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.
On August 01 2024 16:32 Slydie wrote: I think it is sad that abortion has become such a huge political topic in the first place. Abortion laws change in Europe too, but parties rarely make campaigns about it. A couple of weeks back and forth etc. is usually decided by medical reasons, not moral.
What puzzles me is how little Christian Conservatives in the US care about the unwanted babies once they are born. If if it really important to force poor teenage mothers to carry their child they got through a youth mistake, you need to pair it with a safety net for both her and they baby after birth. I have never seen that talked about. "Freakonomics" even pointed out a strong correlation between relaxed abortion laws and a drop in crime about 20 years later. "Life" only matters inside a womb.
This has always been my issue with the 'pro-life' movement in the US. I can understand being pro life. but surely if life is so important to you then you should support further protecting that life once they are born. In my eyes a pro life person should be heavily in favour of social safety nets and support to ensure that the oh so important life can flourish.
The fact that apparently a lot of the US pro life crowd stops giving two shits about the child the second it leaves the womb makes me question why they care so much about babies being forced into the world.
I’m just unsure why folks have such a positive disposition towards a proven match fixer.
On August 01 2024 16:32 Slydie wrote: I think it is sad that abortion has become such a huge political topic in the first place. Abortion laws change in Europe too, but parties rarely make campaigns about it. A couple of weeks back and forth etc. is usually decided by medical reasons, not moral.
What puzzles me is how little Christian Conservatives in the US care about the unwanted babies once they are born. If if it really important to force poor teenage mothers to carry their child they got through a youth mistake, you need to pair it with a safety net for both her and they baby after birth. I have never seen that talked about. "Freakonomics" even pointed out a strong correlation between relaxed abortion laws and a drop in crime about 20 years later. "Life" only matters inside a womb.
This has always been my issue with the 'pro-life' movement in the US. I can understand being pro life. but surely if life is so important to you then you should support further protecting that life once they are born. In my eyes a pro life person should be heavily in favour of social safety nets and support to ensure that the oh so important life can flourish.
The fact that apparently a lot of the US pro life crowd stops giving two shits about the child the second it leaves the womb makes me question why they care so much about babies being forced into the world.
I’m just unsure why folks have such a positive disposition towards a proven match fixer.
I'm going to make the bold assumption that this was meant to be posted in one of the GOAT threads?
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote: I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
It’s simply the violinist metaphor, a very common abortion argument. You cannot be compelled to give up your body for 9 months to save the life of another. We’re all agreed upon that. This isn’t a new argument, it’s a very old very common one and I’m not sure why people are pretending they haven’t heard of it.
Google violinist abortion.
Violinist metaphor being a common abortion argument doesn't make it any less reductionist or stupid of an argument.
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote: I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
Carrying a pregnancy to term isn't involuntary servitude. Planting tobacco and picking cotton aren't involuntary servitude either. They only become so when you're forced to do them against your will. Is your objection that forced pregnancy isn't forced servitude because pregnancy isn't service? Pregnancy certainly can be. Surrogates are commonly paid tens of thousands of dollars for their service, which is an amount comparable to a year's wages.
If you sign up for a job of picking cotton for 9 months, you certainly could be 'on the hook' to finish up the contract or face some sort of penalties for not delivering the agreed upon services.
On August 01 2024 15:27 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yes, I am a huge supporter of abortion and even though not being allowed to terminate pregnancies constitutes a lack of bodily autonomy and lack of freedom, it is not slavery.
IF pregancies were forced, sure. Now, the idea that people should only have sex if they are willing to be parents is a very stupid idea to maintain in a world where prevention is accessible and where abortions can be had if one is unfortunate, but there is still a world of difference between forced pregnancy and making prevention hard to access/making abortion illegal.
Suppose you discover that you are pregnant, and you decide, two months into pregnancy, that you want to stop being pregnant. Now suppose your government prohibits you from ending your pregnancy, and forces you to carry to term. Those first two months weren't a forced pregnancy. The remaining seven months are.
Suppose you're floating in a black void of non-existence or whatever, then you're a fetus, then someone changes their mind and decides they don't want to bother anymore, and you just die. Is that okay? Most actions have consequences, certainly so when it involves lives of other people. Sometimes we have to do things we don't like or want to, and that's okay.
