|
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 February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support.
|
On February 10 2017 02:54 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:53 brian wrote:On February 10 2017 02:51 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:49 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:42 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. Sure, it's illegal, but very little is done to ensure that abortions are freely chosen and not done under coercion. Just because there isn't somebody standing there holding a gun to their head doesn't mean it isn't coerced. And coercion is very hard to prove unless the person being coerced is willing to speak out. However, this is pretty tangential, because if she weren't coerced to go to a PP clinic for the abortion, those same assholes forcing her to have an abortion would probably forcefully stick a coathanger up her vagina, make her OD on birth control pills or resort to even less safe ways to force her body to abort. Just because there are assholes in the world who will coerce women to abort against their will, doesn't mean access to abortion should be restricted. Coercion is hard to prove, but I'm sorry, it's not freely chosen if it's coerced. Forcing a coathanger into a woman leaves biological evidence that allows a woman to go to the police and report a crime. On the other hand, telling someone "go get an abortion or I'm evicting you" leaves no criminal evidence unless taped. so your argument is that a dead woman has proof that she's dead and that's preferable to a coerced abortion because you cannot prove it? I'm saying that somebody who's trying to force a woman to have an abortion (pimp, evil parents/boyfriend/spouse, etc.) can easily get away with it so long as elective abortions are freely available at cost. However they would be more reluctant to do so if they can't easily get away with it.
That applies to all coercion though. They could force them to get plastic surgery too.
|
On February 10 2017 02:46 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:41 Plansix wrote:On February 10 2017 02:39 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 LightSpectra wrote:
I also dispute whether "pro choice" is indeed accurate because lots of women get abortions that were practically forced upon them by their parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever, but nobody cares about that so long as the consent form is signed. By definition, those parents/boyfriends/pimps/whomever are not pro-choice. Do you know what choice means? Moreover, I'm pretty sure coercion is already illegal. You are correct. Forcing anyone to do anything through threat of violence is illegal. So, if we're playing LS's reasoning game, that means that pro-choice people have no problem committing violence and performing illegal activities simply by virtue of them being pro-choice. The fact that neither the premise nor half of the argument's steps are sensible doesn't seem to matter. Again, I never said that, just that the establishment created by pro-choice people is morally liable of not doing enough to actually prevent coerced abortions. But if you feel better misrepresenting what I'm saying, go ahead.
Shouldn't all people be concerned about coerced abortions, especially those who are pro-life? I mean, a coerced abortion is still an abortion, right? Why are liberals supposed to be the only moral and good group of people?
|
On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support.
I would argue that both parties life ups were weak as shit for a bunch of reasons. The DNC does hold responsibility for that lack luster line up.
|
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:51 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:44 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:37 a_flayer wrote:On February 10 2017 02:20 KwarK wrote:On February 10 2017 02:13 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 02:04 kwizach wrote:On February 10 2017 02:01 LightSpectra wrote:On February 10 2017 01:58 Mohdoo wrote:On February 10 2017 01:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 01:39 LightSpectra wrote:
[quote]
No, you're just wrong. Planned Parenthood's spent the last decade phasing out actual health care in order to increase funding for abortion and advertising their abortion facilities. There's a reason why everybody hates them. They get caught selling fetal body parts, the DNC just comes out and denies it ever happened. They get caught aiding sex traffickers by giving abortions to underage prostitutes, so instead of instructing their staff on how to catch sex traffickers, they instruct their staff on how to detect undercover journalists instead. Are you trying to troll us with this crap? It's common knowledge that literally none of that is true, so either you're absurdly misinformed, or you're not taking this seriously. The power of Facebook news I read the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and the Intercept every day. I've seen the attempted refutations against the allegations of Planned Parenthood, none of them checked out in the end. Alright, can you provide evidence supporting any of the allegations you raised, then? Okay here you go: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/files/114/Analysis/20161230Select_Panel_Final_Report.pdfCheck out document pg. xxv (it's 27 in the PDF). Warning, 50 MB file. Chapter IV. The Criminal Referrals
The Select Investigative Panel has made numerous criminal and regulatory referrals and
investigations are underway around the nation.
