Samantha Stark Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I don't understand your foreign laws is what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 12 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said: Are Americans only in favour of states rights when it comes to issues they agree with? There will be no state level abortion ban in any of the 50 states. Yes, Americans are only in favor of states rights when it comes to issues they agree with. Abortion being a state's right is something that the GOP and Trump are specifically forwarding, right now. You can claim it isn't going to come to pass, but shockingly others want it to do so and those others have all the legislative and executive power, and are well on their way to getting the judicial power. You do realize that there is no actual law or amendment in place to protect abortion rights, right? Again, you asked what rights they're worried about losing. When I tell you, you claim that they aren't going to lose them. Regardless of the truth of your predictive ability, it does not change the fact that they are worried about losing those rights. And there are legitimate reasons to be worried, as the current president and majority in congress has pledged specifically to end those rights. 12 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said: When the 'Prohibition on contraceptive drugs' act hits the floor, then that will be a legit position. The spectre of the end of federal assistance in inquiring those things isn't. Planned parenthood is being defunded. There is at least one bill that pronounces that life begins at conception, which outlaws ANY contraception such as Plan B and morning after and IUD. This has hit the floor as of last week. This is a national law. This isn't a spectre so much as a 'I don't like THIS SPECIFIC THING YOU JUST DID AND WISH TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.' 12 minutes ago, Samantha Stark said: VAW act sounds like another 'some animals are more equal' thing like hate crime laws than anything else. Is violence against a woman more serious than violence against a man? It is perhaps not more serious, but it does have different behaviors and actions that were not being particularly well-served by the existing laws. It is also one of those rights that you claim aren't being removed that is, ya know, being removed. It does things like provide for rape kits, for domestic shelters, for assistance for women who don't have a job and need to have money. It was important enough to get bipartisan support 20 years ago. Quote I don't understand your foreign laws is what I mean. Yep, pretty much this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 It should be pointed out that the women's marches covered a lot more than reproductive concerns. People were marching for BLM, healthcare, climate change, issues dealing with disability, LGBTQ+ concerns, education, immigrant status, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Well Trump is ready to take America back to '50s-60s with the enviorment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squab Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: It should be pointed out that the women's marches covered a lot more than reproductive concerns. People were marching for BLM, healthcare, climate change, issues dealing with disability, LGBTQ+ concerns, education, immigrant status, and more. Is that march the one a few days ago that has changed so much or are you talking the one from November? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, Squab said: Is that march the one a few days ago that has changed so much or are you talking the one from November? What are you even talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: And this would matter if that would be allowed to come to the public eye in any way, or for that matter that something like that would happen in a year or two. Contamination takes a long time. Flint didn't become an issue until over a year after it happened, and that was with an EPA and guidelines that would actually promote doing some level of testing. Usually these sorts of things take several years if not a decade. By then Trump will be gone or the US democracy will be gone, and in either case it won't matter. I did say a 'year or three.' Plus, Flint is but an example. Other examples include contamination from Fracking and oil spills. Or illegal dump sites. That sort of thing will get reported outside the traditional news channels and spread via social media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said: It should be pointed out that the women's marches covered a lot more than reproductive concerns. People were marching for BLM, healthcare, climate change, issues dealing with disability, LGBTQ+ concerns, education, immigrant status, and more. But is this a strength or a weakness? I'm reasonably confident that it is the latter. Given this potpourri of causes, it is highly likely that some of them are much more important than others to almost any given marcher and in fact it is also likely that not every marcher agrees on every cause. Thus, it is probably safe to ignore the opinion of the marchers on any given cause which is almost certainly what Trump and the Congressional Republicans will do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If social movement/ change depended on every single person being of the exactly same opinion on everything, there would never have been change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: I said he'd start that pretty soon. That was one. That appears to be starting tomorrow. The XO is rumored to order anyone with visas from specific countries to be deported, and they've talked about killing DACA as being constitutional earlier this week. But that's not at all the same thing as deporting millions of people. Blocking people from specific countries is going to prevent maybe on the order of a hundred thousand. Eliminating DACA does not mean going after those who were taking advantage of it (the former is trivial, the latter requires a significant amount of resources). 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: I also said he'd dismantle the EPA. You have continually poo-pooed me on that, and yet in a week we've seen a very good start towards that.And he's done so in precisely the way I stated - by budget cuts, by RIF, by requiring grants to be waived, by appointing hostiles towards it to run the thing. He has not dismantled anything yet. What he has chosen to do is to stop the work until his people figure out what exactly it is doing. This is disruptive, but not permanent. 