least as shitty as Trump is, perhaps worse, but no one thinks that about them because they both aren't as bombastic and aren't as relevant as Trump was. If they were the frontrunners then the ugliness would come boiling up to the surface.
The Republican base is pretty fucked, yes. Though I think in a way it is telling that Trump can advocate positions that are antithetical to the party's views, to widespread cheer at the convention. While other speakers contradict him and also get lots of cheers, lol.
|
On August 07 2016 13:31 LegalLord wrote:
Those candidates were legitimate by Republican standards. Cruz, Kasich, Bush, Walker, Rubio, etc., are all at least as shitty as Trump is, perhaps worse, but no one thinks that about them because they both aren't as bombastic and aren't as relevant as Trump was. If they were the frontrunners then the ugliness would come boiling up to the surface.
The Republican base is pretty fucked, yes. Though I think in a way it is telling that Trump can advocate positions that are antithetical to the party's views, to widespread cheer at the convention. While other speakers contradict him and also get lots of cheers, lol.
There's a huge disconnect between the party elite and a big chunk of their base that's been made apparent by the rise of Trump. The elite push some social issues to mollify the religious right and others, but their actual policy is designed to economically benefit the elite with precious little for the base.
Given this, it's not too surprising that their 2012 post mortem plan failed so miserably. The RNC operated under the assumption they could have their cake and eat it, and now its looking like they can't have either.
The Democrats aren't perfectly in sync either, but they're a lot closer than the Republicans at least.
|
I'm not arguing for it being a smart thing to want to or try to defund pp but when you name yourself Planned parenthood and have your own super pac you're more then asking for your federal funding to be a political issue.
|
United States41992 Posts
On August 07 2016 14:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2016 13:31 LegalLord wrote:
Those candidates were legitimate by Republican standards. Cruz, Kasich, Bush, Walker, Rubio, etc., are all at least as shitty as Trump is, perhaps worse, but no one thinks that about them because they both aren't as bombastic and aren't as relevant as Trump was. If they were the frontrunners then the ugliness would come boiling up to the surface.
The Republican base is pretty fucked, yes. Though I think in a way it is telling that Trump can advocate positions that are antithetical to the party's views, to widespread cheer at the convention. While other speakers contradict him and also get lots of cheers, lol. There's a huge disconnect between the party elite and a big chunk of their base that's been made apparent by the rise of Trump. The elite push some social issues to mollify the religious right and others, but their actual policy is designed to economically benefit the elite with precious little for the base. Given this, it's not too surprising that their 2012 post mortem plan failed so miserably. The RNC operated under the assumption they could have their cake and eat it, and now its looking like they can't have either. The Democrats aren't perfectly in sync either, but they're a lot closer than the Republicans at least.
Trump's tax plans are explicitly pro elite anti worker for anyone who cares to read them. He made no effort to balance his plans, or even explain exactly what they were, enabling him to claim he'd spend far more and tax far less simultaneously but his tax plans are one of the few areas where he gave us anything concrete and he's cutting taxes on the rich in a big, big way.
It's not the money side that Trump tapped into, it's the feeling that their country is changing in strange and unfamiliar ways and that a populist strongman will be able to return them to the more familiar and privileged position they remember. It's a direct response to things like gay marriage, minority culture getting less marginalized, minority issues getting more playtime in the public sphere, job security and pay eroding over time, shifting economic trends and so forth. A negro for President is perhaps the ultimate symbol of that and it's no coincidence that Trump was the head birther who was denouncing Obama as literally un-American, not just figuratively.
There are plenty of people within the Republican camp who I don't think meet that description but I think most of them aren't Trumpers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
