|
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. |
On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked.
And its not like the hard line, accept no compromise progressives are a large enough voting block at this point.
|
on the cspan comment lines; some people have said Pence was convincing them to vote for the ticket.
|
On October 05 2016 12:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked. And its not like the hard line, accept no compromise progressives are a large enough voting block at this point.
In 4-8 years they probably will be. Sanders did come pretty close to winning the democratic nomination with them.
|
On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked.
I don't disagree with your assessment of Kaine, but who do you think the party loyalists will be backing come the next Dem primary? Might be a different aesthetic, but the core policies (outside the social) will be the same.
On October 05 2016 12:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:10 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked. And its not like the hard line, accept no compromise progressives are a large enough voting block at this point. In 4-8 years they probably will be. Sanders did come pretty close to winning the democratic nomination with them.
EDIT: didn't realize thread was still moving. This is a popular misconception. While Bernie absolutely dominated younger Democratic voters, he came so close because he was able to appeal to a wider audience beyond typical Democratic primary voters (progressive voters generally fall in here by default). The "She got more 3.7 million more votes, so she crushed" neglects to put in context how he did much better in places where the process was open to people outside of regular Democrat voters and had the entire process had that the results would look different. Add on to that the idea that voters potentially not being inundated with the idea that the race was over before it started because Hillary started with a 400+ delegate head start before anyone announced.
|
On October 05 2016 12:04 KwarK wrote:
I think Pence was doing a much better job with what he had to work with than Kaine for most of it. Trump is such a scandal ridden, corrupt, dishonest and demonstrably unfit candidate for President that Pence was always going to have a tough job trying to defend the indefensible. Through most of it he stuck with the party line of "deny everything" without needing to beg the moderator to call Sean Hannity. I'd hand it to him had he not broken in the one area where his own personal convictions might actually lie with what Trump has said and deliver Kaine an anti-women soundbite to go front and center of the coverage of the debate. He brought up abortion for no reason. He marginalized a much larger and more important demographic in women by trying to shore up a secure pro-life demographic. It was a blunder and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the media didn't try to ride it into the sunset.
The pro life thing is something I really think is only about voter feelings, having politicians share their morality, just keeping that cultural presence. Roe v. Wade was 1973 and it's stood through 4 Republican presidents. I don't think there's much in the future besides keeping taxpayer money out of abortion, or various attempts at state rebellions against abortion providers. What chances do you see of anything happening to abortion with Trump/Pence or the next (R) administration, what would it be? Like overturn Roe v. Wade 60%?
|
United States43242 Posts
On October 05 2016 12:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:04 KwarK wrote:
I think Pence was doing a much better job with what he had to work with than Kaine for most of it. Trump is such a scandal ridden, corrupt, dishonest and demonstrably unfit candidate for President that Pence was always going to have a tough job trying to defend the indefensible. Through most of it he stuck with the party line of "deny everything" without needing to beg the moderator to call Sean Hannity. I'd hand it to him had he not broken in the one area where his own personal convictions might actually lie with what Trump has said and deliver Kaine an anti-women soundbite to go front and center of the coverage of the debate. He brought up abortion for no reason. He marginalized a much larger and more important demographic in women by trying to shore up a secure pro-life demographic. It was a blunder and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the media didn't try to ride it into the sunset. The pro life thing is something I really think is only about voter feelings, having politicians share their morality, just keeping that cultural presence. Roe v. Wade was 1973 and it's stood through 4 Republican presidents. I don't think there's much in the future besides keeping taxpayer money out of abortion, or various attempts at state rebellions against abortion providers. What chances do you see of anything happening to abortion with Trump/Pence or the next (R) administration, what would it be? Like overturn Roe v. Wade 60%?
I think Pence would appoint Supreme Court judges only after checking that they definitely planned to overturn it. I think Trump doesn't give a shit. In terms of percentages I'd need to see the actuarial tables for the sitting justices.
|
On October 05 2016 12:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:10 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked. And its not like the hard line, accept no compromise progressives are a large enough voting block at this point. In 4-8 years they probably will be. Sanders did come pretty close to winning the democratic nomination with them.
The major of those voters are going to vote for Clinton now. Because they understand progress in a painfully slow manner over generations, not in massive leaps.
|
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal.
I know they try to argue the women are victims angle and the doctors are the ones to blame, but then what if someone has a coat hanger abortion? Is that not a crime and effectively legalized if you aren't going to punish women who get abortions?
I also feel like its pretty demeaning to women and suggests they aren't capable of making their own decisions.
