| 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 | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:36 BlackJack wrote: Being pro-life or pro-choice has little to do with personally having an abortion or not It has to do with whether or not you want to push your preference onto other pregnant people. A pro-life person can exercise their personal preference in a pro-choice country. A pro-choice person cannot exercise their personal preference in a pro-life country. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ? I'm not denying he said that. I explicitly said that he's full of shit about that fake compassion. He, like most Republicans, make no effort to actually prevent these things from happening again. What you just pasted was a very, very, very long "thoughts and prayers". Lots of talking, but zero walking. That's pretending to care, but not actually caring, as I said beforehand. You clearly took his comment out of context. The general theme of that remark is not a dismissive "Get over it" as you implied. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: If opposition to abortion is your sole/most important case then you'll have your home within the republican party, but opposition to abortion is not a majority opinion, to my knowledge it's not even a majority opinion in any of the states that have more restrictive laws. (Maybe there are a couple exceptions iunno) Now if your dichotomy is 'illegal/legal before most people know they are pregnant/make it such a hurdle that only rich people can get them' vs 'free for everyone until week 24' then I dunno which side has more supporters tbh but the majority opinion definitely allows it until week 12 and I'm not seeing republicans going around arguing for that - I'm seeing republicans either avoiding the issue while condemning a parody opinion (these are people who might be in favor of 12 weeks or thereabouts but don't want to alienate pro-life republicans or more moderate democrats) or passing legislation which does not have popular support. I mean this is an area where Trump gave you a real win, but that's probably his least popular win - and one I don't actually think he supports himself. Maybe I'm not explaining this well but you didn't get my point. About half this country calls themselves some version of pro-life, yet it is nigh-impossible to find a Democrat who can even articulate what limits, if any, they would like to see on abortion. The best they can do is rant about "codifying Roe" while opposing the limits Roe allowed. They merely take advantage of the average voter's ignorance of Roe v. Wade and hope it sticks. There used to be Democrats in Congress who could, even tenuously, call themselves pro-life. How many are there now? DPB's "well you can *believe* whatever you want and still be a member" is, as I'm sure you can see, not really an answer. I don't blame you, esp not being an American, but there was a time when you could support more restrictions on abortion and still be a Democrat in good standing. (White) Evangelical Christian political polarization wasn't always so one-sided as it is now. Republicans tried to appeal to them over the decades, and the Dems responded by moving in the opposite direction. So I ask again, on what issue has the Dem party not moved left on or what concession have they made in an effort to unite people of various political beliefs against Trump? Can you think of a single one? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26745 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ? I'm not denying he said that. I explicitly said that he's full of shit about that fake compassion. He, like most Republicans, make no effort to actually prevent these things from happening again. What you just pasted was a very, very, very long "thoughts and prayers". Lots of talking, but zero walking. That's pretending to care, but not actually caring, as I said beforehand. I mean he’s so full of shit that the amount of him occupied by substances other than shit is a minority, that said unless I’ve missed some choice quotes I will give him some credit for not inflaming things further. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:44 BlackJack wrote: You clearly took his comment out of context. The general theme of that remark is not a dismissive "Get over it" as you implied. It absolutely is. That whole paragraph is one large, politically correct "get over it". All "thoughts and prayers" comments are. He can say the same thing every day, for every mass shooting, and it's still nothing but hollow rhetoric. Delivering useless platitudes in a gentle voice still deserves to be called out as bullshit. There is zero call to action. Zero attempt at stopping things from happening again. He. Doesn't. Care. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: It has to do with whether or not you want to push your preference onto other pregnant people. A pro-life person can exercise their personal preference in a pro-choice country. A pro-choice person cannot exercise their personal preference in a pro-life country. Exactly. Introvert is questioning whether someone that would force all women to not have abortions would be accepting into the Democrat party. Your last post doesn't address this at all. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:48 WombaT wrote: I mean he’s so full of shit that the amount of him occupied by substances other than shit is a minority, that said unless I’ve missed some choice quotes I will give him some credit for not inflaming things further. That's a devastatingly low bar that I'm not quite ready to accept. I mean, you're right that he didn't say something like "I'm happy we had another shooting! You all deserved it!", yet I can't help but want a little more than that. | ||