I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to decide at what point a fetus becomes a 'real human being', but I do think there's at least some 'value' as a human being in one, and it cannot simply be a 100% decision about whatever is convenient for the mother with no consideration towards the life of the fetus / baby so for me at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple matter of 'body autonomy.'
I can't wrap my head around the level of stupidity required to make such an obviously racist statement.
It's mind-boggling.
As mind-bogglingly racist as it is, such statements are a dime a dozen for Trump.
Trump has said and done so many insane, terrible things, that it's easy to forget that his very, very, very first political move, that started to initially interest Republicans (if I remember correctly), was peddling racist birther lies against Obama: that Obama was born in Kenya, not the United States; that Obama was ineligible to be president; that there were conspiracies to hide Obama's true long-form birth certificate from the public.
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote: I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
It’s simply the violinist metaphor, a very common abortion argument. You cannot be compelled to give up your body for 9 months to save the life of another. We’re all agreed upon that. This isn’t a new argument, it’s a very old very common one and I’m not sure why people are pretending they haven’t heard of it.
Google violinist abortion.
Violinist metaphor being a common abortion argument doesn't make it any less reductionist or stupid of an argument.
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote: I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
Carrying a pregnancy to term isn't involuntary servitude. Planting tobacco and picking cotton aren't involuntary servitude either. They only become so when you're forced to do them against your will. Is your objection that forced pregnancy isn't forced servitude because pregnancy isn't service? Pregnancy certainly can be. Surrogates are commonly paid tens of thousands of dollars for their service, which is an amount comparable to a year's wages.
If you sign up for a job of picking cotton for 9 months, you certainly could be 'on the hook' to finish up the contract or face some sort of penalties for not delivering the agreed upon services.
On August 01 2024 15:27 Liquid`Drone wrote: Yes, I am a huge supporter of abortion and even though not being allowed to terminate pregnancies constitutes a lack of bodily autonomy and lack of freedom, it is not slavery.
IF pregancies were forced, sure. Now, the idea that people should only have sex if they are willing to be parents is a very stupid idea to maintain in a world where prevention is accessible and where abortions can be had if one is unfortunate, but there is still a world of difference between forced pregnancy and making prevention hard to access/making abortion illegal.
Suppose you discover that you are pregnant, and you decide, two months into pregnancy, that you want to stop being pregnant. Now suppose your government prohibits you from ending your pregnancy, and forces you to carry to term. Those first two months weren't a forced pregnancy. The remaining seven months are.
Suppose you're floating in a black void of non-existence or whatever, then you're a fetus, then someone changes their mind and decides they don't want to bother anymore, and you just die. Is that okay? Most actions have consequences, certainly so when it involves lives of other people. Sometimes we have to do things we don't like or want to, and that's okay.
I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to decide at what point a fetus becomes a 'real human being', but I do think there's at least some 'value' as a human being in one, and it cannot simply be a 100% decision about whatever is convenient for the mother with no consideration towards the life of the fetus / baby so for me at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple matter of 'body autonomy.'
So is prohibiting abortions after certain point forced servitude but okay because the unborn child's rights trump the mother's, or is it not forced servitude? You seem to be arguing for both at the same time. Is your argument "It's not forced servitude, but even if it was, it wouldn't be banned by the constitution because it's trumped by another protection"?
In his mind the "Black People" will not vote for him, if they have a "Black" alternative.
So Harris is both, to his white audience a CRT-SJW-BLM-DEI-Token-Black-Hire ...and to possible black voters.. an "Indian and totally not black, like so not black, don't vote ...or not for her okay?"
Same as Harris isn't "Tough on Crime"....and also "Hard on drug crime with 1900 convictions as DA"
They are quite good at using the modern bubble phenomenon where you can target a specific demographic and exclude another one. Thus being able to tell two different lies to two different places without either one being aware of it.
Harris continues to spread her presidential vision for the United States, as well as remind us about Trump's illegal and immoral intentions if he manages to grab power again, right after Trump's unhinged, racist rant against Harris.
On August 01 2024 19:15 Salazarz wrote: I don't feel like I'm qualified enough to decide at what point a fetus becomes a 'real human being', but I do think there's at least some 'value' as a human being in one, and it cannot simply be a 100% decision about whatever is convenient for the mother with no consideration towards the life of the fetus / baby so for me at least, it's a lot more complicated than a simple matter of 'body autonomy.'
