EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1474
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42258 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:01 xDaunt wrote: I have little doubt that the foundation was audited when Trump was audited. What's good enough for the IRS is good enough for me. I don't see why he couldn't be legitimately arrested, charged, and prosecuted for something. I just don't know what that something is right now. What I find disturbing about the conversation is this wholly unsupported presumption on the part of people that Trump has done something criminal. You guys aren't looking at any of this stuff with a critical eye. You're getting gaslit by a political media and you don't even realize it. That’s not how the IRS works with nfps. Your assumption that the transactions were reviewed and accepted is incorrect. What Trump did is a textbook example of self dealing. The facts of the case stand on their own merits. 1) Melania Trump bid $20,000 for a portrait of Trump. This created a $20,000 personal liability for Melania. 2) The Trump Foundation paid the $20,000, unduly enriching Melania at the expense of the Foundation. 3) The Foundation then stored it’s $20,000 painting by letting Trump have it. This is textbook stuff. You can’t hide behind “if the IRS cleared it then I don’t have to apply any critical thinking to it at all”. I could talk a five year old through this and halfway through they’d interrupt me and state “so he stole $20,000 from the Foundation”. They wouldn’t need to abdicate common sense to the erroneous assumption that the IRS had reviewed that transaction. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42258 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:05 IyMoon wrote: I think xDaunts point is that is not really a jailable offense. Trump does some bad shit but even I don't know what he actually goes to jail for. Pays a shit ton of fines? yeah, jail? no With nfps it’s very hard to show an injured party. The remedy is normally the correction of the “errors” by repaying the cash stolen, the loss of nfp status, and banning the board members from serving on the board of other nfps. That’s what’s happening with the Foundation. He stole money from his charity but the fix is giving it back and shutting it down. | ||
|
Rasalased
89 Posts
And at least a third of the US electorate do not care if Trump is a criminal or not because they think they like other aspects of Trump more. This was indicated that a large part of the GOP voters like it if Trump conspired with Putin in fixing the election result to make Clinton lose. Not having Clinton as president is way way more important. So this is why he still has some support. GOP is really playing a dangerous game. If they are branded as the 'party of criminals and traitors' and they disappear, the democrats have free reign to do whatever they want. That is also the danger of a two party system. . | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17918 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:23 Rasalased wrote: A US court already decided that Trump is too corrupt to run a charity. We won't know if he is criminal because he is protected from prosecution as long as he is president because if the president is too criminal to be president is a political decision where normally you impeach a president if he looks guilty rather than if he is found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And at least a third of the US electorate do not care if Trump is a criminal or not because they think they like other aspects of Trump more. This was indicated that a large part of the GOP voters like it if Trump conspired with Putin in fixing the election result to make Clinton lose. Not having Clinton as president is way way more important. So this is why he still has some support. GOP is really playing a dangerous game. If they are branded as the 'party of criminals and traitors' and they disappear, the democrats have free reign to do whatever they want. That is also the danger of a two party system. . Not really. Just because a party is a bunch of criminials and traitors doesn't mean their voter base disappears. If the RNC starts collapsing, some congressmen will jump ship and start their own party that occupies the exact same political space but argue that it's a fresh start without the criminals. And they will either cannibalize what's left of the RNC or they will fail and someone else will try, until eventually there is indeed a large conservative party again, because there are enough voters to sustain a large conservative party in the US. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42258 Posts
On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote: Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). No, it’s not. The intention of the abortion is not to destroy the body of the fetus, it is to remove the fetus from the body of the mother. The fetus may rely upon support from the mother but it is not entitled to it. A fetuses bodily autonomy is not interfered with by not giving it a womb to live in, no more than a patient with renal failure is the victim of your failure to donate a kidney. Ultimately it’s lack of independent viability is its own problem and does not create an obligation for any other individual to endure what is a pretty damaging and dangerous condition to relieve it of that problem. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 22 2019 03:17 IgnE wrote: MMT theorists would say that that is just government providing demand. Think about all the jobs Trump is personally creating by taking trips. So much government stimulus. (And so little of the costs paid to Trump properties. It's a waste of money, not a self-enrichment scheme. Also, compare with GWB trips to the ranch ... where ppl were complaining of poor accommodations for the support staff) | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On May 22 2019 03:47 KwarK wrote: No, it’s not. The intention of the abortion is not to destroy the body of the fetus, it is to remove the fetus from the body of the mother. The fetus may rely upon support from the mother but it is not entitled to it. A fetuses bodily autonomy is not interfered with by not giving it a womb to live in, no more than a patient with renal failure is the victim of your failure to donate a kidney. Ultimately it’s lack of independent viability is its own problem and does not create an obligation for any other individual to endure what is a pretty damaging and dangerous condition to relieve it of that problem. How is that different from leaving a child out to starve to death? It seems to me like once you grant the fetus any recognition of personhood or autonomy then you're basically left with trying to find a way to call infanticide something other than what it is. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 22 2019 04:11 Starlightsun wrote: How is that different from leaving a child out to starve to death? It seems to me like once you grant the fetus any recognition of personhood or autonomy then you're basically left with trying to find a way to call infanticide something other than what it is. There is a very clear difference. A non-viable (i.e. not developed enough to survive when disconnected from the mother) fetus requires the mother's body to function and sustain it. It is functionally a parasite. Leaving a child to die is completely different. That child is already an autonomously functioning body that does not need to use another human being as a host/incubator for it to continue its life functions. It needs other individuals' actions to prolong its survival, but that is different than sustaining immediate life through direct use of its body. Personhood is not relevant here. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a human rights violation and there is also a feasible argument that it amounts to slavery. There is no situation where you can justify telling someone "I need to force you to go on bypass or otherwise donate an organ to sustain this person's life". That is a violation of privacy and bodily autonomy, but it is exactly what you're doing when you force a woman to carry a pregnancy. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On May 22 2019 04:16 Stratos_speAr wrote: There is a very clear difference. A non-viable (i.e. not developed enough to survive when disconnected from the mother) fetus requires the mother's body to function and sustain it. It is functionally a parasite. Leaving a child to die is completely different. That child is already an autonomously functioning body that does not need to use another human being as a host/incubator for it to continue its life functions. It needs other individuals' actions to prolong its survival, but that is different than sustaining immediate life through direct use of its body. That answers the question if you define the fetus as a parasite and not a person. But I don't know, the distinction doesn't seem so clear to me. "Needing other individual's actions to prolong its survival" is another way of saying it will die unless someone feeds it. A short throw a way from being a parasite too. Personhood is not relevant here. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy is a human rights violation and there is also a feasible argument that it amounts to slavery. Why is personhood not relevant? Taking a person's life is also a human rights violation, arguably worse than enslaving someone for 9 months. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35118 Posts
On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote: Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). Don't see how the term pro-choice is misleading. The removal of the choice to abort just leaves them with birthing. Being pro-life however is. Somebody who isn't pro-life won't be clamoring for abortions in 100% of pregnancies. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 22 2019 04:26 Starlightsun wrote: That answers the question if you define the fetus as a parasite and not a person. But I don't know, the distinction doesn't seem so clear to me. "Needing other individual's actions to prolong its survival" is another way of saying it will die unless someone feeds it. A short throw a way from being a parasite too. Why is personhood not relevant? Taking a person's life is also a human rights violation, arguably worse than enslaving someone for 9 months. It isn't defining them as a parasite instead of a person. You are failing to understand the definitions. A parasite is a specific definition and a person can fit that definition if the situation fits. Personhood isn't relevant because your personhood doesn't allow you to enslave someone else. There is a very clear, concrete difference between using someone's bodily functions to physically sustain life vs. the action of giving food or not. That, in fact, has a clear legal definition that is distinct from other actions (or lack of actions). Stating that taking a person's life is "arguably worse than enslaving someone" is 1) horrifying, but 2) a judgment call that implies that there is some kind of calculus here. You have to provide a justification for infringing on someone's right to bodily autonomy and privacy period before you can then talk about if the specific situation of fetal viability is worth it. To justify banning abortion you would need to argue that it's acceptable to force a random stranger to go on bypass to use their heart, kidneys, liver, or whatever other organ to support the bodily function of a stranger. Your argument is essentially stating that it is acceptable to enslave people to preserve the life of anyone, regardless of bodily autonomy. Furthermore, to support bills like heartbeat bills, you'd have to also justify why it is legally allowed to pull the plug on the brain dead victims, or why we can throw away fertilized embryos from IVF clinics, or why spontaneously beating cardiac cells in labs aren't treated as people. Your argument (equating not feeding children with physically murdering them) also supports the idea that we are morally culpable for not providing a strong welfare safety net (including healthcare) for the poor, since children (and people in general) suffer significantly from the conservative party's lack of support for social safety nets. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 22 2019 03:33 Starlightsun wrote: Isn't "My body my choice" begging the question? Because the question isn't what you do with your own body, but with the body of another person, if an unborn child can be deemed a person. I don't agree with "life begins at conception" but at least that is addressing the question at issue. As much as I agree that early term abortions should be legal, some of the arguments and rhetoric coming out of the "pro choice" camp feel rather dishonest and disturbing. (I put "pro choice" in quotation marks because it seems as silly to me as "pro life", which paint opponents as anti choice itself and anti life itself). All I’ve got to say is don’t confuse the slogans and sound bites for the moral question. Pro life and pro choice people will defend their taxonomy until the day they die. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On May 22 2019 01:11 Plansix wrote: It isn’t criminal enough to merit jail time, but it is another sign of corrupt dealings by Trump and the congress has an obligation to make sure there are no more. Trump could have avoided this by putting is company on a blind trust. He did not, so the House gets to look at his taxes and business records. It would be difficult to think of a stronger case for Congress to be able to investigate the presidents finances than the case it has against trump. Namely, (1) clear documebtary evidence of past tax evasion, (2) a close ongoing financial interest in a sprawling business enterprise, and (3) clear evidence that the president is selling access to his administration through his properties (trump hotel DC & mar a logo). The evidence that trump is a crook is overwhelming, and anyone who denies a need for oversight never again has a valid claim that a given president should be investigated for corruption. Edit: and add a 4th item which is proof that his charity engaged in self dealing. A 5th item is the recent disclosure that, while he was in office, trump obtained a $11M loan to buy a house from his sister from a small bank in FL, and then gave the CEO of that bank a govt position (Atlanta federal reserve board). A 6th item is the $500M+ in debt currently held by his company. | ||
| ||
