|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
The nanosecond Justin is taken off script his favourite words are "umm" and "errr". If you want to see his father taken off script watch the "Just Watch Me" sequence during the "October Crisis" with a media guy firing random questions at him. The difference between father and son is stark.
Pierre Trudeau//P.E.T. is 1000X the intellectual Justin is. Justin was never a cabinet minister before becoming PM. P.E.T. was a lawyer, QC and Law Professor before entering politics. Justin is a high school teacher who couldn't handle the worst engineering school in Canada.
P.E.T. had strong and coherent views on economic theory. Justin hasn't got a clue.
Canada's last really good Prime Minister was Jean Chretien. From 1994 to 2007 Canada's standard of living rose over 20%. The vast majority of that time while Chretien was Prime Minister. After he retired in 2003 Canada began to stagnant and now Canada is slowly declining. Bad Ontario Premiers have contributed to this slow decline.
Canada's very weak leadership was a factor in my decision to move to New York state.
Tying this back to the thread topic. Do any of the Democratic nominees discuss how they'd alter the USMCA if elected? if so, why would their changes be an improvement?
Justin Trudeau will be anxious to renegotiate parts of the USMCA should a democrat win the 2020 election due to several concessions his regime made. . Justin Trudeau also wants the appearance of good relations with a Democrat Prez after being put through the ringer by Trump. So the USMCA could be a good opportunity for a new democrat Prez.
The USMCA represents over 1 trillion per year in trade while trade with China is 0.6 trillion. The USMCA has provisions to prevent China from using Mexico or Canada to circumvent the deals/restrictions China has with the USA. Therefore, I'd say the USMCA is the most important trade deal the United States has. I'm surprised no one is talking about it.
|
Tons of corroborated allegations citing Klobuchar to be a super toxic boss. Even though she'll likely fizzle out on her own without this going public, this kind of drama can often times be even more persuasive to the average voter than abstract policy positions, because *everyone* knows what it's like to be treated like shit by a supervisor or employer.
Here are all the accusations made against Klobuchar in news reports:
-Former aides alleged in reports by The New York Times, BuzzFeed News, and Yahoo that Klobuchar verbally abused and exploded at staff in private and public, including in front of other members of Congress.
-At least four staffers told BuzzFeed and The New York Times that Klobuchar threw binders and phones in the direction of staffers during verbal outbursts, unintentionally hitting at least one aide.
-Multiple staffers in each of the four reports alleged that Klobuchar sent emails at all hours of the day and night berating staff in all-caps and calling their work "the worst" she had ever seen. “In 20 years in politics I have never seen worse prep,” she wrote in one email reported on by The New York Times.
-Klobuchar copied other staffers not involved in the situation on those emails to publicly humiliate aides she thought had produced bad work, former aides alleged in the BuzzFeed report.
-She also accused her staff of sabotaging both her career and her marriage, former staffers alleged in the Times story.
-The Senator retaliated against former staffers who tried to leave her office by calling their new employers and demanding they rescind their job offers, several aides told HuffPost, Yahoo News, and The Times. (Klobuchar's office denied that she had ever disparaged her staff to other members of Congress).
-Klobuchar allegedly prevented one staffer from leaving her office to take a high-profile job in the US Treasury Department under the Obama administration, the aide told the Huffington Post.
-Multiple Senate and campaign staffers told the Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, and Yahoo that they were required to perform personal errands and tasks like washing dishes, folding laundry, cleaning Klobuchar's house, and picking up her dry cleaning — which could be in violation of Senate ethics rules.
-The Huffington Post reported that Klobuchar was personally confronted by then-Senate minority leader Harry Reid over her treatment of her staff, a conversation Reid did not confirm and Klobuchar says she doesn't recall.
-The local union that opposed her 2006 Senate run alleged she hired attorneys who would "support her ambitions" and be loyal to her at the expense of more qualified candidates while Hennepin County Attorney.
-The union also accused her of hindering wage increases for the attorneys working in her office to make them more on par with other county attorney's offices, which she denied at the time.
-Klobuchar also told one union rep that it made sense for the highest-paid employees in the office to be paid less than the entry-level lawyers at her previous private firm because none of the Hennepin County attorneys were "competent enough" to work at her former law firm anyway, the letter claimed.