I think you're still occupying that space where an abortion is just an easy, whimsical activity that women do for funsies on a Friday afternoon, when they got off work early and had to find something to do. The notion that an abortion is something that is done without consideration of the fetus, that it's anything less than a major life decision, has always been an argument detached from the reality of every single person living that situation. It's never easy. It's never taken lightly. It should be their right to make that choice for themselves.
Furthermore, comparing getting pregnant to signing a contract is weird to me. By that logic, many people find out they signed a work contract without meaning to. Others find out that after trying to sign the contract for years that HR finally took it. Some people only get a pen with no ink and can't sign, no matter how much they might want to. Some are talked into signing when it's not really what they want. Others still had their hands grabbed at gunpoint and were forced to sign. I guess my point on this is, a pregnancy is not a contract, it's a prolonged process that should require the buy-in of the person performing it, at all times. This is consent 101, if at any point the yes becomes a no, then it's a no. I mean, even by your metaphor, someone can just stop showing up to work and the contract will be nullified.
I could explain pretty easily how being raped and then being forced to carry that pregnancy to term constitutes involuntary servitude. But the bottom line is anyone who can undergo such a medically and socially severe process as pregnancy deserves more rights and a better bar than "but is it really slavery?"
On August 01 2024 05:33 Gorsameth wrote: Since I talked about shooting congress I'll just add that I was talking about a situation where the Speaker refused to swear in the new Congress so Republicans could throw out a legitimate election. I have no problem with shooting people after they commit to a fascist takeover of the government. But lets not do so before they cross that line.
That situation doesn't exist.
What you imagine is possible: 1) A one member strong fascist majority gets elected to the House of Representatives. They nominate whoever you think is the devil to be Speaker of the House, and they "refuse to certify" the election or "send it back to the states" or "declared the election invalid" and choose Drumpf to be president instead.
2) The House convenes and elects Nancy Pelosi speaker. She refuses to swear in ANYBODY so the House can't certify the rightful winner of the election, right? Therefore under the order of presidential succession, Nancy Pelosi would assume the powers of the presidency. But since she's only "acting president" she can serve forever with no term limits and make sure Congress never counts the next votes!
Here's why this is impossible:
1) By the Electoral Count (Reform) Act, they can't just refuse to count any electors that they don't want. 2) Was declared unconstitutional in the case Powell v. McCormack which can be read somewhere other than CNN. The Speaker, or indeed the House itself, can't just not let elected members take their seat.
Look as you may, there is no hidden cheat code anywhere in the Constitution. The only thing is that you can remove an opposing president or members of Congress for any reason if you have a 2/3 majority. But nobody does that just because the other side won, no matter how many Europeans suggest violence in the US over the possibility. There is no hidden cheat code in the Constitution.
As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
On August 01 2024 05:33 Gorsameth wrote: Since I talked about shooting congress I'll just add that I was talking about a situation where the Speaker refused to swear in the new Congress so Republicans could throw out a legitimate election. I have no problem with shooting people after they commit to a fascist takeover of the government. But lets not do so before they cross that line.
That situation doesn't exist.
What you imagine is possible: 1) A one member strong fascist majority gets elected to the House of Representatives. They nominate whoever you think is the devil to be Speaker of the House, and they "refuse to certify" the election or "send it back to the states" or "declared the election invalid" and choose Drumpf to be president instead.
2) The House convenes and elects Nancy Pelosi speaker. She refuses to swear in ANYBODY so the House can't certify the rightful winner of the election, right? Therefore under the order of presidential succession, Nancy Pelosi would assume the powers of the presidency. But since she's only "acting president" she can serve forever with no term limits and make sure Congress never counts the next votes!
Here's why this is impossible:
1) By the Electoral Count (Reform) Act, they can't just refuse to count any electors that they don't want. 2) Was declared unconstitutional in the case Powell v. McCormack which can be read somewhere other than CNN. The Speaker, or indeed the House itself, can't just not let elected members take their seat.
Look as you may, there is no hidden cheat code anywhere in the Constitution. The only thing is that you can remove an opposing president or members of Congress for any reason if you have a 2/3 majority. But nobody does that just because the other side won, no matter how many Europeans suggest violence in the US over the possibility. There is no hidden cheat code in the Constitution.
great, then they have nothing to worry about.
But you have to understand why people are skittish when there was previously an actual plot to overturn the results of the election and those same people are, for a large part, still around.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
Depends on the Trump supporter.
