EPTThe quality of a child's life should not depend on who their parents are. Our society is morally failing by making children reliant on parents.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3399
| 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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
The quality of a child's life should not depend on who their parents are. Our society is morally failing by making children reliant on parents. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45306 Posts
On December 03 2021 11:01 Zambrah wrote: Im curious how we'll cope with a baby bust since, as you said, having kids is basically a financial death sentence. At the same time, I doubt that we'll see wages rise to a place where that stops being the case. Are you suggesting that Republicans won't be raising the minimum wage or advocating for child care? /s | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On December 03 2021 11:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Are you suggesting that Republicans won't be raising the minimum wage or advocating for child care? /s Not to mention healthcare. I cant even fathom how much its got to suck to have just given birth and have a colossal bill foisted on you. Democrats aren't going to help with healthcare or a thriving wage either though. Maybe child care, though I imagine it'd be inadequate in the face of all the challenges facing people who would want to have kids. | ||
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
I’ll always agree that the Democrats should do more but it’s important to note that they don’t do nothing. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
I'm not saying Democrats'll do nothing to encourage people to have kids, just not enough in the face of how fucked so many people are financially. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
And all of this takes decades because of how long Senators have their seats. What we need is to be able to recall them and to do so aggressively. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43609 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
And yes, the US government needs a major overhaul when it comes to rules, politics doesnt play nice in the US anymore, expecting anyone to do whats right has always been a very messy proposition but we've basically abandoned the thought entirely at this point. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On December 03 2021 02:35 JimmiC wrote: There never was, you had to be part of a well regulated militia. The word "regulated" is within the amendment. And its use was to put down rebellion's that threatened the government not the other way around. It was about protecting America from the europeans and from uprisings within. That is before you even get to what arms meant then and now. I agree that the 2A refers to militia service only, but there is plenty of evidence that such service could be against the government rather just in service of it. The revolutionary War was accomplished by means of the militia, after all. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
There is no legal or policy based function for the state to raise an organized militia and hasn't done so for decades at this point. The only "Militia" are unspecific unorganized militia or the national guard. Militias were necessary at the time because it was connected to home ownership that you needed a gun to defend yourself from wild animals and from native Americans that you were going to go genocide with your friends. To support this gun ownership and attitudes tword gun control are doing down year on year because we're becoming a wage slave based nation that owns nothing and are expected to still be happy. On December 03 2021 13:52 Doc.Rivers wrote: I agree that the 2A refers to militia service only, but there is plenty of evidence that such service could be against the government rather just in service of it. The revolutionary War was accomplished by means of the militia, after all. This is wildly revisionist and wrong on a few levels. The miltia that were "regulated" were specifically suppose to be called up by local governments, the south called up the same militia units even when they rebelled in the same fashion that the north did. The Militia units were as I said before mostly only trusted to genocide native Americans and to kill wild animals until trained by more regular army units. Also Washinton had a whole regular army that he used the militia were unreliable extras in the best of cases. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On December 03 2021 23:18 Sermokala wrote: From whatever side you are on the "does the second amendment require Militia service or is it just qualifying that a militia needs to exist for the state to function" grammar debate the whole argument is moot. There is no legal or policy based function for the state to raise an organized militia and hasn't done so for decades at this point. The only "Militia" are unspecific unorganized militia or the national guard. Militias were necessary at the time because it was connected to home ownership that you needed a gun to defend yourself from wild animals and from native Americans that you were going to go genocide with your friends. To support this gun ownership and attitudes tword gun control are doing down year on year because we're becoming a wage slave based nation that owns nothing and are expected to still be happy. This is wildly revisionist and wrong on a few levels. The miltia that were "regulated" were specifically suppose to be called up by local governments, the south called up the same militia units even when they rebelled in the same fashion that the north did. The Militia units were as I said before mostly only trusted to genocide native Americans and to kill wild animals until trained by more regular army units. Also Washinton had a whole regular army that he used the militia were unreliable extras in the best of cases. I think the right of revolution is recognized as part of the 2A. If nothing else the 2A says "keep arms" which would seem to protect universal gun ownership (partly as a check against the federal government) although to be sure there existed centralized stores of guns and gun powder when the 2A was written. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11752 Posts
On December 04 2021 03:28 plasmidghost wrote: I'm trying not to panic, but the Supreme Court arguments relating to LGBTQIA+ rulings are a nightmare scenario for me. I don't feel safe in this country. I thought you had a safe way out of that dystopia? Because yes, sadly half of the US are insane fascists who don't think you should exist. Which is a bad thing, but hard to change. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On December 04 2021 03:28 plasmidghost wrote: I'm trying not to panic, but the Supreme Court arguments relating to LGBTQIA+ rulings are a nightmare scenario for me. I don't feel safe in this country. I haven't been following. What is being said? | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On December 04 2021 04:06 Simberto wrote: I thought you had a safe way out of that dystopia? Because yes, sadly half of the US are insane fascists who don't think you should exist. Which is a bad thing, but hard to change. I most likely do, but I'm still working on leaving. I worry immensely for my community | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On December 04 2021 07:35 BlackJack wrote: I haven't been following. What is being said? Mississippi is arguing that Roe v. Wade unjustly interferes in state's rights. In addition, they're saying the Obergefell decision (gay marriage being legal) and Lawrence v. Texas (same-sex activity being legal) are unjust. If the Court rules in favor of Mississippi, all of those rights go away https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/live-updates/supreme-court-mississippi-abortion-case-oral-arguments-2021-12-01/ | ||
|
farvacola
United States18854 Posts
| ||
| ||