Excerpt from https://www.businessinsider.com/all-staff-mistreatment-abuse-allegations-amy-klobuchar-2020-2019-2?amp&__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR15eloNEMLr-g9sjlxybtP585_De33nuDpl0WJA7XeYP2hjzvBAMhfoGTo
|
Bernie Sanders fundamentally opposes the USMCA. He also voted against 1993's NAFTA. Was he around for the 1988 Canada//USA FTA?
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-opposes-trumps-usmca-full-statement
"Let us defeat NAFTA 2.0 and go back to the drawing board to protect American workers, to protect the environment and to lift the living standards of all workers."
So I'm guessing Bernie would like to scrap the USMCA if elected President. It was ratified by an 89-10 vote in its favour so scrapping it will be tough.
|
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. However, the movement he has started will certainly outlast him.
Here is an interesting article which speaks volumes:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/younger-americans-benefit-boomer-socialism-support-bernie-sanders-capitalism-reason-2020-2-1028908562
Older generations benefitted from things like pensions, and lower cost college, healthcare, housing and cars, but as that ladder that elevated the older generations gets pulled up and more people can't live at the standard their parents did (and are), it creates people who tend shift to one extreme or another. Economic instability is the foundation of nearly every revolution. It is easy to predict which nations will fail and which will succeed regardless of type of government, just look at their economy.
I'm honestly scared that moderate political views will die completely. We'll shift between extremes (though I believe the hard left and far right are incredibly similar, as Communism and National Socialism where, the political horseshoe applies) and we'll end up with more major wars because of it.
I guess that is humanity's fate though, this period of relative stability is long for the standards of the world.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. However, the movement he has started will certainly outlast him. Here is an interesting article which speaks volumes: https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/younger-americans-benefit-boomer-socialism-support-bernie-sanders-capitalism-reason-2020-2-1028908562Older generations benefitted from things like pensions, and lower cost college, healthcare, housing and cars, but as that ladder that elevated the older generations gets pulled up and more people can't live at the standard their parents did (and are), it creates people who tend shift to one extreme or another. Economic instability is the foundation of nearly every revolution. It is easy to predict which nations will fail and which will succeed regardless of type of government, just look at their economy. I'm honestly scared that moderate political views will die completely. We'll shift between extremes (though I believe the hard left and far right are incredibly similar, as Communism and National Socialism where, the political horseshoe applies) and we'll end up with more major wars because of it. I guess that is humanity's fate though, this period of relative stability is long for the standards of the world.
I'd be weary of calling Sanders out of the race, right now he's leading nation wide and is the one with the best avenue to victory, obviously things may be changing once people start to drop out of the race but with Bloomberg pretty much guarantee to stay until the end, i'd can't imagine neither Buttigieg, Biden or Klobuchar finding enough money to stay until the end, there's too many people that wants neither Sanders or Bloomberg. If it's a three (or more) people race Sanders has the best shot of everybody + he has the most loyal base. The format of the primary also run to his advantage, since it's mostly proportional splitting of the delegates and he's fairly strong everywhere he can stomach a few second places if overall he run above everyone else. Obviously him getting the majority of the vote is pretty much out of the question, but he could still get the most delegate, maybe even a majority.
As for tendency to shift to extreme, I'm not quite sure. I think it's good to remember that what seems like "center" politics, is quite arbitrary. For example invading Afghanistan, organizing massive deportation programs for latino immigrant without papers, changing the federal reserve mission, legalizing gay marriage or slashing taxes for corporation were all "centrist" position, coming either from bi-partisans effort, a lack or real debate at all or the supreme court in case of gay marriage, but they all had very deep and drastic effect on the life of millions of people. It's easy to have the illusion that there's a "center" that would be the place where the left and the right converge and meet and that those people at the center have just as many ideas and goal as everyone else.
Left and right was just a term used to separate between partisans of absolute monarchy and those oppose to it at the start of the french revolution, not quite relevant to today's politics. The resemblance between Communism and National Socialism is a good example where the right and left opposition gives us very little information about the nature of those regime while an analysis of them as experience of totalitarianism might be a lot more revealing. For example, it might be more pertinent to focus on the transformation of the state itself and of the legality systems than on the form of the political discourse and the opinion of individuals at the time. The Nazi "revolution" after all was a state lead affair, not a mater of public uprising, China is probably an even more blatant example. I won't speculate on where the world's going, cause I don't have more of clue than anyone else, but history never play the same twice.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this.
It does look like that at first glance, but the thing is, it doesn't look like anyone else can "take this" either. The vote is just generally very split among many candidates. But if he looks like a relatively clear frontrunner, I'm certain that Sanders will start to gain support from a hefty crowd of moderates as well. He's not so far left that he's unpalatable to the Democratic base, he's just not the first choice of many of those in the middle.
Though if the real question is if he can "take this" in terms of fending off the many entrenched interests working against him, that's definitely an interesting question.
|
Bernie doesn't want pro-lifers in the democratic party. I think this is a mistake on his part.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/
“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” asked the host, Stephanie Ruhle.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
Two top right wingers in Canada's major right wing party in the past 50 years .. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris .. are both pro-abortion. I think major parties should let people on both sides in. Its quite a complex issue once you get past the marketing catch phrases. For example, although I'm pro-abortion I'm against the bill proposed by Ralph Northam.
|
|
|
Canada11279 Posts
No one is pro abortion.
I doubt that. #ShoutYourAbortion?
And then when Andrew Yang expressed a pro-abortion position, but was hesitant about rhetoric that sounded as though it was celebrating abortion, there were calls from activists that he should drop out- he just disqualified himself. I'd say those people are pretty pro-abortion. Also, if you arguing for something- the legal right to abort, you are pro that. It's a word game to say otherwise. If it's neither here nor there whether it's illegal, I suppose you could count yourself as agnostic to the issue. But you are giving reasons for it- that's pro-abortion.
Not to mention there are times when Abortions are required to save the mother's life .
A fraction of a fraction of cases.
or when the baby has already passed away in side the mother which also puts her at risk and the other of thousands of reasonable reasons to do it
No pro-life argument I've ever heard is against removing an already dead baby. The problem they have is when the baby is still living and after the healthcare treatment, the baby is dead.
|
On February 17 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 06:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Bernie doesn't want pro-lifers in the democratic party. I think this is a mistake on his part. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/
“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” asked the host, Stephanie Ruhle.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
Two top right wingers in Canada's major right wing party in the past 50 years .. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris .. are both pro-abortion. I think major parties should let people on both sides in. Its quite a complex issue once you get past the marketing catch phrases. For example, although I'm pro-abortion I'm against the bill proposed by Ralph Northam. No one is pro abortion. They just realize that making it illegal turns into the Rich getting it done by doctors and the poor getting done in back alleys.
Yeah, I just don't think this is true. I think the argument is fairly strong, but it's not the one that's generally made.
If this were the key point in favour, the rhetoric would look more like we see around the war on drugs: the thing is bad, but we've tried to stop it and it turns out that just makes it worse. That's not an accurate representation of the pro choice position at all.
|
|
|
Norway28561 Posts
Every 'pro abortion' person would prefer if the pregnancy hadn't happened in the first place. And at least virtually every person holding a 'pro abortion' point of view tends to argue in favor of more accessible and available contraceptives + sexual education, because these tend to lead to less pregnancies. Meanwhile the 'anti abortion' crowd tends to be less positive towards these. Granted, they do tend to favor recommending abstinence as a way of avoiding pregnancies, but telling teenagers not to have sex, that is one of the very few times where I'm actually willing to invoke the 'that goes against human nature' argument, so it has a pretty patchy success rate.
There are many arguments for allowing abortion, few if any hinge on thinking that it's 'a good thing'. Mostly everyone is somewhere between the 'it's neutral' and 'it's a necessary evil' camp.
|
On February 18 2020 05:37 Falling wrote:No pro-life argument I've ever heard is against removing an already dead baby. The problem they have is when the baby is still living and after the healthcare treatment, the baby is dead.
I don't know about that part exactly but didn't Ohio's lower chamber introduce an anti abortion bill that would force doctors to transplant an ectopic pregnancy. A procedure that doesn't exist and likely only puts the woman at risk.
ectopic pregnancies which are about 2% of pregnancies in the US are usually just waiting for the baby or the mother to die if you don't remove it. Ignorance in the anti-abortion camp is to the point where i wouldn't' be surprised if a pro-life argument has things that can result in "against removing an already dead baby"
|
|
|
Pro-choice =/= Anti-life.