1) The Panel learned that StemExpress and certain abortion clinics may have violated the HIPAA
privacy rights of vulnerable women for the sole purpose of increasing the harvesting of fetal
tissue to make money. Referred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2) The Panel uncovered evidence showing that StemExpress may have violated federal
regulations governing Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Referred to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
3) The Panel discovered that the University of New Mexico may have been violating its state’s
Anatomical Gift Act by receiving tissue from a late-term abortion clinic (Southwestern Women’s
Options). Referred to the Attorney General of New Mexico.
4 & 5) The Panel conducted a forensic accounting analysis of StemExpress’ limited production
and determined that it may have been profiting from the sale of baby body parts. Referral sent to
El Dorado, California District Attorney, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
6) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Arkansas may have violated the law when it
sent tissue to StemExpress. Referred to the Attorney General of Arkansas.
7) The Panel discovered that DV Biologics, another tissue procurement company, may have been
profiting from the sale of fetal tissue, and was not collecting California sales tax from purchasers
of the baby body parts. The Orange County District Attorney has filed a lawsuit and the Panel
sent a supplemental referral.
8) The Panel learned that Advanced Bioscience Resources appeared to have made a profit when
it sold tissue to various universities. Referred to the District Attorney for Riverside County,
California.
9) The Panel discovered that an abortion clinic in Florida, at least in part through its relationship
with StemExpress, may have violated various provisions of federal and state law by profiting
from the sale of fetal tissue. Referred to the Attorney General of Florida.
xxvi
10) The Panel learned that Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast may have violated both Texas law
and U.S. law when it sold fetal tissue to the University of Texas. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General.
11 & 12) The Panel has uncovered evidence from former employees and a patient of a late-term
abortionist in Texas alleging numerous violations of federal and state law at one or more of the
practitioner’s clinics. The allegations include eyewitness accounts of the doctor killing infants
who show signs of life both when partially outside the birth canal, in violation of the PartialBirth
Abortion Ban Act, and after they are completely outside the birth canal, in violation of the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and Texas murder statutes. Referred to the Texas Attorney
General, and the U.S. Department of Justice.
13) The Panel has discovered information that StemExpress may have destroyed documents that
were the subject of congressional inquiries, document request letters, and subpoenas, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. Referred to the U.S. Department of Justice.
14) The Panel made a supplemental referral to the Attorney General of New Mexico based on
information produced in document productions by the University of New Mexico (UNM) and
Southwestern Women’s Options (SWWO), deposition testimony by Doctor #5, and a complaint
and affidavit with supporting documents submitted by a former patient at SWWO. It details the
alleged failure of SWWO and UNM to provide informed consent to women prior to using tissue
from abortions for research at the university.
15) Over the course of its investigation, the Panel has uncovered documents and received
testimony from confidential informants indicating that several entities, including four Planned
Parenthood clinics and Novogenix, may have violated federal law, specifically Title 42 U.S.C. §
289g-2, which forbids the transfer of fetal tissue for valuable consideration. Referred to the U.S.
Department of Justice. Which of those do you think proves your fake news stories? That is just really unnecessarily annoying and nitpicky of you Kwark. It comes as no surprise to me that an organization occasionally breaks the law in various states. There is a ridiculous amount of legislation everywhere these days. I'm sure I've broken various laws over the course of my lifetime. Hell, I broke the law a couple of times while I was in the US for three months a decade or so ago. It just depends on whether you want to be critical of an organization (or person) whether or not you choose to let it bother you, and whether you have strong beliefs (you might not care that I illegally bought & smoked pot in the US, but other people might). What just happened in this thread is you guys called someone out for believing fake news, when that fake news was not actually fake, but based on an official document. This is similar to that story about "Yemen withdraws from allowing US anti-terrorism operations" that was propagated by "an official" and posted in the New York times, and then proceeded to believe it was fact before it was retracted? Sure, the NYT only referred to "the official" who claimed this was the case, but it was still spread around, and then oh so many people believe it as fact. Maybe even you did. I can already hear the "false equivalence" claims, but it comes down to the same sort of thing. I cannot imagine you don't read things from time to time where it says "may" or "an official says" and choose to believe it as fact. Especially if it suits your own narrative. I do it, everybody does it. After that, it just comes down to luck or persistence whether you see the retraction, or whether you leave with the thought that "may" is an ambiguous sort of statement in the first place (based on how much you are invested in the subject). It was fake news! Go back and read his complaints. If you've been paying attention you can literally recall the fake scandals they came from. His first one was from the graph with no axes that was put together by an extreme pro-life group and was presented out of context by Chaffetz. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/congressman-chaffetz-misleading-graph-smear-planned-parenthoodThe second one was O'Keefe's video pretending to be a pimp. He was forced to retract it and pay out $100,000. But the stink lives on long after the flatulent individual was shamed. The fact that none of it happened doesn't seem to impact his beliefs at all. The third one was the body part scandal which was also shown to just be routine reimbursements for expenses. His explanation for why that scandal never materialized with any real issues, apparently the DoJ covered it all up. We are not dealing with an informed individual here. We are dealing with facebook forwards from your right wing uncle and I refuse to dignify it. I don't know anything about the O'Keefe stuff, nor do I care the slightest bit. I'm basing my opinion regarding your treatment of this person on the document that was linked (and the very annoying highlights of words such as "may" and "appeared"). The document is quite clear that Planned Parenthood may have violated a whole slew of state laws. If you are the kind of person who would want to be critical of Planned Parenthood, then this will matter you and you have legitimate reasons to be concerned about whether or not they are wholesome enough according to your own tastes. You and I are not critical of Planned Parenthood because of the obvious good things they do, and are willing to let these things slide. The DoJ was willing to let them slide based on whatever reasonings they used, but that does not mean everybody has to do this. You might be likely to let dubious things that HRC did within the letter of the law slide, but might be far more critical of Trumps dealings that are technically within the letter of the law. It is a matter of priorities and subjective opinion.
I'll talk you through this slowly.
1) A hit video was made alleging that PP did a bunch of things, notably selling baby parts.
2) An awful lot of pro-life people shared the propaganda based upon the hit videos, exaggerating it with each retelling. They got very upset.
3) Republican legislators vowed to have a thorough investigation because that's what they do. It's just like they vowed to get to the bottom of the murder of Ben Ghazi. Whenever the uninformed half of America get upset about something the party that panders hardest to them vows to get to the bottom of it.
4) They conclude that it may have happened and ask the DoJ to look into it.
5) The DoJ conclude that the allegations were false.
I dismiss it as fake news because the entire scandal was built on hit videos being shared on facebook in a shitty game of telephone. I dismiss no shortage of fake news from the opposite direction too. You don't see me demanding a two year, $200,000,000 investigation into the Trump golden shower allegations, and if one did exist and then said "honestly, we don't actually know, we should let some professionals investigate this" and then the FBI said "we found no credible evidence", that'd be sufficient to me.
|
On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support.
1. Agreed.
2. I love the fact that this comment just randomly pops up in the middle of our current deluge of other-topic posts 
|
On February 10 2017 02:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support. I would argue that both parties life ups were weak as shit for a bunch of reasons. The DNC does hold responsibility for that lack luster line up.
I was merely pointing out that the loss came from other variables. Specifically mismanagement of GOTV, and disproportionate outreach planning. The states she shouldn't have lost were lost in super thin margins, margins that could actually have been fixed with better spending strategies even that late in the game. The loss was purely on them not their base.
|
On February 10 2017 02:51 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 10 2017 02:18 Acrofales wrote:On February 10 2017 02:08 Nevuk wrote:
Clinton is pretty consistently pro abortion. It has been like her only consistent stance ever. The democratic party as a whole isn't, though. And PP provably prevents far more than it causes. Et tu? There is no such thing as pro-abortion. Absolutely nobody is pro-abortion. Nobody thinks having an abortion is a good thing. Lots of people think being able to have an abortion is a good thing. Clinton is indeed very firmly in that camp. she's said: I would hate to see the government interfering with that decision (late term abortion) Sourcealso: Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that SourceThen shes Been on record in favor (as opposed to "open") of a late pregnancy regulation that would have exceptions for the life and health of the mother SourceThen at the debate:
This is one of the worst possible choices that any women and her family has to make and I do not believe the government should be making it
The government has no business in the decisions that women make... I will stand up for that right
sourceSo one week she supportive of government restrictions, and then another she thinks they have no business in the decision. Whatever. I don't give a rat's ass about Hillary (and why the hell do you?). I was just assuming Nevuk was right about Hillary's position being pro -choice.
