EPTHaving no ideology doesn’t mean he’ll do nothing, it means he could do anything. Anyone with physical access to him can shape US policy in any area undoing decades of work.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4428
| 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 | ||
KwarK
United States43014 Posts
Having no ideology doesn’t mean he’ll do nothing, it means he could do anything. Anyone with physical access to him can shape US policy in any area undoing decades of work. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44723 Posts
On October 05 2024 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: yeah trump isn't trustworthy on anything and doesn't give a shit about the socially conservative /religious stuff he's just pandering and thus he's liable to pander if that's politically expedient. But tbh when you guys are talking about 'federal abortion ban' I imagine something that bans abortion, not something that bans abortion after 20 weeks unless the life of the mother is threatened or whatnot. I mean I still don't support that and I think women should be allowed to choose because it is my experience that virtually nobody frivolously has a late term abortion and punishing 97%+ of women who end up being forced to have one through making them jump through a bunch of hoops and making it all the more traumatizing because of some tiny fraction is imo kinda abhorrent - but even Norway - a pretty progressive country by most counts - only allows for abortions during the first 12 weeks entirely at the woman's discretion. If someone in Norway wants to have an abortion after 13 weeks they need to argue their case in front of a medical board. * Now in 2022 97.3% of those cases were approved, and more than 96% of abortions happen before 12 weeks. Also we're likely to increase 12 weeks to 18 weeks in the coming years, for the reasons stated. But I still don't think 'trump would sign a federal abortion ban' is the same as 'trump would sign a federal abortion ban on 20 week old fetuses'. Just to clarify: A federal abortion ban doesn't mean that zero abortions can occur. It means that the federal government is dictating what is and isn't permissible for all pregnant Americans, and the federal government could decide to ban all abortions after X weeks (and they could also put in exceptions, if they want, such as in the cases of rape, incest, and protection of the mother's life). That's what I'm talking about, that's what Trump is talking about, and that's pretty much what all Democratic and Republican lawmakers are talking about with the conversation of "federal abortion ban", as that means that not even the blue states (which protect abortion rights) are safe from a federal abortion ban that makes the final rules. The right to have an abortion - or the removal of that right in any capacity - can be decided at the federal level, or it could be left up to the states to individually decide if and when abortions are banned. Obviously, there is a stark difference between a federal abortion ban in the third trimester that still permits the exception of preserving the life of the mother (since only a fraction of 1% of abortions occur that late in pregnancy) and most Republican proposals that want a federal abortion ban within the first few months of pregnancy (which might even kick in before a woman knows she's pregnant and could even make a decision about her body, and would definitely affect most pregnancies). | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2024 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: - but even Norway - a pretty progressive country by most counts - only allows for abortions during the first 12 weeks entirely at the woman's discretion. If someone in Norway wants to have an abortion after 13 weeks they need to argue their case in front of a medical board. Pretty archaic by the American left's standards | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 05 2024 09:25 BlackJack wrote: Pretty archaic by the American left's standards Did you just ignore the context that followed that snippet so you could throw another barb at "the left"? If it's archaic, then Norway is likely to agree with that. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On October 05 2024 11:14 NewSunshine wrote: Did you just ignore the context that followed that snippet so you could throw another barb at "the left"? If it's archaic, then Norway is likely to agree with that. It strikes me as a reasonable observation, I found it surprising myself | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2024 11:14 NewSunshine wrote: Did you just ignore the context that followed that snippet so you could throw another barb at "the left"? If it's archaic, then Norway is likely to agree with that. Huh? Norway agrees their stance on abortion is archaic? | ||
|
Billyboy
1154 Posts
On October 05 2024 11:26 BlackJack wrote: Huh? Norway agrees their stance on abortion is archaic? Yeah kind of, that is why Drone said they are likely changing it to be less archaic. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
Still, an 18-week ban is still pretty archaic by the American left's standards. I think the default position now is that there should be no restrictions on abortions. | ||
|
Billyboy
1154 Posts
On October 05 2024 11:39 BlackJack wrote: Oh, I actually didn't see that. Still, an 18-week ban is still pretty archaic by the American left's standards. I think the default position now is that there should be no restrictions on abortions. Meh, I think they would likely be very supportive the Norway system if they got the Norway board and healthcare system ran by a government they trusted. But we won't ever know for sure since neither of us are the American left. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On October 05 2024 11:19 WombaT wrote: It strikes me as a reasonable observation, I found it surprising myself Considering it's not actually a 12 week abortion ban, it's a damn sight farther from the reality of total ban red states than it is progressive states, so calling out the American left in particular seems pointed and out of place. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada418 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5692 Posts