Like universal healthcare, I view the right to choose as a right that should be treated and respected as a privilege, not something to be taken for granted and abused. Killing babies suck, and I rather avoid making an opinion on abortion like everyone else and live in a utopia where such a thing isn't necessary and not thought about. But if you really want to force the issue, then I guess I really can't avoid it and will have to make my stance on the issue known sooner or later as it's commonly discussed in the current world we live in.
When I did my obgyn rotation, we had a small group discussion with other students and residents about our stances on abortion to "break the ice," which I think had the opposite effect. I remember one of the pgy-4's looked at me with such disdain and skepticism when it was my turn to discuss my views, something along the lines of "doctors should be saving lives, not killing babies" but not as blunt. Received such loud sighs. Yea, I learned to keep my inner thoughts that might clash with my immediate learning/working environment a secret real quick, since I didn't even want to go into obgyn to begin with, but it was a required part of the curriculum that I need to pass.
You see all kinds of patients. A would-be mother whose pregnancy would endanger her life since she was scheduled to undergo a life-saving surgical procedure, and was told to get an abortion beforehand or risk a very high chance of dying. She didn't even know she was pregnant to begin with and spent many sleepless nights deliberating on what she should do, because she was so against abortion in the first place. Then realized it was her own body and her own life, and she was the one having to make the choice on how to play this shitty hand whether she liked it or not. She's the one who's going to suffer the consequences of her own decision, and nobody else, not a man, could do it for her. I would be fine with her for making the hard choice to go through with the abortion.
Then you see another unrepentant patient come in for her 9th d&c like it's a routine thing because she forgot to take the pill again or was too lazy, and still refuses to have her tubes tied, and you die a little/a lot inside.
Obgyn was the most fun delivering babies, whether through good ol' fashioned labor, or shadowing and helping out with caesareans.
|
On February 17 2020 05:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2020 00:37 BronzeKnee wrote:
Hmm... this is an interesting race. I think it is pretty clear that the number of moderates far outweighs those to the left, so I don't think Sanders can take this. It does look like that at first glance, but the thing is, it doesn't look like anyone else can "take this" either. The vote is just generally very split among many candidates. But if he looks like a relatively clear frontrunner, I'm certain that Sanders will start to gain support from a hefty crowd of moderates as well. He's not so far left that he's unpalatable to the Democratic base, he's just not the first choice of many of those in the middle. Though if the real question is if he can "take this" in terms of fending off the many entrenched interests working against him, that's definitely an interesting question.
So the conventional "wisdom" of the pundits about Bernie right now is:
- He's only the front-runner because the field is split so many ways
- The "traditional" candidates put together have much more votes than him
- He's too extreme, even if he wins the nomination, he has no chance in the general
- He holds views/ says things that are gonna alienate a lot of the moderates and big chunks of the party's electorate
- The party isnt behind him
Like jeesh, I wish i had a good enough memory to recall someone who won the nomination and the presidency after the pundits said the same about him, almost word-for-word 
|
On February 18 2020 11:53 riotjune wrote:Pro-choice =/= Anti-life. + Show Spoiler +
Like universal healthcare, I view the right to choose as a right that should be treated and respected as a privilege, not something to be taken for granted and abused. Killing babies suck, and I rather avoid making an opinion on abortion like everyone else and live in a utopia where such a thing isn't necessary and not thought about. But if you really want to force the issue, then I guess I really can't avoid it and will have to make my stance on the issue known sooner or later as it's commonly discussed in the current world we live in.
When I did my obgyn rotation, we had a small group discussion with other students and residents about our stances on abortion to "break the ice," which I think had the opposite effect. I remember one of the pgy-4's looked at me with such disdain and skepticism when it was my turn to discuss my views, something along the lines of "doctors should be saving lives, not killing babies" but not as blunt. Received such loud sighs. Yea, I learned to keep my inner thoughts that might clash with my immediate learning/working environment a secret real quick, since I didn't even want to go into obgyn to begin with, but it was a required part of the curriculum that I need to pass.