Part of the kick-off to this conversation was the suggestion that the Democratic platform was radical on late term abortions and the connection to PP was problematic. I was pointing out that the party nominee was actually in favor of late term restrictions, at least sometimes.
So Hillary likely wouldn't have actually prevented restrictions on abortions after 20-24 weeks except in cases of a threat to the life/health of the mother.
On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol
Fanfu**ingtastic and that sack of dicks Manchin gave him a "bi-partisan vote" for Sessions substance incompetent ass...
But yeah, the Democratic party totally gets this country....
|
On February 10 2017 02:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:38 OuchyDathurts wrote:On February 10 2017 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 10 2017 02:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:
The problem with abortion is one side is 0% ever and the other side is sometimes if you want them. When one end of the argument is an absolute the other side needs to take the absolute position on the other end. Democrats should move to forced abortions in 100% of pregnancies. Then you meet at the reasonable spot in the middle. That's honestly the problem with most political issues. You're starting with one person in the extreme. Republicans want 0 abortions, 0 taxes, 0 spending 0 regulation. Democrats start from a middle ground area and as such things always shift further and further towards that 0 as has been happening for a while. Obama, Hillary, Bill all quite a bit to the right. Democrats need to understand they're not on an even playing field and start from further out to get to where they really want to be. But that's exactly why Republicans are being absolutely ridiculous with so many of their positions, while Democrats are being so reasonable with theirs. There's no reason for Democrats to be equally-as-absurd-in-the-other-direction, because then they're just being ridiculous like Republicans. Or is your argument that the Democrats should pretend to be so closed-minded so that a "fair" compromise would be what the Democrats really wanted all along? They gotta realize they're playing a game vs lunatics and act accordingly. They aren't playing by your rules and things will only shift further right till its realized. You go into negotiations with an absurd number you know the other person won't accept and you move till where you want to be in the end, that's like rule number 1. At this point you're looking at more the former instead of the latter. You're going to see populist left people popping up just like we've seen from the right for a while. They are coming, current Dems better start pretending but it will already be too little too late for many. People are going to turn on neoliberals for not actually doing enough, letting things go too far right so they want someone who will yank back hard. But then, if Democrats and Republicans are both equally removed from common sense and facts and what the majority of people want, isn't it basically a 50/50 crapshoot as to whether people will still support Democrats or start to support Republicans? We already know that Republican extremism is slowly but surely dying out (literally, as the generations progress), so maybe it's just a matter of time before Republicans start realizing they have to slowly give in a little to remain relevant (just like how some of the establishment has already conceded gay rights and special-case abortions)?
Republican craziness is dying out as it relates to Religion. Younger people are less religious and think inflicting silly rules based on a holy book on people who may be their friends is insane. So yeah that stuff will eventually die out, but the other policies remain. No taxes, no spending, no regulations, etc don't rely on any religious text at all, those stances can remain at the absolute position of zero. The anti abortion stances get weaker certainly as its by and large driven by religion, so that will get softer as people die, but there will still be some clingers on.
Democrats just need to understand they're playing vs people who make up their own rules and play accordingly. It took a while for Obama to figure it out, he thought he could play nicey nice with Republicans and maybe they'd meet him half way so they watered down a lot of stuff they didn't need to. They ain't playing ball so stop using the rule book if they ain't going to. Populism is hot hot hot right now all across the planet. Left and right, racist and not, its spreading like wildfire. I'm sure things will come back to rationality eventually but right now its thunderdome. Understand that if you don't shift you'll just get dragged further to the right just like things have for the past 35 years.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:52 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:52 KwarK wrote:
Putting crisis social workers into PP clinics would probably be a very good use of money. If a vulnerable group of people with few other options end up there then there should be front line help available to them there. Obviously not everyone who needs an abortion is in trouble, but having a system for immediate referrals would be pretty good. Yes, that's a good idea. But like I already noted, PP would be reluctant at best to do so because it's a monetary conflict of interest.
Ah yes, just like how they refuse to give people contraceptives, sabotage existing contraceptives and undermine sex education.
