|
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 January 30 2018 12:11 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:07 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture. But the bill was put out there to force red state democrats to vote against it. And it failed. Republicans in congress don’t want to legislate on abortion. They want to run for election on the issue. That is why poison pill bills like this exist. They are to fuel election campaigns through identity politics. Actually the question is very yes/no. ban after 20 weeks? And that's good, I want to know which Senators don't support it. I thought we were opposed to pulling bills from the floor that we knew would fail? If passed, it would have been signed and become law. That's not a poison bill by any definition.
A poison pill bill is one that you put out there with clauses that you know the opposing party will never vote for. It is designed to fail and paint the other side into a corner.
|
On January 30 2018 11:51 Plansix wrote:
But remember, Trump isn’t connected to Russia and all this investion stuff is fake news. No reason to be suspicious.
Move along everyone. Nothing to see here. Just trust Donald Trump.
|
On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture.
According to the CDC, only 1.3% of abortions occur past the 20 week mark. Could you hazard a guess why that is?
Some health concerns like congenital heart defects or abnormal tissue and organ development are only reliably scanned at the 16+ week mark. If they are late to detect such risks in the baby or to the mother, do you want to be the one to tell them tough luck?
|
On January 30 2018 12:14 Introvert wrote:
Let's just acknowledge that Woodrow Wilson had yet another awful idea and then go back to written statements to Congress.
It was cool for decades. It only got ruined recently when it became other stump speech, rather than an update on the state of the country.
|
|
|
On January 30 2018 12:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:11 Introvert wrote:On January 30 2018 12:07 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture. But the bill was put out there to force red state democrats to vote against it. And it failed. Republicans in congress don’t want to legislate on abortion. They want to run for election on the issue. That is why poison pill bills like this exist. They are to fuel election campaigns through identity politics. Actually the question is very yes/no. ban after 20 weeks? And that's good, I want to know which Senators don't support it. I thought we were opposed to pulling bills from the floor that we knew would fail? If passed, it would have been signed and become law. That's not a poison bill by any definition. A poison pill bill is one that you put out there with clauses that you know the opposing party will never vote for. It is designed to fail and paint the other side into a corner.
Apparently the whole bill is a "clause" now? Of course it would fail, and of course everyone who opposed it should be shown as opposing it. This isn't the Harry Reid tactic of "it won't be signed so we won't vote on it" (now a more common procedure), it's an up or down bill that would become law if not filibustered. Also 20 weeks is fairly popular poll wise I think.
Good Heavens.
On January 30 2018 12:16 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture. According to the CDC, only 1.3% of abortions occur past the 20 week mark. Could you hazard a guess why that is? Some health concerns like congenital heart defects or abnormal tissue and organ development are only reliably scanned at the 16+ week mark. If they are late to detect such risks in the baby or to the mother, do you want to be the one to tell them tough luck?
Then why oppose it? And of course the bill contained exceptions, though not for "fetal abnormalities" as far as I saw.
***
The point is, I'm glad this was put up to a vote, now we can see how they voted.
|
Abortion is still an argument these days?
|
On January 30 2018 12:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:14 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2018 12:11 Introvert wrote:On January 30 2018 12:07 Plansix wrote:On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture. But the bill was put out there to force red state democrats to vote against it. And it failed. Republicans in congress don’t want to legislate on abortion. They want to run for election on the issue. That is why poison pill bills like this exist. They are to fuel election campaigns through identity politics. Actually the question is very yes/no. ban after 20 weeks? And that's good, I want to know which Senators don't support it. I thought we were opposed to pulling bills from the floor that we knew would fail? If passed, it would have been signed and become law. That's not a poison bill by any definition. A poison pill bill is one that you put out there with clauses that you know the opposing party will never vote for. It is designed to fail and paint the other side into a corner. Apparently the whole bill is a "clause" now? Of course it would fail, and of course everyone who opposed it should be shown as opposing it. This isn't the Harry Reid tactic of "it won't be signed so we won't vote on it" (now a more common procedure), it's an up or down bill that would become law if not filibustered. Also 20 weeks is fairly popular poll wise I think. Good Heavens. Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:16 Tachion wrote:On January 30 2018 12:01 Introvert wrote:
Indeed, if only the Democrats in Congress weren't so radical that 20 weeks was too early for them, we could get it under control. But they couldn't even let it pass cloture. According to the CDC, only 1.3% of abortions occur past the 20 week mark. Could you hazard a guess why that is? Some health concerns like congenital heart defects or abnormal tissue and organ development are only reliably scanned at the 16+ week mark. If they are late to detect such risks in the baby or to the mother, do you want to be the one to tell them tough luck? Then why oppose it? And of course the bill contained exceptions, though not for "fetal abnormalities" as far as I saw. *** The point is, I'm glad this was put up to a vote, now we can see how they voted.