You see all kinds of patients. A would-be mother whose pregnancy would endanger her life since she was scheduled to undergo a life-saving surgical procedure, and was told to get an abortion beforehand or risk a very high chance of dying. She didn't even know she was pregnant to begin with and spent many sleepless nights deliberating on what she should do, because she was so against abortion in the first place. Then realized it was her own body and her own life, and she was the one having to make the choice on how to play this shitty hand whether she liked it or not. She's the one who's going to suffer the consequences of her own decision, and nobody else, not a man, could do it for her. I would be fine with her for making the hard choice to go through with the abortion.
Then you see another unrepentant patient come in for her 9th d&c like it's a routine thing because she forgot to take the pill again or was too lazy, and still refuses to have her tubes tied, and you die a little/a lot inside.
Obgyn was the most fun delivering babies, whether through good ol' fashioned labor, or shadowing and helping out with caesareans
.
This is a good post, but that's the point. For something with this level of complexity, with reservations on all sides, it's ridiculous for someone like Sanders to claim that a person can't be a democrat without being pro-choice.
On February 18 2020 08:01 JimmiC wrote:. Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 06:24 Belisarius wrote:On February 17 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 06:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Bernie doesn't want pro-lifers in the democratic party. I think this is a mistake on his part. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/
“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” asked the host, Stephanie Ruhle.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
Two top right wingers in Canada's major right wing party in the past 50 years .. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris .. are both pro-abortion. I think major parties should let people on both sides in. Its quite a complex issue once you get past the marketing catch phrases. For example, although I'm pro-abortion I'm against the bill proposed by Ralph Northam. No one is pro abortion. They just realize that making it illegal turns into the Rich getting it done by doctors and the poor getting done in back alleys. Yeah, I just don't think this is true. I think the argument is fairly strong, but it's not the one that's generally made. If this were the key point in favour, the rhetoric would look more like we see around the war on drugs: the thing is bad, but we've tried to stop it and it turns out that just makes it worse. That's not an accurate representation of the pro choice position at all. The data that has been collected indicates that outlawing Abortion does not make it less common, just more dangerous.
I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the modern pro-choice position has moved so far that it doesn't even use that argument any more.
If it were truly a utilitarian debate - "it's bad but banning it makes things worse so we can't" - there would be room for disagreement about the benefits versus costs, the same way there currently is around substance abuse and decriminalisation vs legalisation. This isn't the case. In fact, I can't find a single headline democrat who leans on that stance at all. The closest is 2008 Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" that she was forced to distance herself from and is now routinely ridiculed for. The framing has shifted to empowerment and therefore all reservations are patriarchy.
This kind of ideological purity test is toxic as hell. Neb is fond of pointing out around here that the average American would back an economically progressive agenda but is a bit fuddy-duddy about the various social issues. He's right, and yet here is Sanders telling those people that if they don't get woke in a hurry, he doesn't want them.
|
On February 18 2020 18:35 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 11:53 riotjune wrote:Pro-choice =/= Anti-life. + Show Spoiler +
Like universal healthcare, I view the right to choose as a right that should be treated and respected as a privilege, not something to be taken for granted and abused. Killing babies suck, and I rather avoid making an opinion on abortion like everyone else and live in a utopia where such a thing isn't necessary and not thought about. But if you really want to force the issue, then I guess I really can't avoid it and will have to make my stance on the issue known sooner or later as it's commonly discussed in the current world we live in.
When I did my obgyn rotation, we had a small group discussion with other students and residents about our stances on abortion to "break the ice," which I think had the opposite effect. I remember one of the pgy-4's looked at me with such disdain and skepticism when it was my turn to discuss my views, something along the lines of "doctors should be saving lives, not killing babies" but not as blunt. Received such loud sighs. Yea, I learned to keep my inner thoughts that might clash with my immediate learning/working environment a secret real quick, since I didn't even want to go into obgyn to begin with, but it was a required part of the curriculum that I need to pass.