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:46 Introvert wrote: Maybe I'm not explaining this well but you didn't get my point. About half this country calls themselves some version of pro-life, yet it is nigh-impossible to find a Democrat who can even articulate what limits, if any, they would like to see on abortion. The best they can do is rant about "codifying Roe" while opposing the limits Roe allowed. They merely take advantage of the average voter's ignorance of Roe v. Wade and hope it sticks. There used to be Democrats in Congress who could, even tenuously, call themselves pro-life. How many are there now? DPB's "well you can *believe* whatever you want and still be a member" is, as I'm sure you can see, not really an answer. I don't blame you, esp not being an American, but there was a time when you could support more restrictions on abortion and still be a Democrat in good standing. (White) Evangelical Christian political polarization wasn't always so one-sided as it is now. Republican's tried to appeal to them over the decades, and the Dems responded by moving in the opposite direction. So I ask again, on what issue has the Dem party not moved left on or what concession have they made in an effort to unite people on various political beliefs against Trump? Can you think of a single one? Murder is already a restriction on abortion. A 38 week termination of a pregnancy involves delivering the baby. You don’t have to kill the baby to end the pregnancy. Viability is already the limit on abortion because infanticide is illegal. No doctor is going to perform a c-section then draw their hospital issue medical gat and complete the abortion with two to the chest and one to the head. The beauty of that system is its flexibility and the deference to medical science. The removal of a dead fetus at 7 months is not murder because the fetus is dead. It’s not that pro-choice people have no limits and no objections to infanticide. It’s that medical science is constantly improving and that medical situations are unique and don’t easily allow for hard rules. For every strict rule people would come up with biology would find an exception. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 08:49 BlackJack wrote: Exactly. Introvert is questioning whether someone that would force all women to not have abortions would be accepting into the Democrat party. Your last post doesn't address this at all. If he's referring to only public policy, as opposed to also including private preference, then sure. As far as I can tell, the Democratic party doesn't support forcing half of the country to lose bodily autonomy just because one publicly-pro-life person wants to join the Democrats. That's an insanely lopsided power imbalance, and if that's what Introvert meant by "compromise", then I guess that's a non-starter. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26745 Posts
On July 15 2024 07:23 Introvert wrote: No, that's more like a lack of opportunity. Besides, they wanted to run against him, but they also wanted him to have the "convicted felon" part to go with it. Consider this fun fact: The prosecutoe Jack Smith, going after Trump in multiple jurisdictions, is the same prosecutor who went after the Republican former governor of Virginia on a silly bribery case. The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court unanimously, but not before it had ended his future in politics. I keep pointing it out, but if dems truly believed Trump was an existential threat to American democracy they would have tried to move to the middle and moderate to appeal to everyone and stop him. Instead they have tried to simultaneously say that Trump is a serious threat to America and that means eveyone has to vote for us regardless of our positions. They use it more like a hostage taking. They want to run against Trump and people like him. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, but dems are still boosting "ultra maga" people in primaries and trying to turn around and call them fascists. You wouldn't gamble like that like that if they were actually fascists, unless you were truly a terrible person in your own right. By the equivalent standards of most comparable nations, and social attitudes of a good chunk of the country, in a bipartite polity, they’re pretty damn milquetoast moderate already. They have moved somewhat left aye, but then again many people have, at least on social issues. Point taken on boosting such candidates. But on the flipside I’m not sure how one can sell ‘the Democrats aren’t moderate enough’ to moderates without addressing rather large elephants in the room with regards to the GOP’s pivots in recent times. Or at the very least the various shameful steps taken in the ‘stop the steal’ debacle and its aftermath | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
Trump continues to say that the Democratic party supports "abortion after birth". Putting aside the semantics issue with that statement (abortion is definitionally during pregnancy and before birth), it sounds to me like he's saying that Democrats support the idea of a woman giving birth after nine months, then looking at their newborn baby, and then deciding to kill the newborn baby. Is this what he's alleging, and where did the genesis of this idea come from? Is this a weird niche reference to something with a modicum of truth that snowballed out of control into a full-fledged conspiracy theory? Is it a pure fiction and invention from Trump? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 09:05 Introvert wrote: Abortion was only an example of the general question I was asking, but as I said, depending on the year, 40% to half of Americans call themselves pro-life, yet the Democratic party has no room for them whatsoever. This is just one of many issues they could open themselves up to, for the good of the country in general, but especially in the hopes of creating a coalition of voters to make sure that fascist dictator-in-waiting Donald Trump doesn't return to the presidency and institute a hereditary monarchy with Don Jr as heir apparent. How could the perspective of a pro-life person forcing their beliefs onto a pregnant woman possibly co-exist with the woman wanting to make her own decisions? They're inherently opposed. The Democrats are fine with the following 3 abortion perspectives: privately pro-choice, privately pro-life, and universally-enforcing pro-choice. They can't also add the 4th option, universally-enforcing pro-life, because that eliminates both privately pro-choice and universally-enforcing pro-choice. Forcing everyone to do X vs. Allowing everyone to make their own decisions about X are inherently mutually exclusive, right? I don't understand how you could "make room" for both, unless we appeal to the other non-abortion similarities (i.e., maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican). | ||
|
micronesia