So it didn’t have an exception for the number one issue that someone would get this abortion? Because they are extremely uncommon.
|
On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days?
yes, it's still goin gstrong as a fake argument by the republicans. they've been putting in lots of interference laws at the state level in places they're in power.
|
On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days?
Ofc Abortion is still an argument. No one wants china esque late term abortions when the fetus reaches viability. Everyone whos reasonable on the issue has to accept horsetrading on whenever the line is for when you can abort the fetus or not.
|
The main problem is most of the state bills regarding abortion are shit and are designed to limit access, not provide the “reasonable” cut off point. From my understanding, the current bill was poorly drafted and didn’t have the appropriate exceptions.
|
On January 30 2018 12:47 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days? Ofc Abortion is still an argument. No one wants china esque late term abortions when the fetus reaches viability. Everyone whos reasonable on the issue has to accept horsetrading on whenever the line is for when you can abort the fetus or not.
since the abortion you describe aren't a thing and nobody wants them, they're already illegal and not a problem.
there doesn't seem to be much actual horsetrading on the issue; or if there is, it seems rather low-key. not that one would expect much horse-trading on a human rights issue anyways. but I can' really think of much in terms of deals meant to address the issue. you'd think for such an ostensible important issue there'd be some grand bargains on it.
|
This guy had a job in the Trump Administration at one point
|
On January 30 2018 13:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 12:47 Sermokala wrote:On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days? Ofc Abortion is still an argument. No one wants china esque late term abortions when the fetus reaches viability. Everyone whos reasonable on the issue has to accept horsetrading on whenever the line is for when you can abort the fetus or not. since the abortion you describe aren't a thing and nobody wants them, they're already illegal and not a problem. there doesn't seem to be much actual horsetrading on the issue; or if there is, it seems rather low-key. not that one would expect much horse-trading on a human rights issue anyways. but I can' really think of much in terms of deals meant to address the issue. you'd think for such an ostensible important issue there'd be some grand bargains on it.
I know you insufferable nitwit thats what my post says. Learn to give your posts at least a single read through so you don't come off like a middle school learning to use the internet. When one side belives life begins at conception and no one has a real marker for when it begins its going to remain an issue. I had you above Doodsmack but you're starting to slip.
The issues been peculating throughout the decades so the horsetrading happened a while ago in the US. it still happens in other nations.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 30 2018 13:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 13:00 zlefin wrote:On January 30 2018 12:47 Sermokala wrote:On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days? Ofc Abortion is still an argument. No one wants china esque late term abortions when the fetus reaches viability. Everyone whos reasonable on the issue has to accept horsetrading on whenever the line is for when you can abort the fetus or not. since the abortion you describe aren't a thing and nobody wants them, they're already illegal and not a problem. there doesn't seem to be much actual horsetrading on the issue; or if there is, it seems rather low-key. not that one would expect much horse-trading on a human rights issue anyways. but I can' really think of much in terms of deals meant to address the issue. you'd think for such an ostensible important issue there'd be some grand bargains on it. I know you insufferable nitwit thats what my post says. Learn to give your posts at least a single read through so you don't come off like a middle school learning to use the internet. When one side belives life begins at conception and no one has a real marker for when it begins its going to remain an issue. I had you above Doodsmack but you're starting to slip. The issues been peculating throughout the decades so the horsetrading happened a while ago in the US. it still happens in other nations.
yes, you are an idiot; that's not what your post said, so I responded reasonably, and you responded like an ass. not my fault you post poorly then complain when people respond to what you actually wrote rather than what was in your mind that you didn't say. I don't care about your rankings, since you're known to be a poor (though not terrible) quality poster with poor judgment.
User was warned for this post
|
On January 30 2018 13:14 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2018 13:10 Sermokala wrote:On January 30 2018 13:00 zlefin wrote:On January 30 2018 12:47 Sermokala wrote:On January 30 2018 12:27 Doodsmack wrote:
Abortion is still an argument these days? Ofc Abortion is still an argument. No one wants china esque late term abortions when the fetus reaches viability. Everyone whos reasonable on the issue has to accept horsetrading on whenever the line is for when you can abort the fetus or not. since the abortion you describe aren't a thing and nobody wants them, they're already illegal and not a problem. there doesn't seem to be much actual horsetrading on the issue; or if there is, it seems rather low-key. not that one would expect much horse-trading on a human rights issue anyways. but I can' really think of much in terms of deals meant to address the issue. you'd think for such an ostensible important issue there'd be some grand bargains on it. I know you insufferable nitwit thats what my post says. Learn to give your posts at least a single read through so you don't come off like a middle school learning to use the internet. When one side belives life begins at conception and no one has a real marker for when it begins its going to remain an issue. I had you above Doodsmack but you're starting to slip. The issues been peculating throughout the decades so the horsetrading happened a while ago in the US. it still happens in other nations. yes, you are an idiot; that's not what your post said, so I responded reasonably, and you responded like an ass. not my fault you post poorly then complain when people respond to what you actually wrote rather than what was in your mind that you didn't say. I don't care about your rankings, since you're known to be a poor (though not terrible) quality poster with poor judgment.
