US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7205

On March 27 2017 15:43 Toadesstern wrote:
as far as I know Germany still has a bunch of gold in the US that we're not getting back from you guys. Maybe he's going to ask for fees for "safekeeping"

On March 27 2017 05:18 biology]major wrote:
This presidency is going worse than I imagined, if they don't make tax reform happen the market will take a huge hit.

On March 27 2017 16:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:

The puzzling thing is that you thought it would go great in the first place.

Now let's get those popcorns while Trump tries to redistribute wealth upward, because that makes sense and inequalities ain't high enough. That will go well with his anti elite message.

On March 27 2017 18:54 ZeaL. wrote:


At least he recognizes that shit isn't right. There's plenty of Trump supporters here in NC who think everything is going great and Trump is doing a heckuva job, nothing but nonstop winning. Not sure how to reach people who live in their own reality.

On March 27 2017 16:58 Aesthetician wrote:
KwarK, you're quite right about how social security works, however you make the assumption that my belief that it's necessary to assure the immediate solvency of the SS fund is due to ignorance of how the system works. I would argue that in fact, you are relying far too much on Congress actually reforming the system in a meaningful way that prevents the eventual drain of it's liquidity. As it stands, there is more coming out of the trust than is going in to it, that's a fact. Medicaid comes from the same revenue, disability does not and I agree I didn't bother to make that statement because nobody, even the hardest right want to cut disability payments. I know you think the government will fix everything, but considering the optics of both increasing the retirement age/benefit amounts AND increasing taxes are terrible, do you think those are a more tenable solution than cutting Medicaid payments? From my perspective on the ground, it seems more viable. Not to be rude but I find it frustrating that you would question my understanding of the subject while avoiding proposing an alternative and at the same time saying that it will all be "corrected" in the future. Your freeway analogy is kind of poor because it assumes that we are in control of the vehicle, I.e. the tax structure used to fund social security. Congress can barely pass a budget let alone make changes to SS.

On March 27 2017 16:58 Aesthetician wrote:
I would argue that in fact, you are relying far too much on Congress actually reforming the system in a meaningful way that prevents the eventual drain of it's liquidity. As it stands, there is more coming out of the trust than is going in to it, that's a fact.

The most important issue for me is that Obamacare isn't repealed so I voted for Trump because he opposed the Trans Pacific Partnership and The Pacific is going to break Obamacare if it continues because I saw that HBO series and they needed a lot of healthcare.

To Win Again, Democrats Must Stop Being the Abortion Party
By THOMAS GROOME 27, 2017

...

Polls indicate that the nation holds mixed views about abortion. About 80 percent of Americans don’t want to criminalize it again. At the same time, at least 60 percent of Americans — and most likely a higher percentage of Catholics — oppose abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Yet despite the clear complexity of those attitudes, political discourse largely ignores the possibility of a middle ground between making all abortions legal or prohibiting them entirely. Ms. Clinton, like most Democratic politicians, fell into this either/or trap last year.

When asked about abortion in the third presidential debate, Mrs. Clinton focused on the importance of a woman’s right to choose, saying: “I strongly support Roe v. Wade.” But in making it appear as if she was viewing a wrenching moral decision only through a legal lens, she was losing many Catholic and evangelical voters. For them, her uncompromising defense of Roe was comparable to telling a group of Quakers, “I’m in favor of war,” without even mentioning preconditions.

Mr. Trump, in contrast, offered a graphic description of “ripping the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day,” as if this were standard procedure. (More than 90 percent of American abortions are in the first trimester.)

Amid Mr. Trump’s dysfunction as president, Democrats may have a chance to reclaim their Catholic base in the 2018 midterm elections. By tradition and by our church’s teaching on social justice, many Catholics could readily return to voting reliably Democratic. But for this to happen, their moral concerns regarding abortion must get a hearing within the party, rather than being summarily dismissed. How might that happen?

To begin with, Democratic politicians should publicly acknowledge that abortion is an issue of profound moral and religious concern. As a candidate, Barack Obama did just that in a 2008 interview, saying, “Those who diminish the moral elements of the decision aren’t expressing the full reality of it.”

Democrats should not threaten to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which forbids federal funds to be used for abortion except in extreme circumstances. They could also champion an aggressive program to promote adoption by strengthening the Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 and streamlining adoption procedures. The regulations in many states seem designed to discourage it.

Democratic politicians should also continue to frame their efforts to improve health and social services as a way to decrease abortions. The abortion rate dropped 21 percent from 2009 to 2014. That downward trend would most likely end if Republicans eliminate contraception services provided through the Affordable Care Act.

That Donald Trump, claiming to be anti-abortion, got the majority of Catholic votes to defeat a competent and decent Democrat underscores the continuing influence of abortion in American politics. If Democrats want to regain the Catholic vote, they must treat abortion as a moral issue, work for its continued reduction and articulate a more nuanced message than, “We support Roe v. Wade.”