|
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. |
xDaunt you know that Trump wants Medicaid for all so that "nobody slips through the cracks" and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will increase military spending and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will increase infrastructure spending and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will build the most expensive public work project in decades and he will pay for it by starting a trade war with mexico hurting both economies, to the tune of several percent of gdp (of course more for mexico than for the US but both lose) but he can compensate those losses by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
|
On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all?
Endorsements make for interesting tiebreakers when all else is equal, which clearly is not the case here. So no, Kissinger's endorsement of Hillary wouldn't change my mind.
As for Kissinger himself, I'm not entirely sure where he stands on various foreign policy issues, so I couldn't even say whether I thought that his endorsement would be a plus or a minus at this point.
|
On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all.
I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy.
|
On September 05 2016 03:03 puerk wrote:
xDaunt you know that Trump wants Medicaid for all so that "nobody slips through the cracks" and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will increase military spending and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will increase infrastructure spending and he will pay for it by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
he will build the most expensive public work project in decades and he will pay for it by starting a trade war with mexico hurting both economies, to the tune of several percent of gdp (of course more for mexico than for the US but both lose) but he can compensate those losses by cutting taxes for all, especially the super rich
Someone clearly hasn't been paying attention to the seminar that I've been giving on good posting.
|
Trump is peddling the standard Republican voodoo economics: fix everything and cut taxes.
|
On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy.
The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way.
|
small correction: seminar on total self-absorbedness
|
On September 05 2016 00:57 puerk wrote:
i explicitly said that free trade and globalization is not a problem, but also no solution to the real problem we are facing which is the obsolence of labor through automation that is going to happen.
You totally strawman my whole position by shifting back to globalization when i repeatedly stated that i am not talking about globalization or free trade, as those are fine by themselfs but inadequate in dealing with the comming issue that not only our workers will become obsolete because of chinese, but also chinese will become obsolete. You can only shift around so many sectors: when primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of wage labor are gone, there will be nothing left for people to earn wages to barter for food and housing.
I am not arguing for anti globalization policies but for redistribution policies of the gains being made through automation.
When labor is worthless, people have nothing to trade. You tell me they will trade, but neglect to say what.
I exist at the whims of corporations able and willing to hire me because i can help them automate away bank paralegals drafting regulatory documents for their derivatives. At a point when all work is replaced that is approaching suprisingly quickly, tell me what i have to trade for my continued existence?
Our whole society builds upon extreme levels of labour division and specialisation. We did become a complex society of millions because only a tiny minority needed to work on food, and others could build, craft, innovate, plan, transport, communicate, provide services and more....
It implicitly works, because every person in this society respects the value of the currency it uses. The trust that you will be able to buy the stuff you want with it is the reason you work for it. When your work becomes useless, you have nothing to barter to the producer of food, because he does not want your personal service, your personal talent, as those are inflexible.
We are to many, too specialized and too disconnected in our immediate needs that we can not go to a functioning barter society, without losing a majority of people in the process.
Yeah, I don't really believe in infinite energy machines. Automation takes up resources. Power to keep the lights on, to keep things running. To believe that robots will eventually take over industry and we would have a society where corporations makes stuff for people who can't pay/trade for that stuff is very very weird. When humans have been replaced by automation, and the automation is making (whatever it is they make), who are those automations making it for? Each other? The company that's running them? For what gain?
Yes, right now you're working for a company who is automating away a section of their work force. Does that mean 100% of all companies are automating? And if you honestly believe that 100% of companies are doing so, if you honestly believe you'll be made obsolete during a specific period of your lifetime--why not prepare? Why not start learning, practicing, saving, adapting. Its not an on/off switch. You either believe you're being made obsolete (and so prepare) or you don't actually believe you're being made obsolete and would rather just whine about it.
People are resilient. No matter how shitty the circumstance people are resilient. If they believe, if you honestly believe that what you are doing is pointless and has no future--absolutely ZERO things is stopping you from changing course. The only reason you believe you're stuck, why you believe there is no way out is you do not want to change your standard of living, you do not want to change the way you're going.
|
On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way.
Why do you think Trump would be a warmonger?
|
On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way.
What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more?
|
I really don't see the upside, Kissinger's endorsement would just annoy people who support her and the people who don't aren't going to care.
|
On September 05 2016 03:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. Why do you think Trump would be a warmonger?