I mean wtf?
|
On October 05 2016 12:18 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:04 KwarK wrote:
I think Pence was doing a much better job with what he had to work with than Kaine for most of it. Trump is such a scandal ridden, corrupt, dishonest and demonstrably unfit candidate for President that Pence was always going to have a tough job trying to defend the indefensible. Through most of it he stuck with the party line of "deny everything" without needing to beg the moderator to call Sean Hannity. I'd hand it to him had he not broken in the one area where his own personal convictions might actually lie with what Trump has said and deliver Kaine an anti-women soundbite to go front and center of the coverage of the debate. He brought up abortion for no reason. He marginalized a much larger and more important demographic in women by trying to shore up a secure pro-life demographic. It was a blunder and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the media didn't try to ride it into the sunset. The pro life thing is something I really think is only about voter feelings, having politicians share their morality, just keeping that cultural presence. Roe v. Wade was 1973 and it's stood through 4 Republican presidents. I don't think there's much in the future besides keeping taxpayer money out of abortion, or various attempts at state rebellions against abortion providers. What chances do you see of anything happening to abortion with Trump/Pence or the next (R) administration, what would it be? Like overturn Roe v. Wade 60%?
? Supreme Court vacancy. If there's a single more conservative the pro-lifers are pretty sure they can get it banned there. There's a ton of people who are basically only voting for Trump because of the supreme court vacancy. Personally, I have my doubts that it would work out the way people are thinking (there's no fucking way a GOP president could get an openly anti-abortion justice past the senate filibuster), but that's the logic being used.
|
United States43242 Posts
On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal.
On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law.
If you write the law that punishes people and then punish people for breaking the law you wrote then you don't get to say "I don't want to punish those people, I just want to uphold the law" anymore.
|
On October 05 2016 12:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:13 Nevuk wrote:On October 05 2016 12:10 Plansix wrote:On October 05 2016 12:08 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 05 2016 12:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 05 2016 11:58 LegalLord wrote:
Pence came out of this one less stupid. I don't think this debate changed my opinion of either candidate or either VP, at all. They basically were what I thought they were. Thanks Coach Green ;P Yeah, was basically a preview for 2020 if Hillary isn't politically palatable, 2024 if she is. Democrats are heading toward Kaine not Warren or Brown, Unless progressives drag them back that is. I don't see how you can possibly say that the Democratic party is heading toward the likes of Kaine, an older white male that is most definitely a politician out of prior generations that also isn't very well-known or particularly liked. And its not like the hard line, accept no compromise progressives are a large enough voting block at this point. In 4-8 years they probably will be. Sanders did come pretty close to winning the democratic nomination with them. The major of those voters are going to vote for Clinton now. Because they understand progress in a painfully slow manner over generations, not in massive leaps.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that they won't vote for the most progressive voice in the next primary. Or worse, sit out if there's no decent choice. I think Bernie showed the democrats that there's plenty of enthusiasm for actual left wing positions... just not the vague, corporatist bullshit that the democrats have been pandering since the 90s. If they want to win midterms, those type of candidates are what they need to actually get their voters out. A lot of it falls on DWS being fucking horrible.
|
On October 05 2016 12:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal. Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law.
I agree with you. The argument that his hands are tied is dumb when hes pushing to overturn the supreme court case.
However, its equally as dumb not to prosecute women for having abortions. If you read up on the anti-abortion stance at all they know it is a non-starter for most people and they feel like it works against their cause and if it was pointed out to people roe v wade would never be overturned or some amendmant would eventually pass.
The fact that people were surprised that he said it and acted like it was the worst thing ever is stupid is what bothers me. If you actually ever overturned it its only logical that women should be punished. Acting like that is some huge leap is pretty stupid imo.
|
|
|
On October 05 2016 12:25 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:22 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal. On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law. I agree with you. The argument that his hands are tied is dumb when hes pushing to overturn the supreme court case. However, its equally as dumb not to prosecute women for having abortions. If you read up on the anti-abortion stance at all they know it is a non-starter for most people and they feel like it works against their cause and if it was pointed out to people roe v wade would never be overturned or some amendmant would eventually pass. The fact that people were surprised that he said it and acted like it was the worst thing ever is stupid is what bothers me. If you actually ever overturned it its only logical that women should be punished. Acting like that is some huge leap is pretty stupid imo.
The normal way that it is phrased is to punish the doctors for providing an illegal service. In effect, having an abortion would not be illegal, but providing one would be. That amounts to the same overall effect, but the principle is different for some reason.
I think making abortion illegal is a terrible idea though.
|
On October 05 2016 12:25 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:22 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal. On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law. I agree with you. The argument that his hands are tied is dumb when hes pushing to overturn the supreme court case. However, its equally as dumb not to prosecute women for having abortions. If you read up on the anti-abortion stance at all they know it is a non-starter for most people and they feel like it works against their cause and if it was pointed out to people roe v wade would never be overturned or some amendmant would eventually pass. The fact that people were surprised that he said it and acted like it was the worst thing ever is stupid is what bothers me. If you actually ever overturned it its only logical that women should be punished. Acting like that is some huge leap is pretty stupid imo.