How does this all stay straight in your head? I'm assuming you are aware that PP is a front line service dispensing birth control and family planning, generally at no cost. And yet you believe that they've got a profit motive to try and maximize unwanted pregnancies which overrides all other concerns and which will prevent them from doing any action which could reduce unwanted pregnancies.
How does this work in your head? Genuinely curious. I'm sure you believe that somehow giving out free condoms is a way for PP to achieve their monetary goal of selling as many aborted fetuses as possible but I'm really curious how we get from the first to the second.
|
On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol
It takes a real effort for a man who says stupid things daily to surprise me with something stupid he says. He has found a way. I didn't even know this was on the table.
|
why do I have a feeling that he's not talking about the opioid epidemic?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2017 02:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2017 18:03 Velr wrote:
The people that gave Obama the office just didn't show up.
Hillary was a terrible candidate so she couldn't gather enough support from her own base, therefore Trump won. End of Story.
Someone who gets 3million more votes than the other guy does not have an issue of not having enough support.
It's more of an electability problem.
|
On February 10 2017 03:05 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 02:58 farvacola wrote:
Trump appeared before a group of police chiefs today and stated that he will ramp up the war on drugs.
lol It takes a real effort for a man who says stupid things daily to surprise me with something stupid he says. He has found a way. I didn't even know this was on the table.
Gotta put those black boys behind bars so they can't vote Democrat.
Its the backup plan now that discriminatory voting laws keep getting struck down.
|
On February 10 2017 03:07 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
why do I have a feeling that he's not talking about the opioid epidemic?
Because you are mildly aware of history through the endless media over the last 20 years saying the war on drugs is a failure and code for racism.
|
At a swearing-in ceremony for Attorney General Jeff Sessions Thursday, President Donald Trump signed three executive orders related to immigration and law enforcement. Details on the orders were not immediately available.
“He will be a great protector of the people,” Trump said of Sessions before announcing the orders.
First, Trump said, he was directing the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to “undertake all necessary and lawful action to break the back of the criminal cartels that have spread across our nation and are destroying the blood of our youth and other people, many other people.”
“Enforcing federal law with respect to the trans-national criminal organization in preventing international trafficking,” Trump read as he signed the order later.
The second order, he said, would direct the Department of Justice “to form a task force on reducing violent crime in America.” Later he described it as a “task force on crime reduction and public safety.”
Finally, Trump said, he would direct the Department of Justice “to implement a plan to stop crime and crimes of violence against law enforcement officers.”
“It's a shame what's been happening to our great, truly great, law enforcement officers. That's going to stop as of today,” he said, reading later while signing the order: “Preventing violence against federal, state, tribal and local law enforcement officials.”
Copies of the executive orders had not been made available to the press as of Trump’s signing them. The Department of Justice referred TPM to the White House for more details on the orders. The White House was not immediately available for comment.
“Today's ceremony should be seen as a clear message to the gang members and drug dealers terrorizing innocent people, your day is over. A new era of justice begins, and it begins right now,” Trump said at the end of his prepared remarks, before he signed the orders.
Source
|
The problem with the "conflict of interest" argument is that it applies to every medical provider doing literally anything. Our entire medical system functions based on the assumption that providers are acting in good faith. If you can't accept this assumption, you have bigger issues than just PP.
That someone *could* act in bad faith is not automatically damning.
|
United States42691 Posts
On February 10 2017 03:10 TheYango wrote:
The problem with the "conflict of interest" argument is that it applies to every medical provider doing literally anything. Our entire medical system functions based on the assumption that providers are acting in good faith. If you can't accept this assumption, you have bigger issues than just PP.
That someone *could* act in bad faith is not automatically damning.
The problem with the conflict of interest argument is that it is patently absurd. PP gets a shitton of funding for its contraceptive work, of which it does an awful lot, and does not sell aborted fetuses. Therefore the argument that "PP sells aborted fetuses and therefore wants to maximize abortions and therefore could never do anything to reduce unwanted pregnancies" is about as dumb as an argument could get.
|
I remember some people actually saying that both candidates suck, but at least Trump said he was going to legalize weed! Oh god my sides. Trump is going to help empower those shitty awful inner cities! You know what they need? More of their father figures in jail for drugs. I'm sure that'll help a ton.
13th on Netflix should be required viewing in America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