If Trump wins, the Republican Party is in power and they will be able to have a strong influence on who advises Trump. They will also in all likelihood either control Congress or have enough influence there to make pro-war policies pass. If Hillary wins, she will spearhead the effort to do the same, with the "bipartisan" support of most Republicans and a few Democrats. One case involves a candidate who isn't in a position to force policy to change even if he really wanted to (which I don't see that he does; it's not the most central part of his policy) and the other explicitly supports the neocon policy.
|
On September 05 2016 03:25 Nevuk wrote:
I really don't see the upside, Kissinger's endorsement would just annoy people who support her and the people who don't aren't going to care.
I can't help but laugh at these people, who before Hillary, if you asked them "would you support Kissinger's preferred candidate for president" would have laughed at the absurdity. Now they are going to try to act like it's not a big deal.
|
On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more?
After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure.
|
On September 05 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more? After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure.
The Hillary consensus is hurting democracy. Is Hillary actually more fascist than Trump??
|
On September 05 2016 02:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 02:10 cLutZ wrote:On September 04 2016 10:13 kwizach wrote:This is a pretty spot-on piece on the coverage Clinton and Trump get in the media, on false equivalences and on the focus on politics instead of policy: How the Media Undermine American Democracy
Twenty years ago I published a book called Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. The Atlantic ran an excerpt as a cover story, called “Why Americans Hate the Media.”
The main argument was that habits of mind within the media were making citizens and voters even more fatalistic and jaded about public affairs than they would otherwise be—even more willing to assume that all public figures were fools and crooks, even less willing to be involved in public affairs, and unfortunately for the media even less interested in following news at all. These mental habits of the media included an over-emphasis on strife and conflict, a fascination with the mechanics or “game” of politics rather than the real-world consequences, and a self-protective instinct to conceal limited knowledge of a particular subject (a new budget proposal, an international spat) by talking about the politics of these questions, and by presenting disagreements in a he-said/she-said, “plenty of blame on all sides” fashion now known as “false equivalence.”
Through the rise of Donald Trump, I’ve been watching to see how these patterns of mind might reassert themselves, particularly in the form of normalizing Trump. Source I read that and IMO its a cop out. First, it all but ignores how much thier focus on " style over substance" instead shunting that all under the umbrella of "procedure", which is a much more favorable portrayal of it. Second it ignores the reason for thier lost of trust, which leads to his "false equivalence" which is a near total incompetence in articulating opposing views even as a "devil's advocate". Thats why most interviews either are fawning, or devolve into the interviewer disrespecting the interviewee (saw a guy on some late night news program call his subject a child just a few weeks ago). Moreover it necessitates "round tables" because 2%? 10% if we are generous, of NBC, ABC, CBS news' "newspeople" could articulate and defend the, for instance, pro-life position in a spontaneous debate. I would argue that's a deficit in the pro-life position.
Thats what the people I'm talking about think as well, and its myopic. Even if you are not pro-life its incredibly easy to create a set of non-strawman reasons why someone would be.
On September 05 2016 03:00 zlefin wrote:
I'd be surprised if the numbers were that low, as it really shoudln't be that hard to put up a decent pro-life defense.
Its not, which is why I used it as an example (also because I am a moderate on the issue). Being a well-informed moderate, it is one of the issues that simple exposes vast swaths of the media because they consistently have to bring in one of their one or two "pro-life" people for any sort of a "balance" (usually 3v1) on the issue. Or you look at that time Rand Paul was asked about his "extreme" position and said, "Why don't you ask DWS about abortions in the 3rd trimester?" (paraphrased) and such as question had seemingly never occurred to said reporter (or any other) because the first and only time that happened was that week.
Being extremely pro-life, although IMO a bit kooky of a position is the easiest M-Fing thing to defend in a non-strawman way (Life begins at X, personal autonomy does not justify murder, expand from there), and most media people cannot even ask questions to politicians through that lens. And honestly, its just as bad (or nearly so) for issues like immigration, taxation, regulation, and even the "politicking" that the article alleged reporters are overly obsessed with.
|
On September 05 2016 03:33 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 03:30 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 03:13 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 03:06 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 03:03 LegalLord wrote:On September 05 2016 02:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 05 2016 02:44 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2016 02:23 Falling wrote:
Well alright. I will do it again.