On October 05 2024 15:23 Taelshin wrote: So maybe a 15-18 week ban should do? I mean this isn't the issue id plant my flag on but its seems like it's one everyone that posts here can come to some agreement on. Nobody that posts here can come to any agreement on anything. Neither can US legislators. It is a flexible issue, as you note just because someone would support an 18 week ban doesn't mean they also oppose 17 and 19 week bans and so can be considered flip-flopping if they later claim to also be open to 20 weeks. 20 weeks and 6 months (3rd trimester) are numbers that have been supported by most Americans in the past at the national level. There is very little chance of federal legislation coming out of Republicans now, as it's not in Agenda 47, it's not necessary due to the ability of state legislatures to legislate now, the fact that it could be political suicide, and the fact that they've never done it before despite multiple chances and the votes do not exist in the Senate. The only bills of the past almost 20 years have been 20 week ones which criminalize the performing of illegal abortions and forbid prosecution of women who have illegal abortions performed upon while allowing them to sue. This is except for Lindsey Graham's 16 week or so proposal, which was intentionally designed and timed to fail while making Lindsey Graham look like he's doing what he's supposed to, that Drumpf told him to shut the fuck up and go away over. The only mitigating factor that would encourage national legislation is that since Roe v. Wade is gone, it's the Democrats who ought to be feeling some pressure to negotiate at the national level to enshrine what they consider to be a human right in law. Like a "20-week ban" which is also a national until-20-week-abortion-allower would presumably be a great political victory for Democrats because it would supersede the heartbeat bans of red state legislatures. However, they, their voters, and the media won't see this obvious pragmatic avenue for a while. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2024 15:54 oBlade wrote: Like a "20-week ban" which is also a national until-20-week-abortion-allower would presumably be a great political victory for Democrats because it would supersede the heartbeat bans of red state legislatures. That's not how that works | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 05 2024 15:23 Taelshin wrote: So maybe a 15-18 week ban should do? I mean this isn't the issue id plant my flag on but its seems like it's one everyone that posts here can come to some agreement on. Ehh... no. I doubt any major Democrat politician would even come out in favor of a 20 week ban or a 24 week ban, let alone 15-18. Even before Roe v Wade was overturned some states enacted there own bans at like 20-weeks or 18-weeks and this was considered extremely anti-woman. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5692 Posts
What's not how what works? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
Nevermind, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were implying that legislation on a 20-week abortion ban would mean you're allowed to have an abortion until 20 weeks. | ||
|
Billyboy
1154 Posts
What sucks is how much the American media and mindset heads out into the world and most people don't think deep enough about how different the systems and situations are so now people in places with good systems are starting to think there are issues. People on both sides of the issue in the US have reasonable reasons to be upset because the medical system in the US is not designed to be the best for the people but rather the best for the various medical corporations. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On October 05 2024 02:27 oBlade wrote: Yes, that's on purpose because going "look, a criminal" when you have someone from one party elected to a position in the criminal justice system on the specific promise to prosecute the other party for something, to get them, and they get felony convictions that involve "falsifying business records" from 2017 to influence an election that happened in 2016, when NDAs are not illegal, when Hillary Clinton paid a mere SEC fine and escaped any felony justice for her finance trickery surrounding the Bullshit Dossier which was clearly bought to influence an election - that's not about crime and justice, it's third world bullshit that deserves to be mocked out of the country. Well thank you for being more forthright. Are you talking about Alvin Bragg? Because if you look at his quotations in context that haven't been clipped and spliced, it's clear that he is giving his credentials... that there is an ongoing case and he has the experience to deal with equivalent cases... and importantly to follow where the facts lead. Example One linked with time stamps: Candidate Forum (I backed it up a little for more context as he starts talking on the subject at the 1 hour, 12 minute mark) Similarly on Hot97, also linked with timestamps. "I'm prepared to go where the facts take me once I see them and hold him accountable." "I'm being careful, not because I'm running for office but because every case needs to be judged on the facts and I don't know all the facts." He is not promising a conviction. He is promising that he has the skill set to manage the high profile case that is already before the office that he stepping into. Day One, he's ready to go and the case won't be mismanaged due to lack of experience. That's all. I've provided two examples in their original context. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything that hasn't been clip chimped that says anything different. That, or you are just going to disbelieve the actual words he says no matter how many times he says "I'm prepared to go where the facts take me." Quite frankly the number of times Trump has bragged about breaking contracts combined with a trail of unpaid businesses... which is just stealing, if the system was more just, he ought to have been forced to deal with his corrupt business practices a long time before now. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7266 Posts
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/republican-election-denier-tina-peters-sentenced-to-9-years-in-prison-for-voting-data-scheme Tina Peters received 9 years in jail. Shes old, this is a serious sentence. I hope she thinks about the fact that shes in jail for committing crimes due to believing Donald Trump and the mypilllow guys lies. To go to jail for either of them, sheesh. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
On October 05 2024 15:23 Taelshin wrote: So maybe a 15-18 week ban should do? I mean this isn't the issue id plant my flag on but its seems like it's one everyone that posts here can come to some agreement on. Norway quietly increased the limit to 18 weeks, without anyone going to the streets for neither side. The conservative Christians (we have them too) traded some stupid restrictions about a "council" needing to determine if abortions in situations of aborting one of more babies were allowed, but that was voted away too. I think the US should need a more level-headed discussion about abortions. Every situation is different, and I doubt anyone is really against nor for ALL abortions. Some examples: -If the fetus is already dead, it is still an abortion, and the same medications are used. -If the fetus clearly can not survive, it is an abortion. -If the woman is in severe danger of dying, it is an abortion. -If the woman was raped. If the woman is underage. If she is in no position to take care of the baby... When conservatives say they "vote GOP because they are against abortion", I really don't know what they mean. Late in the pregnancy, especially after week 20, not many think it should be easy to get an abortion for reasons like a breakup or regret, but I feel conservatives argue that to fire eachother up. | ||
| ||
