EPTOn August 08 2016 10:26 oBlade wrote:
I won't stand for a presidential candidate making fun of the disabled.
I won't stand for a presidential candidate making fun of the disabled.
Aahaha it actually looks like that
Wow I hate everyone
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4672
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Aahaha it actually looks like that Wow I hate everyone | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10109 Posts
Are there republicans which are kind of progressive in this kind of stuff, like abortion ? Am i mistaken to think that this is purely motivated by religion in the US ? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On August 08 2016 11:22 Godwrath wrote: Are there republicans which are kind of progressive in this kind of stuff, like abortion ? Am i mistaken to think that this is purely motivated by religion in the US ? Yes, plenty of people are pro life without any religious ties. The argument of rights of fetus vs mom is arbitrary. Hardline positions are usually motivated by religion or some sort of dogma though | ||
|
oBlade
United States5294 Posts
On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement. The short version: It's okay to talk about psychiatric issues — but not okay to diagnose people you haven't treated. The American Psychiatric Association first began to follow the rule in 1973, but given recent events, it saw fit Wednesday to remind psychiatrists across the United States that the rule exists and must be followed. "The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates," Maria A. Oquendo, president of the APA, wrote, "but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/07/the-american-psychiatric-association-reminds-its-doctors-no-psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/ | ||
|
ragz_gt
9172 Posts
On August 08 2016 11:22 Godwrath wrote: Are there republicans which are kind of progressive in this kind of stuff, like abortion ? Am i mistaken to think that this is purely motivated by religion in the US ? There are probably a lot of republicans that are pro choice and a lot of democrats that are pro life. It's just elected officials don't dare say or vote out of party line. This is probably more true for republicans because current republicans is a weird mix of libertarian / evangelical / corporate / other interest groups who has really not much in common except that they are against democrats so there is a lot of mental gymnastics elected officials need to do to maintain this weird relationship (or stuff like Trump happens). | ||
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4315 Posts
On August 08 2016 11:27 LegalLord wrote: Religion is definitely the primary motivator of pro-life viewpoints. Though as with any opinion ever, everyone has their own set of reasons for choosing any position that they choose. So do Religious African Americans support or oppose abortion? Because around 95% of them supported Obama in 08 and 12 | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On August 08 2016 11:43 oBlade wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/07/the-american-psychiatric-association-reminds-its-doctors-no-psychoanalyzing-donald-trump/ Good thing all the people doing such things aren't psychiatrists so they don't have to worry about it On August 08 2016 12:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So do Religious African Americans support or oppose abortion? Because around 95% of them supported Obama in 08 and 12 I don't think his abortion stance had anything to do with why the vast majority of them voted for him | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On August 08 2016 12:35 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Good thing all the people doing such things aren't psychiatrists so they don't have to worry about it I don't think his abortion stance has anything to do with why the vast majority of them voted for him I think it might be in reaction to Krauthammer, who is a certified psychiatrist, toeing the line a bit around it : Of course we all try to protect our own dignity and command respect. But Trump’s hypersensitivity and unedited, untempered Pavlovian responses are, shall we say, unusual in both ferocity and predictability. 'This is beyond narcissism. I used to think Trump was an 11-year-old, an undeveloped schoolyard bully. I was off by about 10 years. His needs are more primitive, an infantile hunger for approval and praise, a craving that can never be satisfied. He lives in a cocoon of solipsism where the world outside himself has value — indeed exists — only insofar as it sustains and inflates him. Most politicians seek approval. But Trump lives for the adoration. He doesn’t even try to hide it, boasting incessantly about his crowds, his standing ovations, his TV ratings, his poll numbers, his primary victories. The latter are most prized because they offer empirical evidence of how loved and admired he is. and later in the column : Trump’s greatest success — normalizing the abnormal — is beginning to dissipate. When a Pulitzer Prize-winning liberal columnist (Eugene Robinson) and a major conservative foreign policy thinker and former speechwriter for George Shultz under Ronald Reagan (Robert Kagan) simultaneously question Trump’s psychological stability, indeed sanity, there’s something going on (as Trump would say). The dynamic of this election is obvious. As in 1980, the status quo candidate for a failed administration is running against an outsider. The stay-the-course candidate plays his/her only available card — charging that the outsider is dangerously out of the mainstream and temperamentally unfit to command the nation https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-and-the-fitness-threshold/2016/08/04/b06bae34-5a69-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 08 2016 10:30 xDaunt wrote: The only people not calling it a ransom are democrats. The Iranians sure think it was a ransom. As does at least one of the hostages. You do know we do this shit all the time, right? Under both parties. We release frozen assets or withhold funding to other parties. Sell weapons and so on. Prisoners taken by other nations don't get released because we are so awesome and they fear our might. We trade for them. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41995 Posts
