Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Maybe you missed the beginning of that discussion, and the fact this was an analogy?
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/2940/716451.page#9223272 I basically just swapped abortions and natural miscarriage for the equivalent to actual, fully developed human beings.
If you do indeed care a lot about miscarriage that happen before the mother even discover that she is pregnant, then great, good for you. But this makes you an extremely rare exception.
Just Tony wrote: and I'd have to mention armed people with training on how to use their firearms don't tend to get raped as often as unarmed people
I'd first ask for sources and then mention the usual XKCD comic because given what I read about how the huge majority of rape happens, being able to use firearms or not seems quite irrelevant…
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Because Trump makes the best decisions, the very best, let me tell you. He makes such good decisions that other people say, "wow! what great decisions he makes!"
In an administration where ANY criticism is "fake news" and image is quite literally everything, of course there's going to be no inquest or real investigations into this. The fact that the Obama administration had a plan in place but didn't execute is clearly because of how weak Obama was on his Muslim brothers, right? Add in that you have a Republican house and Senate, of course there's going to be no investigation, they are the party of military action and war. And there's casualties in war, they don't really care.
Zywus wrote: It's one of the things that's surprised me the most.
As an outsider, I've assumed that the US party politics were a lot more individually driven, with the parties being more loose congregations than in many european political realities; where in actuality there's really not much point in having parliaments with hundreds of seats. It would be enough with one seat per party and let that seat get a number of votes corresponding to the election results since no one is expected to do anything of note that's not ordered from party headquarters anyway.
It seems now that (at least in the case of the Repuplicans), the "party-tyranny" is just as much a factor in the US as in the european systems. As soon as trump is elected, the party swings it's whip and everyone falls in line..
It was that war in the US for a long time. Individual members were expected to follow their own values, and of course look after their districts. Crossing the floor happened as a matter of routine, and bills sponsored by people from both sides were fairly standard. Republican and Democrat weren't meaningless labels, but they didn't mean everything either.
I used to be quite critical of that system, as it seemed to make it impossible to do anything, I was sold on it by a fellow I met who'd worked in state parliament here, and spent some time attached to a Washington group. One big thing he said was that because each member was truly responsible for his own vote, members actually read the bills, they didn't just follow party leadership and vote yay or nay on a bill they didn't even understand.
That's been purged from the US system for a while now. Like most things it started with the Republicans, and Democrats have now followed along. Absolute expectation of following the party line is always bad, but in the US it is made so much worse because the system simply isn't built for line voting - it is too easy for a minority to block everything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 16:22:02
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Because Trump makes the best decisions, the very best, let me tell you. He makes such good decisions that other people say, "wow! what great decisions he makes!"
In an administration where ANY criticism is "fake news" and image is quite literally everything, of course there's going to be no inquest or real investigations into this. The fact that the Obama administration had a plan in place but didn't execute is clearly because of how weak Obama was on his Muslim brothers, right? Add in that you have a Republican house and Senate, of course there's going to be no investigation, they are the party of military action and war. And there's casualties in war, they don't really care.
Or: It was planned under the Obama admin, and as with most JSOC ops, they were waiting on the right illum conditions (generally a new moon) to execute. Remember, this type of op is planned by a JSOC cell, who has to brief and get approval from their command, who in turn briefs and gets approval from Sec Def. By the time it gets to ANY POTUS for 'go or no go' it has been approved at several levels by folks who ought to know more about what works and what does not than any sitting POTUS. All the policy/political aspects will have been chewed over.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
See 2008-2010... Democrats held the WH, House and Senate... and pushed through their agendas.
Your haste to claim 'Democrats did it too' has caused you to miss the actual point of conversation. Obama winning as a Democrat, with full support of the party, and then proceeding to attempt a series of conventional Democratic policies with the full support of his party is utterly mundane. It would be similarly mundane if Jeb Bush had won and then set about attempting conventional Republican policies with the full support of his party.
What's interesting is that Trump won while openly attacking many conventional Republican positions, and he received an incredible amount of scorn from Republican party leaders through the election. Then he won, and the conflict just went away. And it didn't go away because Trump came to terms with Republican leadership - no he's continued to hold to his unconventional positions.
In the face of this the Republican party has decided to celebrate him as their new leader. It turns out nothing else fething matters if you can win an election and promise a tax cut, you get to be their king.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Boy... the DNC is making the "this was a one-term president" a patriotic slogan again.
Remember during the Obama Administration when hoping the President failed, and thus working to make him a one term President, was "treason" and "unpatriotic"?
Funnily enough, I don't. I remember people blasting the Republicans (and rightly so) for effectively holding the government hostage in order to try to make Obama a one-term president, which isn't nearly the same thing as you're claiming happened.
You mean the Democrats have not threatened to filibuster and otherwise hold up nominees to halt this Administration's plans?
Get back to us when the Democrats refuse to hold a nomination hearing for the Supreme Court or refuse to increase the budget ceiling unless their demands are met.
Boy... the DNC is making the "this was a one-term president" a patriotic slogan again.
Remember during the Obama Administration when hoping the President failed, and thus working to make him a one term President, was "treason" and "unpatriotic"?
Funnily enough, I don't. I remember people blasting the Republicans (and rightly so) for effectively holding the government hostage in order to try to make Obama a one-term president, which isn't nearly the same thing as you're claiming happened.
You mean the Democrats have not threatened to filibuster and otherwise hold up nominees to halt this Administration's plans?
Well if they don't then they are justifying Republicans strategy and are played like a fools so...
So when Republicans do it then it's bad, but when Democrats do it then it's fine?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Finally something everyone can criticise Trump for without any partisan lines getting in the way:
President Trump orders his steak well done with ketchup
What donkey-cave goes out to dinner at one of the nation capital’s most-acclaimed steakhouses, orders a 30-day dry aged New York strip, then asks the chef to cook it well done? And if that’s not enough, eats it with ketchup like a 5-year-old?
We’ll give you one guess.
Ustrello wrote: As if trump wasn't a monster already he now orders steaks like that
Huffpo had an interesting take on your comments;
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 16:01:16
Frazzled wrote: Are Pro-Life Democrats no longer welcomes into the Democratic Party?
They're an endangered species these days. It isn't for a lack of support from the DNC leadership, they like running pro-life Democrats in conservative electorates because a pro-abortion Democrat will always be better than a pro-abortion Republican to the DNC leadership.
But Democrats haven't done much winning in conservative seats for a while now. Back in 2006 when the Democratic tide was strong there were 37 pro-life Democrats who won office that year (the party's margin of victory was 31 seats). That ended with the massive wins for Republicans 2010, not a single pro-life Democrat held their seat. The defeats included Jim Oberstar, which ended a 30 something year career representing Minnesota as a pro-life democrat.
Be interesting to see what happens in 2018. Do Democrats continue their talk about local members for local political conditions, which is basically code for running pro-gun, pro-life candidates in Republican areas. Or are they actually becoming as rigid as Republicans? We're gonna find out in the primaries in a year and a half.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Not all senate Democrats have joined in on the filibuster effort. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has deferred judgement of Trump’s nominee until after the pick is announced, pledging to fight “tooth and nail” if the nominee isn’t “mainstream.”
“If the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely will keep the seat open,” Schumer said during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union earlier this month.
So, we have the Democrat Senate leader saying that the official democrat response to the nominee will depend on who is picked, in contrast to the Republican leader who said that no nominations by Obama would be considered.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Boy... the DNC is making the "this was a one-term president" a patriotic slogan again.
Remember during the Obama Administration when hoping the President failed, and thus working to make him a one term President, was "treason" and "unpatriotic"?
Funnily enough, I don't. I remember people blasting the Republicans (and rightly so) for effectively holding the government hostage in order to try to make Obama a one-term president, which isn't nearly the same thing as you're claiming happened.
You mean the Democrats have not threatened to filibuster and otherwise hold up nominees to halt this Administration's plans?
Get back to us when the Democrats refuse to hold a nomination hearing for the Supreme Court or refuse to increase the budget ceiling unless their demands are met.
Western Journalism wrote:Not all senate Democrats have joined in on the filibuster effort. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has deferred judgement of Trump’s nominee until after the pick is announced, pledging to fight “tooth and nail” if the nominee isn’t “mainstream.”
“If the nominee is not bipartisan and mainstream, we absolutely will keep the seat open,” Schumer said during an interview on CNN’s State of the Union earlier this month.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
BigWaaagh wrote: Trump's CPAC speech highlight: The president also spent a large part of his keynote address going after another popular target of his: the press. Trump doubled down on his claim that the "FAKE NEWS media" is the "enemy of the American people," this time saying he plans to "do something about it."
The biggest story out of CPAC is the one that's been barely reported - the conservatives assembled there gave enthusiastic support to both Bannon and Trump. Trump has assumed leadership of conservatism and they've cheered him along in taking it.
I remember when people said it was okay that Trump was a lunatic with lunatic ideas, because conservatives and liberals would both fight him. I knew it was ridiculous to think conservatives would fight Trump, but I still underestimated how quickly and tamely they would fall in line.
It's one of the things that's surprised me the most.
As an outsider, I've assumed that the US party politics were a lot more individually driven, with the parties being more loose congregations than in many european political realities; where in actuality there's really not much point in having parliaments with hundreds of seats. It would be enough with one seat per party and let that seat get a number of votes corresponding to the election results since no one is expected to do anything of note that's not ordered from party headquarters anyway.
It seems now that (at least in the case of the Repuplicans), the "party-tyranny" is just as much a factor in the US as in the european systems. As soon as trump is elected, the party swings it's whip and everyone falls in line.
.
That'sthe two-party system here.
See 2008-2010... Democrats held the WH, House and Senate... and pushed through their agendas.
Yeah, that Obamacare got pushed right through with no opposition at all...
Whembly, it's like you're from an alternate dimension.
Just Tony wrote: Also, if inconvenience is the issue, what about the single mother working a low income job who has a two year old that she can't take care of and is inconvenienced by, should she be allowed to euthanize that child? To the pro-life crowd, there is no difference between the two. And yes, I'm aware adoption is the immediate answer to the latter. It should be the immediate answer to the former, as well.
Umm okay you're very confused about some things. You either seem to be entirely ignorant of the idea that many people accept that development in to a human is a gradual process, as the person develops thoughts and a unique personality it acquires more rights. Or you accept that concept, and just happen to think a two year old hasn't developed a unique personality.
Either way, it's ended up in you saying something utterly ridiculous about the pro-choice movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: BW: Sebs, you might want to edit your quotes there, old boy. I didn't actually say anything posted here.
Sorry mate, fixed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 16:13:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Zywus wrote: It's one of the things that's surprised me the most.
As an outsider, I've assumed that the US party politics were a lot more individually driven, with the parties being more loose congregations than in many european political realities; where in actuality there's really not much point in having parliaments with hundreds of seats. It would be enough with one seat per party and let that seat get a number of votes corresponding to the election results since no one is expected to do anything of note that's not ordered from party headquarters anyway.
It seems now that (at least in the case of the Repuplicans), the "party-tyranny" is just as much a factor in the US as in the european systems. As soon as trump is elected, the party swings it's whip and everyone falls in line..
It did used to be that way. Individual members were expected to follow their own values, and of course look after their districts. Crossing the floor happened as a matter of routine, and bills sponsored with cross floor support were standard. Republican and Democrat weren't meaningless labels, but they didn't mean everything either.
I used to be quite critical of that system, as it seemed to make it impossible to do anything, I was sold on it by a fellow I met who'd worked in state parliament here, and spent some time attached to a Washington group. One big thing he said was that because each member was truly responsible for his own vote, members actually read the bills, they didn't just follow party leadership and vote yay or nay on a bill they didn't even understand.
That's been purged from the US system for a while now. Like most things it started with the Republicans, and Democrats have now followed along. Absolute expectation of following the party line is always bad, but in the US it is made so much worse because the system simply isn't built for line voting - it is too easy for a minority to block everything.
That's a sad development. The culture of party-tyranny is problematic enough in european style representative democratic systems but at least there, the more granular distribution of mandates allow for a plurality of parties. So while each party consist mainly of glorified button-pressers,* it's comparatively easy for new parties to form and for smaller parties to have at least some influence.
The strength of a first-part-the post, winner-takes-it-all system is that while representation might be a bit wonky, with huge amounts of votes getting no representation at all etc. at least there's a better connection formed between the local voters and their individual representative. If there's no crossing of the floor when the partyline clash with the values espoused towards ones local constituency though, the US system get's the worst of both worlds.
*A swedish voter for example is generally completely ignorant of who actually was elected from their district, and of anyone elected to parliament outside the party-leaders and the occasional minister. It's all about the parties, not the individuals actually given the mandates.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 16:22:22
Zywus wrote: The strength of a first-part-the post, winner-takes-it-all system is that while representation might be a bit wonky, with huge amounts of votes getting no representation at all etc. at least there's a better connection formed between the local voters and their individual representative. If there's no crossing of the floor when the partyline clash with the values espoused towards ones local constituency though, the US system get's the worst of both worlds.
That sums it up exactly.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
See 2008-2010... Democrats held the WH, House and Senate... and pushed through their agendas.
Your haste to claim 'Democrats did it too' has caused you to miss the actual point of conversation. Obama winning as a Democrat, with full support of the party, and then proceeding to attempt a series of conventional Democratic policies with the full support of his party is utterly mundane. It would be similarly mundane if Jeb Bush had won and then set about attempting conventional Republican policies with the full support of his party.