3 hours ago, Kalbear said: Let's see what else. Killing NASA/NOAA? Yep. Killing FCC? Yep. Net Neutrality? Yep. national park service? Multiple things already done. And it's day fucking 5. I agree with you on net neutrality, but not the rest -- he has taken some actions regarding certain agencies, but they do not amount to "killing" anything. I also agree with you that he is moving pretty quickly, but I consider this to be a good thing. There was plenty of time to prepare for action and there is no sense in delaying it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorn Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Altherion said: But is this a strength or a weakness? I'm reasonably confident that it is the latter. Given this potpourri of causes, it is highly likely that some of them are much more important than others to almost any given marcher and in fact it is also likely that not every marcher agrees on every cause. Thus, it is probably safe to ignore the opinion of the marchers on any given cause which is almost certainly what Trump and the Congressional Republicans will do. Tea Party protesters from 2009 also did not have a coherent program - they were still a success and directly led to the Republican wave win in 2010. On the other hand, anti-war protest in 2003 had a simple and very clear goal - prevent the invasion of Iraq. It failed utterly and was ignored by the then-president and Republican party (and by most of Democratic party, but that's a different problem). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 9 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said: is that even legal? I'm not sure what the hell he means? Start a federal investigation? Nationalize the City of Chicago? He's talking out of his ass but it doesn't mean he will not try something bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 As many at 6 reporters who were covering the protests on Saturday have been arrested by DC Metropolitan police and charged with felony "rioting". What... the... hell? The first I heard of it was last night from "the Guardian". Do we have to look to non-US news sources for important information now? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest?CMP=share_btn_tw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 hours ago, ThinkerX said: Has the potential to backfire, big time, a year or three down the road. Take a hypothetical repeat of the Flint situation: many thousands of people getting sick from contaminated water. Independent research shows contamination stemmed directly from the dismantling of EPA regulations (somebody took advantage of the lack of oversight). This goes public - Trump Team gets hammered with being the defacto cause of a major disaster that would have been prevented, or at least mitigated, had the EPA still been around. Bonus: Trump, being utterly unable to handle such criticism, launches a literally insane series of diatribes that makes him and his supporters look even worse. Nah. They will just do the same thing they've done with Flint and effectively kill the investigation. House Oversight committee asked Snyder and co to produce documents a year ago related to emails being destroyed, water levels, what they knew when, etc, have received none of them and as of a day or two ago basically said it's no longer necessary because Snyder is "doing a good job moving forward". Like everything else that involves ethics, if it's not a democrat, they will bury it. In other news, Trump announced on twitter he wants a major investigation into voter fraud (which doesn't exist) and plans to tighten up voting procedures (aka more voter suppression). Awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaxom 1974 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 A leader to believe in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 13 hours ago, SerHaHa said: I do get your drift though. It's a tough call now for Canada'a PM, who has done well to hold his (and Canada's) own regarding fighting climate change, with the Trump admin right next door. IMO Trudeau has an opportunity here to give Trump his first true bloody nose, by shutting down the Canadian side of the XL agreement. He won't though, with Alberta in such dire straights due to the price of oil, it'd likely be the end of his government. It does give Canada some leverage though over Trump. Unless we invade just for the oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 hours ago, Altherion said: But is this a strength or a weakness? I'm reasonably confident that it is the latter. Given this potpourri of causes, it is highly likely that some of them are much more important than others to almost any given marcher and in fact it is also likely that not every marcher agrees on every cause. Thus, it is probably safe to ignore the opinion of the marchers on any given cause which is almost certainly what Trump and the Congressional Republicans will do. None of what you wrote here even makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I'm not sure what the hell he means? Start a federal investigation? Nationalize the City of Chicago? He's talking out of his ass but it doesn't mean he will not try something bizarre. Well the legal option would be having DOJ seek a consent decree against the Chicago PD until new reforms are implemented that address the problem. That's the kind of thing the Obama administration did pretty regularly. Of course, that only makes sense if you think the police are at least part of the problem. I suspect nothing will come of this though. So far, Trump has said lots of bizarre things and lies (and had his spokespeople say bizarre things and lies), but his administration's actual actions so far have all been a combination of long-standing Republican doctrine (e.g. Reagan and both Bushs had the abortion gag order) and the kind of thing that any Republican President now would do because that's where their party is (e.g. cracking down on government climate change science and discussion). He hasn't actually done anything unique yet, and trying to take over Chicago would be unique. There's time for this to change, but I think the dynamic going forward is that Trump will say lots of outlandish stuff (and sometimes some populist stuff) while his administration focuses entirely on extremely conservative policies. Its not even a clever distraction ploy, its just that this is who Trump is, while that is who he hired. Basically, its option 1 from my list right after the election, stale Reaganism mixed with some authoritarianism. So instead of getting Paul Ryan's immigration policies and Steve Bannon's economic policies; we're getting Ryan's economic policies and Bannon's immigration policies. The worst of both worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Well Trump is ready to take America back to '50s-60s with the enviorment. 1850s and 1860s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 More on the mass arrests and arrests of Journalists:http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-01-24/inauguration-mass-arrest-of-protesters-journalists-a-throwback-with-a-familiar-face-attorneys-say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.