US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9439

On December 06 2017 08:43 Introvert wrote:

Like I said, I'd have to find it, and perhaps I will do so later. But his MSNBC statement is pretty hard to ignore. it's not like abortion is federally restricted after 20 weeks. I believe that's a state by state thing and he opposes any restrictions. he can try to walk it back if he wants, he never expected to be this close to winning I assume.

Also his statement of something like "let me be clear, when they are born that's when I become a right-to-lifer" is pretty hilarious, in a dark sort of way.

On December 06 2017 08:48 KwarK wrote:
Once the fetus has got to the point where it has a shot at living outside of the womb doesn't an abortion simply become a c-section or premature labour? I don't think that anyone is advocating to kill them at that point. A doctor isn't going to come in afterwards saying "Madam, your abortion went wrong and the fetus is still alive, shall we toss it in the medical waste or shred it?"

On December 06 2017 08:40 zlefin wrote:


yes, I did not knowk offhand why he was so objectionable, which is WHY I asked several times. not sure why you felt the need to ask.
how radical is he? Is he truly radical, or is that just how you describe the general democrat party view? because I doubt he'd be truly radical if he'd fit in normally in the Dem party. and it being the state it's in, it'd seem implausible for his view to be one that the Dems would say goes too far (i.e. dems in red-leaning states tend to be more conservative than dems in blue-leaning states)

I do get the pro-life argument; but I have to note that if you consider your opponents so bad that you'd prefer a chlid molester to them, don't be surprised if they feel that it's impossible to make a deal with you, as you clearly place them so low on the rungs of humanity that you'd imprison/kill them all. not that that's quite how I see it, but it's adjacent to where I see it.

I already looked at your criticism on that other viewpoint; and addressed it, was there more you wanted to say on it?
As long as you maintain the other claims you made on the post that started this chain, we're free to criticize those claims, if you're retracting them, then of course i'd be fine with dropping further inquiries on that.

On December 06 2017 08:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:


No, abortion isn't federally restricted after 20 weeks. BUT IT WAS GOING TO BE. That was the bill he was being asked about, which passed the House (but not yet the Senate at the time...I think...which was why it came up, sort of a "how would you vote on this upcoming bill?")

Anyway, if you can find something please let me know-PM would probably be better here. If you can't find something, please also let me know, and at least think about what it means for the political system that you became convinced he had a history of supporting these types of abortions.

On December 06 2017 08:48 KwarK wrote:
Once the fetus has got to the point where it has a shot at living outside of the womb doesn't an abortion simply become a c-section or premature labour? I don't think that anyone is advocating to kill them at that point. A doctor isn't going to come in afterwards saying "Madam, your abortion went wrong and the fetus is still alive, shall we sell it to Planned Parenthood for spare parts or shred it?"

On December 06 2017 08:59 zlefin wrote:
intro ->
I did follow it; and nothing you've said shows that jones actually is radical. only some vaguely remembered points. if you come up with some actual direct citations i'll review. otherwise, the evidence does not show jones being other than well within the typical range of a Dem on the issue.
if you're calling ALL dems radical, then you'd need some more justification as to why it's radical, and none has been provided.

You very clearly are saying you would, to a considerable degree, prefer a child molester (moore) to the to all appearances average Democrat (Jones). you expressed enough ambivalence to establish that you put them on a similar footing; which would mean you rate an average dem to be equal to a child molester. if you treat your opponents like that, then you can't be surprised if your opponents think you're a bad person, since you're (without good cause) marking them as being that evil.


PS not quoting you sinc eyou quoted two people, and it makes the q uote chains impossible to read/edit when they get too cumbersome like that.

On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:


i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it.

Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself.

On December 06 2017 09:38 zlefin wrote:
yes, it's a pity that ending things like the hyde amendment, so that federal dollars could be spent on medical procedures that benefit the country, is so objectionable; but we can't expect sensible policy from people. so we hvae to partially support their nonsensical beliefs that hurt the world.

On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:

You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions.