EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1592
| 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 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:30 xDaunt wrote: Abortion is “reproductive justice?” Are you high, Castro? Reproductive Justice is the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, social, and economic well-being of women and girls, based on the full achievement and protection of women’s human rights. This definition as outlined by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ) offers a new perspective on reproductive issues advocacy, pointing out that for Indigenous women and women of color it is important to fight equally for (1) the right to have a child; (2) the right not to have a child; and (3) the right to parent the children we have, as well as to control our birthing options, such as midwifery. We also fight for the necessary enabling conditions to realize these rights. This is in contrast to the singular focus on abortion by the pro-choice movement that excludes other social justice movements. Berkeley Law It's triple next level euphemism, but more often found in academic environments and activists organizations until recently. Abortion, actually Choice, you know it's bodily autonomy ... well really it's Reproductive Rights, no make that Women's Rights, ..., ..., justice polls well let's stick that in a academic framework | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9017 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:37 micronesia wrote: xDaunt tone down the namecalling and the like a bit please. Sorry was that dope, clown, confused, or Fauxcahontas? (Bilingual questioning too ftw!) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11928 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:41 Danglars wrote: Sorry was that dope, clown, confused, or Fauxcahontas? (Bilingual questioning too ftw!) The mods are no fun. No problem with Drumpf, but god help us if someone dares insult a Democrat. Hypocrisy in action. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:42 xDaunt wrote: And here comes the open borders policies. Let’s see if anyone blames the child traffickers bringing kids to the US illegally in the first place. Multiple parties can be to blame for a situation but not all parties are relevant. As far as it relates to the political administration of the US what matters if how the US deals with the children it finds itself responsible for. Obviously human traffickers are responsible for the trafficking of children but these candidates are not applying for the job of leading a human trafficking agency. If they say "well we shouldn't even have that problem, someone else caused it" that doesn't help address how they would deal with the problem that they do have. If someone was applying to manage a mismanaged orphanage I would expect them to talk about how they planned to fix the orphanage, not just bitch about irresponsible parents. Saying that there shouldn't be any orphans and the real blame for the rampant abuse at the orphanage lies with the parents is not a good response to questions about how to stop the orphans being abused. | ||
|
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:43 xDaunt wrote: The mods are no fun. No problem with Drumpf, but god help us if someone dares insult a Democrat. Hypocrisy in action. I've never been a fan of Drumpf, partly because as John Oliver should already know as a British person, Trump already means fart. Feel free to PM me to report it if someone is getting carried away with that childish namecalling shit though and I'll take a look. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4659 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Beyond that, this idea that Trump is leading us into war is absurd. He’s been more pacifist than Obama. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35092 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:52 Introvert wrote: Oh some very minor pushback on re-entering the Iran deal. didn't expect that. Iran shouldn't have planted those mines or shot that drone! While the Iran deal is absolutely a thing the US should be a part of there isn't the time in a debate format to educate the populace on why pulling out of the Iran deal unilaterally is monumentally stupid. I expect that they, like everyone else, knows that all they've done is reintroduced Iran into the international community and then preemptively broken the US side of the agreement, giving Iran justification to break its commitments without sanction. But it's much easier to waffle in the centre than say "We bought something we couldn't return and then trashed it to spite the guy who sold it to us. We should untrash it because it didn't hurt them, just us." | ||
|
KwarK
United States41991 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:54 xDaunt wrote: Gabbard isn’t ready for prime time. Beyond that, this idea that Trump is leading us into war is absurd. He’s been more pacifist than Obama. Do you recall how last week Trump said he ordered an attack on Iran only to countermand it 15 minutes before the strike because he suddenly realized (?) that people might get hurt in the attack. Obama made peace with Iran while Trump tried to attack them last week. I'm not entirely sure how you see the peace treaty as more likely to lead to war with Iran than the military attack but I'm absolutely confident that you won't explain it to us either way. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24579 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2019 10:52 Introvert wrote: Oh some very minor pushback on re-entering the Iran deal. didn't expect that. Iran shouldn't have planted those mines or shot that drone! It’ll be interesting to see what happens with Iran now that the new sanctions are in place. Their nuts are really in a vice. | ||
| ||