On August 08 2016 13:07 Plansix wrote: You do know we do this shit all the time, right? Under both parties. We release frozen assets or withhold funding to other parties. Sell weapons and so on. Prisoners taken by other nations don't get released because we are so awesome and they fear our might. We trade for them. These deals, they're the worst deals, they, China you see, they're laughing at us and they say that Obama is a bad negotiator, that's why Japan, and like the other Mexican countries, they're taking advantage of us. It's a bad deal. They think we're stupid. The Middle Easts, they hear about these deals and they come to me and they say "Donald, I don't believe it" and I say that they should believe it because I don't agree with them. They don't pay anything because they don't think we can walk away. And Obama won't walk away from the Muslims. I'm not saying why he won't but a lot of people tell me he's a Muslim. I don't know, all I know is that he gave a lot of money to his Muslim friends in Iran. And he says that's not exactly how it happened, well, I don't know how it happened, I don't know what the deal is, I haven't read it, all I know is that it's a bad deal. A lot of folks have read it, smart folks, folks that can read, and they don't like it. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On August 08 2016 14:25 KwarK wrote: These deals, they're the worst deals, they, China you see, they're laughing at us and they say that Obama is a bad negotiator, that's why Japan, and like the other Mexican countries, they're taking advantage of us. It's a bad deal. They think we're stupid. The Middle Easts, they hear about these deals and they come to me and they say "Donald, I don't believe it" and I say that they should believe it because I don't agree with them. They don't pay anything because they don't think we can walk away. And Obama won't walk away from the Muslims. I'm not saying why he won't but a lot of people tell me he's a Muslim. I don't know, all I know is that he gave a lot of money to his Muslim friends in Iran. And he says that's not exactly how it happened, well, I don't know how it happened, I don't know what the deal is, I haven't read it, all I know is that it's a bad deal. A lot of folks have read it, smart folks, folks that can read, and they don't like it. Hahahaha, it's exactly that. You made my day :-) | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On August 08 2016 12:03 KwarK wrote: The weird part is that the pro-choice attitude is the individualist one in which an individual has the right to end an external imposition upon their body and freedom, even if the other party is wholly dependent upon them, if they no longer consent to it. Whereas the pro-life attitude takes a more collectivist approach and says that refusing to share with another human who is dependent upon you is literally tantamount to murder. My pro-choice sentiments are actually coming from the same place as my center-right leanings. I think you are missing the fact that it's primarily a question of women's right and role in society, and has little to do with individualism. The primary reason to oppose abortion is certainly not religion, even less sanctity of life (remember they are the same people who think it's ok to shoot someone who walks in your garden and support death penalty), but rather a conception of the role of women in society, which is traditionally to be a wife and then a mother, certainly not a degenerate modern woman in control of her own life and making choice independently of men around her. It's not individualism or socialism that has gained women the right to chose, but feminist struggle. Now american conservatism being essentially driven by the desire to keep the old power structure intact (white above black, rich above poor, men above women etc...), it's quite normal that abortion is a cornerstone of their ideology. The ideological background of the american right have nothing to do with yours, or almost anyone centre right european (which generally had no problem with abortion).. Oh and by the way the RubiOS said that abortion was not ok for women with zika. Let us dispel with the notion that he was ever anything but a total twat. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On August 08 2016 18:08 Ghostcom wrote: ^ You are doing an awful lot of projecting - and conflating the integrity of the person who made the argument with the validity of the argument.. A person can very well be pro-life (I've always hated the term) due to a consideration of sanctity of human life. It's been made multiple times before in this thread, as well as many other places. Sure, and the pope is against it for religious reason. That's obvious and I don't deny it. That's why I talked about the main reason, and not the only reason. And we are talking about the United States, of course. Now you can chose to believe that the average Trump voter is against abortion by sincere religious conviction and devotion or because they so care about human life. That's another analysis I guess, but I certainly find mine more compelling. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On August 08 2016 18:11 Biff The Understudy wrote: Sure, and the pope is against it for religious reason. That's obvious and I don't deny it. That's why I talked about the main reason, and not the only reason. And we are talking about the United States, of course. Now you can chose to believe that the average Trump voter is against abortion by sincere religious conviction and devotion or because they so care about human life. That's another analysis I guess, but I certainly find mine more compelling. You are changing the topic. You replied to Kwark who stated from where his conviction came. I'm fairly certain Kwark is not a Trump supporter, much less your average Trump supporter. Further, you stated: On August 08 2016 17:48 Biff The Understudy wrote: I think you are missing the fact that it's primarily a question of women's right and role in society, and has little to do with individualism. The primary reason to oppose abortion is certainly not religion, even less sanctity of life (remember they are the same people who think it's ok to shoot someone who walks in your garden and support death penalty), but rather a conception of the role of women in society, which is traditionally to be a wife and then a mother, certainly not a degenerate modern woman in control of her own life and making choice independently of men around her. Which led me to believe you were making a much more general statement. But apparently I've misunderstood you. You could potentially claim that the reason most "pro-lifers" adopt their views are due to what you believe. I've always found it more interesting in discussions to hear what people actually say their motives are rather than trying to project onto them what we feel their motives should be. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7811 Posts