What's interesting is that Trump won while openly attacking many conventional Republican positions, and he received an incredible amount of scorn from Republican party leaders through the election. Then he won, and the conflict just went away. And it didn't go away because Trump came to terms with Republican leadership - no he's continued to hold to his unconventional positions.
In the face of this the Republican party has decided to celebrate him as their new leader. It turns out nothing else fething matters if you can win an election and promise a tax cut, you get to be their king.
It happened because the GOP is a shell, a zombie, a shadow of the conservative party it once was.
Trump, a third party candidate, swatted aside the 'approved' GOP candidates with ease and hijacked the GOP for his own ends.
It was surreal to see Trump at the GOP convention - he was a man in enemy territory.
The death spiral of the GOP is only going to get worse and they know it.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
While lots of forces and energy will be aligned against Trump in 2020 (if he even runs), it's important to remember the identity of the candidate always matters in an election, no matter how partisan things become. And we're talking about a Democratic party that has a long history of being fractured. If Sanders supporters continue with their "we want our candidate or we're talking our ball and going home" behavior, then the door is certainly open to Trump winning again.
gorgon wrote: While lots of forces and energy will be aligned against Trump in 2020 (if he even runs), it's important to remember the identity of the candidate always matters in an election, no matter how partisan things become. And we're talking about a Democratic party that has a long history of being fractured. If Sanders supporters continue with their "we want our candidate or we're talking our ball and going home" behavior, then the door is certainly open to Trump winning again.
IME, as long as the Democrats are perceived as the party of identity politics, and as long as the Republicans are seen as standing up for labor, the Democrats will continue to lose. The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda, and while standing up for equal rights, they need to get out of the Oppression Olympics game. White working and middle class people need help just like everyone else in the working and middle classes, and to the extent that the Democrats play into the "feth white man patriarchy narrative", they'll continue to receive strong opposition. People aren't buying into that anymore, realities on the ground have changed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 18:00:55
GOP may not go down in the midterm (2018), but in 2020... they're fethed.
EDIT: only way to save their bacon, is if Hillary decides to run again.
Don't be so sure. At every stage, Trump has been able to overcome the common-sense predictions that he would lose.
This is a true statement. He's bigly overcome the odds.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
President Trump said Monday that "nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated," as Republicans have been slow to unite around a replacement plan for ObamaCare.
He was almost scornful of Republican Congressman Eric Cantor for sitting behind a copy of the 2,700-page Democratic legislation the Republicans say is overly complex and beholden to special interests.
"We don't care for this bill," Cantor said.
Obama accused him of using the pile of papers as "a prop".
"The truth of the matter," he added, "is that healthcare is very complicated."
But nobody knew.
apparently.
It's almost like actually governing is a lot harder than talking gak on twitter or running white nationalist orientated blogs.
So what the feth was/is the AWESOME PLAN 111 that we were hearing so much about then ?
..or are we waiting for the generals to be ordered to come up with that after they've defeated ISIS ?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 18:13:19
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
jasper76 wrote: The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda
The thing is, the Democrats had that. It was the Republicans who didn't have a robust economic plan.
They may have, but the Trump lawnmower ran it over. The thing is that W Bush and Obama were either powerless or unwilling to keep jobs from bleeding out of the middle class. Trump got elected in part because the Republican and Democrats were both seen as being incapable of producing results, and they believed Trump would take action where both parties had failed.
GOP may not go down in the midterm (2018), but in 2020... they're fethed.
EDIT: only way to save their bacon, is if Hillary decides to run again.
Don't be so sure. At every stage, Trump has been able to overcome the common-sense predictions that he would lose.
Only by an incredibly tiny margin that owed a lot to his name being higher up the ballot sheet in the key states. Randomisation of candidate names across a multiple choice selection of ballots probably would have lost Trump the EC.
jasper76 wrote: The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda
The thing is, the Democrats had that. It was the Republicans who didn't have a robust economic plan.
They may have, but the Trump lawnmower ran it over. The thing is that W Bush and Obama were either powerless or unwilling to keep jobs from bleeding out of the middle class. Trump got elected in part because the Republican and Democrats were both seen as being incapable of producing results, and they believed Trump would take action where both parties had failed.
The insanity is that Trump is exactly one of those who's spent decades sending jobs and work overseas. His track record is the exact opposite of what these people want. Trump *IS* the guy sending that work overseas.
There's also a fundamental issue of misperception. A President can't just wave a magic wand and bring jobs back, economies change, most of those jobs aren't coming back, even if they could be brought back here, in most cases either the demand no longer exists or they'd be replaced by mechanization. There needs to be retraining and assistance programs to get workers into other fields or relocating to places where their skills are needed, not just forcing companies to retain workers in inefficient industries or roles, that just ends up being corporate welfare in the long run.