You must have a poor self image if you call me a poor poster when you can barely use capitalization in your posts.
I said no one wants china esque late term abortions. You respond with that no one wants them. You used word for word what I said and you are dumb enough to say that's not what my post said.
|
Well this memo better deliver at this point. If the only thing it talks about is the renewal of Carter Page's FISA surveillance that's pretty tame. Page was on unrelated FISA surveillance like three years before the election because of his idiocy in dealing with Russian intelligence agents. Republicans' attempts to cast a cloud over the entire FBI and DOJ are a transparent political maneuver to hedge against whatever may come out of the FBI investigation of Trump and his campaign. And apparently this maneuver is being done at the request of Trump himself.
|
Abortion is going to remain an issue, not only because some groups refer to the start of a human life at conception, while others are more lenient, but because it's a very difficult human problem, boiling down to fundamental conflict, reflected by society.
When is a human, a human? Stupid question when you hear it coming from a guy who just got stoned, but one that's actually addressable when a human is gestating inside a womb and there are currently no actual empirical methods available to quantitatively measure when this human has met all its parameters to be considered a human. Some draw the line at "all the potential, so from conception", some draw the line at "brain formation", but in the end it's something we base on a gut feeling of what we consider special enough insofar we shouldn't waste it.
Fundamentally, abortions aren't something you'd want to have as a potential mother. Sometimes you do opt for it out of necessity or if you wouldn't be able to cope (financially or mentally) and that's another issue to consider. Who gets more say in these rights? The mother, who provides a house, food and protection for the embryo, or the potential human life that can make immeasurable contributions to this world? If it's going to be a bit of both (only up to a certain time point can you abort, aka, what we have now), where is that time point?
It's a tough question. Maybe we get over this hurdle in a few decades, once we merge ourselves with AI (or been enslaved by it) or some revolutionary ethicist comes along and blows everyone away with the arguments.
So ultimately this topic is just a reflection of how different (sub)cultures deal with fundamental questions, which makes it very difficult to actually change something in this world on a large scale if you use a non oppressive form of governing.
|
Well. You know, trump and its fellowship of the bling said that they'd drain the swamp, but not to what extend. They turned the swamp into a marsh now. A way bigger and more obvious marsh filled with stupid, but alas. Not a swamp anymore.
So lets give credit where credit is due. Trump tried its hardest to fight corruption, self-interests, manipulation, abuse of power, misrepresentation, lying and the sorts. Including common sense, reason, intelligence, honesty, integrity, the political influence of the US in the world, equality, and those things.
Tough life to fight so many things. It gets up at like 8 to watch a few hours of TV, so it knows what's going on in the USA, then sits on an empty desk with a MAGA hat (it puts it on itself, no further help needed) for pictures, and has to rush to Mar-a-Lago for its umpteenth time of golfing while not getting any, because its trophy-wife is a bit grumpy because it roars about how it can grab any bimbo by the pussy and pays 6 digits to silence a pornstar that it humped.
I mean, come on. Surely you have to see how hard its life is. Ruining the reputation of the US in the world alone is, like, a fulltime job. But don't fret. It has the best bad character, it'll manage quickly and effortlessly.
edit
sidenote, i'm starting to wonder at what point the FBI hits back. I mean, picking a fight with one of the most powerful agencies in the world, especially as a party that has so many criminals that you can just randomly investigate a few and find money launders, pedophiles, traitors etc, that can't be the smortest thing to do? I wonder if at one point ominous leaks start to happen. People in the FBI in the end are still people, and people get fed up eventually. It only differs as to how much a person can take before making a stupid(?) decision.
edit2:
Sidenote, isn't "not putting up sanctions" after being ordered by senate with an overwhelming majority AND signing it into law quite unconstitutional? Good publicity though, i'm sure no one will take anything away from the president just doing a Konrad Adenauer who famously (allegedly) said "the hell do i care about my blabbering from yesterday".
|
Will this memo live up to the hype?
Reading this it's going to be outrage about campaign people being spied on (for dealing with actual russian spies but they will conveniently forget that part) and 'but her emails' episode 377
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