On August 08 2016 18:36 Ghostcom wrote: You are changing the topic. You replied to Kwark who stated from where his conviction came. I'm fairly certain Kwark is not a Trump supporter, much less your average Trump supporter. Further, you stated: Which led me to believe you were making a much more general statement. But apparently I've misunderstood you. You could potentially claim that the reason most "pro-lifers" adopt their views are due to what you believe. I've always found it more interesting in discussions to hear what people actually say their motives are rather than trying to project onto them what we feel their motives should be. Oh mate, you are really really really really really really missing my point. Kwark was wondering why the american right was pro-life, even though his own right wing ethics of individualism made him on the opposite more prone to let women chose (correct me KwarK if I'm wrong). I replied that US right wing conservatism works differently and that the core of its ideology is a nostalgia of social structures that are vanishing, one of them being patriarchy. I believe you can only understand the US right wing opposition to abortion in those coordinate, and that the religious or ethical message is, to quote Scalia, pure applesauce. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I am not accusing KwarK of anything. Now, for your second part, well, I think that analyzing what people say and reflect on their deeper motives is the basis of political thought. You can also chose to believe that people are always open (and aware!) about what they think and why they support this or that position. I don't. It's not enough to ask people "oh, tell me, why do you oppose abortion" to understand where the debate comes from. You'll get answers, they will certainly be crucial to build a reflection but it might very well be that the motives are much deeper than all the answers you will ever get. Now please don't attack me, and please read my post twice and ask me to clarify if I don't express myself well enough before jumping at my throat  | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On August 08 2016 18:50 Biff The Understudy wrote: Oh mate, you are really really really really really really missing my point. Kwark was wondering why the american right was pro-life, even though his own right wing ethics of individualism made him on the opposite more prone to let women chose (correct me KwarK if I'm wrong). I replied that US right wing conservatism works differently and that the core of its ideology is a nostalgia of social structures that are vanishing, one of them being patriarchy. I believe you can only understand the US right wing opposition to abortion in those coordinate, and that the religious or ethical message is, to quote Scalia, pure applesauce. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I am not accusing KwarK of anything. Noted - that was what you made apparent in your second post. A quick note though: I'm already spoken for... Now, for your second part, well, I think that analyzing what people say and reflect on their deeper motives is the basis of political thought. You can also chose to believe that people are always open (and aware!) about what they think and why they support this or that position. I don't. It's not enough to ask people "oh, tell me, why do you oppose abortion" to understand where the debate comes from. You'll get answers, they will certainly be crucial to build a reflection but it might very well be that the motives are much deeper than all the answers you will ever get. Now please don't attack me, and please read my post twice and ask me to clarify if I don't express myself well enough before jumping at my throat Firstly, I haven't attacked you, nor jumped down your throat. I've disagreed with you. I'm not interested in smearing you or engaging in anything but an honest debate. Secondly, I agree that we can both listen to what people claim to be their motives and analyze their underlying rational. However, it seems to me that what you've done so far is to reject entirely what people give as their motives and substituted your own beliefs for their motive without making a proper case for why this should be done (maybe you are right, but you haven't posted anything convincing). I don't agree that the right wing merely (or primarily) wants to hold on to the patriarchy when adopting a "pro-life" stance. None of the (sound) arguments for "pro-life" goes "women should know their place and that place is in the kitchen". Nearly all (if not all) of them go along other American conservative core values such as religion and protection of life. Now, we could adopt an extremely critical position and consider all the arguments as being merely what is acceptable in the social context and thus not useful when considering the underlying motive. However, seeing as some 40% of Americans are "pro-life" (depending on what poll you believe - I've seen numbers as high as 60% and as low as 30%) it seems very difficult to convincingly argue this. I feel fairly certain that the underlying motive for the majority of pro-lifers is exactly what they tell you it is - their religion and their regard for sanctity of life. EDIT: Perhaps we should take this to PMs? We are getting off topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5585 Posts
On August 08 2016 14:25 KwarK wrote: These deals, they're the worst deals, they, China you see, they're laughing at us and they say that Obama is a bad negotiator, that's why Japan, and like the other Mexican countries, they're taking advantage of us. It's a bad deal. They think we're stupid. The Middle Easts, they hear about these deals and they come to me and they say "Donald, I don't believe it" and I say that they should believe it because I don't agree with them. They don't pay anything because they don't think we can walk away. And Obama won't walk away from the Muslims. I'm not saying why he won't but a lot of people tell me he's a Muslim. I don't know, all I know is that he gave a lot of money to his Muslim friends in Iran. And he says that's not exactly how it happened, well, I don't know how it happened, I don't know what the deal is, I haven't read it, all I know is that it's a bad deal. A lot of folks have read it, smart folks, folks that can read, and they don't like it. This is brilliant. | ||
| ||