As for identity politics, the Republicans run on this too, in fact in many ways moreso even than the Democrats, they just run it for different groups of people. Identity politics are not something just one side runs on, it's deeply embedded on both sides, and in this last election the GOP played heavily on identity politics just as the Democrats did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 18:29:43
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
No, that's the simplistic narrative that people have concluded because Sanders' pick lost out. It's totally fething wrong, though.
In reality, both Perez and Ellison laid out near identical platforms, both called for decentralising the party, refocusing messaging and policy on more econonomic populism, and on making sure candidates and positioning in each state take in to account the politics of that particular state rather than the greater national situation.
And both candidates are well and truly on the left of the Democratic party. Ellison was a lot more left, probably to the left of 80 to 90% of the rest, while Perez is to the left of maybe 70%..
jasper76 wrote: The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda
The thing is, the Democrats had that. It was the Republicans who didn't have a robust economic plan.
They may have, but the Trump lawnmower ran it over. The thing is that W Bush and Obama were either powerless or unwilling to keep jobs from bleeding out of the middle class. Trump got elected in part because the Republican and Democrats were both seen as being incapable of producing results, and they believed Trump would take action where both parties had failed.
This is a true statement. He's bigly overcome the odds.
The expression is "big league". As in, "When I predicted Jeb Bush would win the GOP Primary, I was wrong, big league.'
Excelt of course he actually says "bigly."
He said it once and I rewound it multiple times.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Just Tony wrote: Also, if inconvenience is the issue, what about the single mother working a low income job who has a two year old that she can't take care of and is inconvenienced by, should she be allowed to euthanize that child? To the pro-life crowd, there is no difference between the two. And yes, I'm aware adoption is the immediate answer to the latter. It should be the immediate answer to the former, as well.
Umm okay you're very confused about some things. You either seem to be entirely ignorant of the idea that many people accept that development in to a human is a gradual process, as the person develops thoughts and a unique personality it acquires more rights. Or you accept that concept, and just happen to think a two year old hasn't developed a unique personality.
Either way, it's ended up in you saying something utterly ridiculous about the pro-choice movement.
My son's congenital heart diseas was diagnosed in the first MONTH of his gestation. Do you know why? Because his heart was beating at 18 days. I'm well aware that if born at 18 days, he would not have survived, but to classify that as unviable tissue and not a life is being purposefully disingenuous soleley to remove one's correlation between abortion and euthanization. Mentioning the 2 year old was taking the thought of abortion as a matter of convenience and extrapolating it out to the point of ridiculousness. But it did showcase the problem. deciding when someone accepts something as life. Now here's a thought, how far in the womb does a baby have to be to be considered developed? 2 trimester births have a survival rating from 0-70%, depending on the week of birth. Week 24 gives a 40-70% rating according to The March of Dimes. That seems more than developed enough to be considered life, but 2nd trimester abortions are already gaining support with the left at an alarming rate. And to be honest, I don't feel that life should be given a percentage rate.
gorgon wrote: While lots of forces and energy will be aligned against Trump in 2020 (if he even runs), it's important to remember the identity of the candidate always matters in an election, no matter how partisan things become. And we're talking about a Democratic party that has a long history of being fractured. If Sanders supporters continue with their "we want our candidate or we're talking our ball and going home" behavior, then the door is certainly open to Trump winning again.
IME, as long as the Democrats are perceived as the party of identity politics, and as long as the Republicans are seen as standing up for labor, the Democrats will continue to lose. The Democrats need to fashion a clear and robust economic agenda, and while standing up for equal rights, they need to get out of the Oppression Olympics game. White working and middle class people need help just like everyone else in the working and middle classes, and to the extent that the Democrats play into the "feth white man patriarchy narrative", they'll continue to receive strong opposition. People aren't buying into that anymore, realities on the ground have changed.
Where do you live? I suspect it is in a region that would never go blue anyway. There is a lot of diversity of thought across the country that you don't recognise. That is not how people around here, even in Reddest OC, view the Democratic or Republican parties. Frankly, anyone so poorly informed and susceptible to Breitbart-style propaganda is already a lost cause. Every post you prove exactly how necessary the 'identity politics' you decry are.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:07:27
Crispy78 wrote: This is a damn good read, if a little terrifying. Ties together the whole Trump / Bannon / Breitbart / FAKE NEWS thing rather scarily...
Yeah, I read this, not happy reading at all. Some of it can get a bit too closely on the whole conspiracy theory thing, but still there's enough there that it seems plausible knowing how business etc works.
overcome the odds.