You see all kinds of patients. A would-be mother whose pregnancy would endanger her life since she was scheduled to undergo a life-saving surgical procedure, and was told to get an abortion beforehand or risk a very high chance of dying. She didn't even know she was pregnant to begin with and spent many sleepless nights deliberating on what she should do, because she was so against abortion in the first place. Then realized it was her own body and her own life, and she was the one having to make the choice on how to play this shitty hand whether she liked it or not. She's the one who's going to suffer the consequences of her own decision, and nobody else, not a man, could do it for her. I would be fine with her for making the hard choice to go through with the abortion.
Then you see another unrepentant patient come in for her 9th d&c like it's a routine thing because she forgot to take the pill again or was too lazy, and still refuses to have her tubes tied, and you die a little/a lot inside.
Obgyn was the most fun delivering babies, whether through good ol' fashioned labor, or shadowing and helping out with caesareans
. That's the point, though. For something with this level of complexity, with reservations on all sides, it's ridiculous for someone like Sanders to claim that a person can't be a democrat without being pro-choice. Show nested quote +On February 18 2020 08:01 JimmiC wrote:. On February 18 2020 06:24 Belisarius wrote:On February 17 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On February 17 2020 06:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Bernie doesn't want pro-lifers in the democratic party. I think this is a mistake on his part. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bernie-sanders-reverses-course-on-pro-life-democrats/
“Is there such a thing as a pro-life Democrat in your vision of the party?” asked the host, Stephanie Ruhle.
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
Two top right wingers in Canada's major right wing party in the past 50 years .. Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris .. are both pro-abortion. I think major parties should let people on both sides in. Its quite a complex issue once you get past the marketing catch phrases. For example, although I'm pro-abortion I'm against the bill proposed by Ralph Northam. No one is pro abortion. They just realize that making it illegal turns into the Rich getting it done by doctors and the poor getting done in back alleys. Yeah, I just don't think this is true. I think the argument is fairly strong, but it's not the one that's generally made. If this were the key point in favour, the rhetoric would look more like we see around the war on drugs: the thing is bad, but we've tried to stop it and it turns out that just makes it worse. That's not an accurate representation of the pro choice position at all. The data that has been collected indicates that outlawing Abortion does not make it less common, just more dangerous. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that the modern pro-choice position has moved so far that it doesn't even use that argument any more. If it were truly a utilitarian debate - "it's bad but banning it makes things worse so we can't" - there would be room for disagreement about the benefits versus costs, the same way there currently is around substance abuse and decriminalisation of drugs. This isn't the case. In fact, I can't find a single headline democrat who leads with that stance. The closest is Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" that she was forced to distance herself from and is now routinely ridiculed for. The framing has shifted to empowerment and therefore all reservations are patriarchy. He's right, and yet here is Sanders telling those people that if they don't get woke in a hurry, he doesn't want them.
He didnt tho.
Like WTF, can we stop doing that at least on this forum, i get how media needs to cut and bend everything one says, until it fits a narrative, and is click-baity enough, but here? There is no pay-per-view, there isnt any karma or upvotes to farm, so please dont.
In this instance, the article takes ONE 40 sec soundbite of ONE tonwhall meeting, transcripts 1/3 of the 40 second sound-bite, and if that isnt skewed enough you extrapolate it further, as in Sander saying "get woke or i dont want you". He does not say that, he doesnt' even suggest it.
What the article quotes:
“I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat,” Sanders replied. “By this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added.
What the 40 sec soundbite says:
"I think being pro-choice is an absolutely essential part of being a Democrat. If you're asking me, and I may be wrong on this, in the senate probably 95% of the dems are pro choice, there are a few who are not. In the house it may be an even higher percentage. I think by this time in history . . . when we talk about what a Democrat is, I think being pro-choice is an essential part of that,” he added
What you say he said:
GET WOKE OR GET OUT!!!4$!
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
|
I don't really see how "pro choice is an essential part of that" can mean anything else. Sorry.
Also, this has played out a hundred times with a different talking head. The list of Democrats who've taken flak for being anything other than fully pro-choice is as long as my arm. The level of aggression that you've come out with here is fairly telling.
|
On February 18 2020 18:54 Belisarius wrote:
I don't really see how "pro choice is an essential part of that" can mean anything else. Sorry.
He literally is saying, how the party as a whole is pro-choice, and he's just on the same page as 95+% of the party.
How can you interpret this as he's an extermist who is saying GET OUT IF U RE NOT WOKE, is beyound me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