Slaver was legal, FYI. And freeing them was illegal. So by your argument, the only thing to do was hang people who freed slaves(yes the punishments were that harsh back then, they hung you for horse theft) So it isn't the only logical thing to do.
|
On October 05 2016 12:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal. Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law. If you write the law that punishes people and then punish people for breaking the law you wrote then you don't get to say "I don't want to punish those people, I just want to uphold the law" anymore.
When you write the law "well I'm not the one executing it"
when you're executing it "I'm just following the law man, no idea who came up with that stuff" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sophisticated reasoning at work here
|
We continue to ship Putin/Trump.
|
lol at CNN teasing their poll results as "minutes away" for like 2 hours now and selling stuff the whole time.
Moral of the story: Assange needs a cable news channel.
|
On October 05 2016 12:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:18 oBlade wrote:On October 05 2016 12:04 KwarK wrote:
I think Pence was doing a much better job with what he had to work with than Kaine for most of it. Trump is such a scandal ridden, corrupt, dishonest and demonstrably unfit candidate for President that Pence was always going to have a tough job trying to defend the indefensible. Through most of it he stuck with the party line of "deny everything" without needing to beg the moderator to call Sean Hannity. I'd hand it to him had he not broken in the one area where his own personal convictions might actually lie with what Trump has said and deliver Kaine an anti-women soundbite to go front and center of the coverage of the debate. He brought up abortion for no reason. He marginalized a much larger and more important demographic in women by trying to shore up a secure pro-life demographic. It was a blunder and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the media didn't try to ride it into the sunset. The pro life thing is something I really think is only about voter feelings, having politicians share their morality, just keeping that cultural presence. Roe v. Wade was 1973 and it's stood through 4 Republican presidents. I don't think there's much in the future besides keeping taxpayer money out of abortion, or various attempts at state rebellions against abortion providers. What chances do you see of anything happening to abortion with Trump/Pence or the next (R) administration, what would it be? Like overturn Roe v. Wade 60%? ? Supreme Court vacancy. If there's a single more conservative the pro-lifers are pretty sure they can get it banned there. There's a ton of people who are basically only voting for Trump because of the supreme court vacancy. Personally, I have my doubts that it would work out the way people are thinking (there's no fucking way a GOP president could get an openly anti-abortion justice past the senate filibuster), but that's the logic being used.
Yes, since it wasn't overturned it the past 43 years I don't see them suddenly hearing a case to delete something so ingrained in law. With or without the "Pence would really be president though" meme. The SCOTUS vacancies are about the 2nd amendment for the Trump campaign.
|
On October 05 2016 12:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2016 12:25 Sadist wrote:On October 05 2016 12:22 KwarK wrote:On October 05 2016 12:21 Sadist wrote:
the punishing women angle is dumb.
If abortion were ever deemed illegal, it is entirely ridiculous that women who have abortions aren't prosecuted for having them. I know its a fight that most anti-abortion activists don't want to discuss and feel like its a non starter because they feel like it holds back their cause but I don't see how logically anyone can argue against charging women if abortion ever were to become illegal. On October 05 2016 11:39 KwarK wrote:
Also xDaunt the "he'd just be enforcing the law, he'd punish them because he believes in a nation of laws, not because he thinks women should be punished for abortions" doesn't really work when he's the one saying he'd overturn Roe vs Wade and make it against the law.
You can't go "my hands are tied, I'm just enforcing the law, I don't necessarily believe in this" when you wrote the damn law. I agree with you. The argument that his hands are tied is dumb when hes pushing to overturn the supreme court case. However, its equally as dumb not to prosecute women for having abortions. If you read up on the anti-abortion stance at all they know it is a non-starter for most people and they feel like it works against their cause and if it was pointed out to people roe v wade would never be overturned or some amendmant would eventually pass. The fact that people were surprised that he said it and acted like it was the worst thing ever is stupid is what bothers me. If you actually ever overturned it its only logical that women should be punished. Acting like that is some huge leap is pretty stupid imo. Slaver was legal, FYI. And freeing them was illegal. So by your argument, the only thing to do was hang people who freed slaves(yes the punishments were that harsh back then, they hung you for horse theft) So it isn't the only logical thing to do.
I understand you could write the law to protect women so that only the doctor is punished. What im saying is that is completely fucking retarded if you consider it immoral to abort children. Of course you could pass a law like that, but its belittling to women IMO.
People know its a non starter even though its only logical to punish the women as well.
Man pushes woman downstairs or assaults woman and baby dies -> man is punished
(in hypothetical world where abortion is illegal for doctors to perform)
Woman asks Doctor to help her abort her child -> doctor punished
Woman tries to kill her unborn child with a coat hanger -> not punished?
Wtf?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