xDaunt, do you think that Trump is more dishonest and more incompetent than Hillary, and why. The clear tie-breaker for me is that Trump's platform more closely fits my policy preferences than Hillary's does. And it certainly helps that he's a helluva lot more fun to support than Hillary is. Curious where you fall on Clinton trying to sew up Kissinger's endorsement? Would it increase your confidence in her foreign policy at all? Hillary is very clearly playing up her support among the pro-war elements of government. I expect that it will lead to a lot of poorly thought out FP interventions across the world that will end badly for the US. A few years later, some of her supporters will try to spin her support for terrible intervention the same way they did for her support of the Iraq war. She's just misled like everyone else or something when she clearly played a pivotal role in it all. I basically agree with this. Hillary has clearly adopted the neocon foreign policy, which I am no longer enamored with for a variety of reasons. I much prefer Trump's quasi-isolationist, America-first foreign policy. The unfortunate dilemma is that on that issue, Trump is more in line with the Democrats and Hillary is a full blown Republican. Looks like neocon warmongering is in the cards either way. What I'm waiting to see is how Hillary supporters here go about processing it. Is Hillary seeking the endorsement of a despicable person (makes david duke look like a boy scout), or is the koolaid so strong that now that Hillary wants his support, Kissinger isn't such a bad guy any more? After beating Bernie Sanders, Hillary has basically been running on a platform of "I'll do as I wish and I refuse to change a damn thing." That's the main reason I said earlier that Trump is a danger in that he gives Hillary the boldness to do as she pleases and just use the "but Trump" line. It's a dilemma and a coerced choice to be sure. The Hillary consensus is hurting democracy. Is Hillary actually more fascist than Trump??
It's not just because of Hillary, the left wing generally is an unself-critical blob right now compared to the contentious assemblage of factions that is the right wing.
|
On September 05 2016 03:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2016 02:58 IgnE wrote:On September 05 2016 02:10 cLutZ wrote:On September 04 2016 10:13 kwizach wrote:This is a pretty spot-on piece on the coverage Clinton and Trump get in the media, on false equivalences and on the focus on politics instead of policy: How the Media Undermine American Democracy
Twenty years ago I published a book called Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. The Atlantic ran an excerpt as a cover story, called “Why Americans Hate the Media.”
The main argument was that habits of mind within the media were making citizens and voters even more fatalistic and jaded about public affairs than they would otherwise be—even more willing to assume that all public figures were fools and crooks, even less willing to be involved in public affairs, and unfortunately for the media even less interested in following news at all. These mental habits of the media included an over-emphasis on strife and conflict, a fascination with the mechanics or “game” of politics rather than the real-world consequences, and a self-protective instinct to conceal limited knowledge of a particular subject (a new budget proposal, an international spat) by talking about the politics of these questions, and by presenting disagreements in a he-said/she-said, “plenty of blame on all sides” fashion now known as “false equivalence.”
Through the rise of Donald Trump, I’ve been watching to see how these patterns of mind might reassert themselves, particularly in the form of normalizing Trump. Source I read that and IMO its a cop out. First, it all but ignores how much thier focus on " style over substance" instead shunting that all under the umbrella of "procedure", which is a much more favorable portrayal of it. Second it ignores the reason for thier lost of trust, which leads to his "false equivalence" which is a near total incompetence in articulating opposing views even as a "devil's advocate". Thats why most interviews either are fawning, or devolve into the interviewer disrespecting the interviewee (saw a guy on some late night news program call his subject a child just a few weeks ago). Moreover it necessitates "round tables" because 2%? 10% if we are generous, of NBC, ABC, CBS news' "newspeople" could articulate and defend the, for instance, pro-life position in a spontaneous debate. I would argue that's a deficit in the pro-life position. Thats what the people I'm talking about think as well, and its myopic. Even if you are not pro-life its incredibly easy to create a set of non-strawman reasons why someone would be.
They mostly amount to statements of belief. The "reasons" for being pro-life are just moral axioms, usually stemming from faith. You either agree with the axiom(s) or you don't (i.e. All human persons have a right to life. Fetuses are human persons.). The other side's "reasons" for being pro-choice are both more varied and more complex. They are corollaries that stem from more universal axioms and are less a priori (i.e. more empirically driven, delving into what a "person" is).
So if it's your assertion that it's easy to say, "Fetuses are human persons" or something similar then sure.
|
I'm mildly curious if there is a significant timezone divide between political spectrum on this thread, because there seems to be a fairly regular ebb and flow of "right circlejerk" and "left circlejerk", so to speak.
|
On September 05 2016 04:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I'm mildly curious if there is a significant timezone divide between political spectrum on this thread, because there seems to be a fairly regular ebb and flow of "right circlejerk" and "left circlejerk", so to speak.
Probably the euro-Us timezone split. Euros tend to be more liberal then true statesmen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