United States24770 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On July 15 2024 09:26 micronesia wrote: I think it's just a matter of what people should do if they are fiscally liberal but pro forced birth. Pick which one to compromise on. Coalition is built on compromise, there’s not a person alive who agrees with the entire platform of any party. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 15 2024 09:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: How could the perspective of a pro-life person forcing their beliefs onto a pregnant woman possibly co-exist with the woman wanting to make her own decisions? They're inherently opposed. The Democrats are fine with the following 3 abortion perspectives: privately pro-choice, privately pro-life, and universally-enforcing pro-choice. They can't also add the 4th option, universally-enforcing pro-life, because that eliminates both privately pro-choice and universally-enforcing pro-choice. Forcing everyone to do X vs. Allowing everyone to make their own decisions about X are inherently mutually exclusive, right? I don't understand how you could "make room" for both, unless we appeal to the other non-abortion similarities (i.e., maybe a universally-enforcing pro-life Democrat doesn't see eye-to-eye with the Democratic party when it comes to abortion, but agrees enough on other issues that they still identify more as a Democrat than as a Republican). You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43964 Posts
On July 15 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote: You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump. Introvert, how exactly would you structure a broad tent that includes both allowing women to make their own decisions and forcing women to make a certain decision? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 15 2024 10:36 KwarK wrote: Introvert, how exactly would you structure a broad tent that includes both allowing women to make their own decisions and forcing women to make a certain decision? You allow people in who have different views? If you are a democrat who believes in no restrictions nonetheless you can work with someone who wants a 6 week ban on other issues, or find a compromise? Such a strange question. And again, if you really thought that Democracy was on the line, you might say "ok pro-lifers, we don't want any restrictions but you can be a part of our caucus and advocate for what you want at the state level, or support a 20 week provision at the federal level, because it's important that we are still allowed to make these decisions at all instead of sliding into total authoritarianism." You have to start by acknowledging that people who disagree with you have legitimate views, held for sincere reasons. but of course it is particularly hard for dems and the left in general to accept that last part, so much of their moral sense is based on having better, not different, views than their opponents. Again, the party used to be open to people who differing views on this topic. Asking how is silly, it's already happened before. And again, this is merely one issue. But we all know that no matter what issue I were to use as an example somehow most people here would find some reason why they couldn't move an inch on that topic, it would just be a step too far. They want everything, and for people who disagree with them to get nothing. Sorry, when you do that some people who might have qualms with Trump will either take the risk or think that the people screaming about dictators aren't serious. edit: im surprised you asked this at all given what you said to micro. You compromise. You give something that they want in exchange. You allow people like a Bob Casey Sr into your party. You know the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Guess who "Casey" was (of course even in the 90s his stance was controversial in the party, but he wouldn't even be allowed in now I think). | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45765 Posts
On July 15 2024 10:14 Introvert wrote: You are displaying the exact thing I'm talking about. And you will be able to do this every issue. I guess Trump winning is more acceptable than compromises and allowing people with differing views into the tent. Or maybe people who talk like this don't actually believe what they are saying about Trump. I would expect this kind of dodgy non-response from the new posters like those Argh and TentPanda people, but not from you. You brought up abortion as an example of a lack of Democratic compromise, but the universally-enforcing pro-life position inherently isn't compatible with allowing any choice whatsoever. That's certainly not the Democrats' fault. You just picked an impossible scenario, and you didn't answer my very reasonable question about how it's even hypothetically possible to accommodate and incorporate that conflicting position, if Democrats wanted to do so. Also, this isn't true for every issue. For example, it's possible for both Republicans and Democrats to compromise their positions on guns and gun control. We could start with eliminating the most extreme positions, such as if some Dems wanted to ban 100% of guns and if some Repubs wanted to remove the hurdle of background checks. Most people on both sides can accept the existence of guns and the existence of background checks. It's theoretically possible to moderate talks on guns and gun control, but don't only blame the Dems for their lack of compromise. Compromise is a two-way street. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 15 2024 11:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I would expect this kind of dodgy non-response from the new posters like those Argh and TentPanda people, but not from you. You brought up abortion as an example of a lack of Democratic compromise, but the universally-enforcing pro-life position inherently isn't compatible with allowing any choice whatsoever. That's certainly not the Democrats' fault. You just picked an impossible scenario, and you didn't answer my very reasonable question about how it's even hypothetically possible to accommodate and incorporate that conflicting position, if Democrats wanted to do so. Also, this isn't true for every issue. For example, it's possible for both Republicans and Democrats to compromise their positions on guns and gun control. We could start with eliminating the most extreme positions, such as if some Dems wanted to ban 100% of guns and if some Repubs wanted to remove the hurdle of background checks. Most people on both sides can accept the existence of guns and the existence of background checks. It's theoretically possible to moderate talks on guns and gun control, but don't only blame the Dems for their lack of compromise. Compromise is a two-way street. I didn't dodge, my point from the very start was about making concessions in general. Everyone here likes to latch onto the particular example and studiously slide past the point and the question, what have Dems done to bring Trump skeptical people into the fold, for the purpose of "saving democracy"? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
GSL
Cure vs TriGGeR
ByuN vs Bunny
KCM Race Survival
Big Gabe
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Escore
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