Some think he'd improve the economy. Some think he'd stop illegal immigration. Some think he'd eliminate political corruption. Some think he'd be tough on our international enemies. Some think he'd protect gun rights. Some think he'd fight for white, Christian, and male demographics. Some think he'd restore traditional conservative values. Some think he'd prevent unwanted liberal and progressive reforms.
Whether or not he would actually do those things, and whether or not those are actually good things to do, are besides the point. People have a variety of justifications that are apparently so crucial that his supporters are willing to overlook all of his illegal and immoral deeds.
Trump also gave us 4 years of peace, and attempted to roll back existing Forever Wars. Kwark criticized him for sitting down with the Taliban, when it should be clear now that was a necessity for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan (which of course the Biden admin completely botched in the worst possible way).
The existing admin seems hell bent on starting WW3 with the holder of the largest nuclear stockpile. No thanks. I'd rather just... have peace again.
On August 01 2024 23:44 townhouse wrote: Trump also gave us 4 years of peace, and attempted to roll back existing Forever Wars. Kwark criticized him for sitting down with the Taliban, when it should be clear now that was a necessity for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan (which of course the Biden admin completely botched in the worst possible way).
The existing admin seems hell bent on starting WW3 with the holder of the largest nuclear stockpile. No thanks. I'd rather just... have peace again.
I'm not sure how you can assert that Trump gave us peace when he was creating new conflicts even within our own country. And Biden was the one who ultimately got us out of Afghanistan and who's currently supporting an alliance that's keeping Putin in check, not Trump. I disagree that giving Putin everything he wants is going to prevent WW3 and make our country safer, let alone the world safer, which is Trump's plan. No president can guarantee world peace, but Biden and Harris are lightyears ahead of Trump, when it comes to foreign relations. Trump's idea of foreign relations is cheating on his wives.
I think the Trumper's idea of peace is to withhold aid from Ukraine so that Putin's army can kill them faster. That's our most recent example of what they think of foreign conflict. That, or unflinchingly supporting Israel as they continue their assault on Palestine. For whatever it's worth, way too many Democrats are also in on that second one. And the way Trumpers cheer when they talk about denigrating their fellow Americans, I don't know what kind of peace you think you're voting for if that's the reason you vote for Trump...
On August 01 2024 23:44 townhouse wrote: Trump also gave us 4 years of peace, and attempted to roll back existing Forever Wars. Kwark criticized him for sitting down with the Taliban, when it should be clear now that was a necessity for a smooth withdrawal from Afghanistan (which of course the Biden admin completely botched in the worst possible way).
The existing admin seems hell bent on starting WW3 with the holder of the largest nuclear stockpile. No thanks. I'd rather just... have peace again.
I criticized him for surrendering to them unilaterally with no transition plan. Biden adhered to Trump’s agreement which failed.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
Demócrats don't get their Guy/Gal elected. That's the main motivation. Both sides work the same way in that regard, but the rethoric needed to energize their base is different.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
Demócrats don't get their Guy/Gal elected. That's the main motivation. Both sides work the same way in that regard, but the rethoric needed to energize their base is different.
It’s not just about their team winning, it’s also about Trump specifically. He’s an old, out of touch, relatively stupid, white man. He’s an unashamed racist and philanderer. He talks down to experts based on a 5 minute “news” segment he saw on Fox and is openly derisive of the law. He’s the ultimate “fuck you and your college degree and your changing world” candidate. He’s the political equivalent of putting up Confederate monuments in black majority cities. He makes a statement, ‘the world may be changing but the people with power are still the same, and don’t you forget it’. They don’t just want to beat the Democrats, they want to get back at every person who ever dared to hire a black actor for a tv commercial, they want to get back at their kids for never calling them, they want to get back at their work for the fact their manager is younger than them, they want to get back at the environment for asking them to recycle etc.
It’s the ultimate expression of identity politics. Back when white male conservatives dominated everything they could have political disagreements among themselves. There was a left vs right within the framework of white male rule and so issues mattered. Then Obama got elected and something broke within them, the foundation on which they rested their political beliefs was shattered. Now ideology and policy no longer matter to them, only identity politics. That’s why they can’t articulate what Trump has done for them or what he promises to do for them in the future. It’s why Trump doesn’t need to actually have a specific agenda or platform. It’s why people who, when asked to outline the policies that are important to them, hate everything that he does will still vote for him.
On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote: As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?"
He's from the red-coloured political party and not the blue-coloured political party.
EPT
