Jump to content

U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

You are far too judgmental of people you know nothing about over the internet. I’m guessing you’re at least a decade or two older than me, and it’s pathetic that I have to tell you to act like a mature adult.

We all have incidents that scar us. Lost friends and family members who died too young. Failed relationships, both lovers and friends. Professional and personal failures. And moments that change how you feel about an issue for the rest of your life. One of the latter was when I was a sophomore in high school, and a friend who was 15, after telling me and some others that she was 2 months pregnant,  asked us to pummel her stomach to cause a miscarriage. I refused, but I heard her screams as I walked away. Ever since that day I’ve been militantly pro-choice. Do not tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to be pregnant against your will. I’ve seen it’s darkest repercussions.

If you know so much then why do you make such declarations as you did?  And where the eff do you get off with your superiority to those who point out the callousness and just wrongness of your words?  Talk about immaturity, doubling down in the hole you dug with your own words.  It's kinda hilarious, really that you just did what you accused me of doing. You know nothing Jon Snow! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we talk about Sarah Sanders' lies, we are not talking about the thousands of US citizens who died due to negligence and incompetence in the worst natural disaster in 80 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really quite astounding reading.  Alexander Nix just doesn't see why he's being picked on for assisting blatantly the dumbster's campaign, while stealing without their knowledge all this data of people from FB -- with FB's assistence, too let us not forget -- while also making millions and millions of income.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2018/jun/06/alexander-nix-cambridge-analytica-chief-commons-committee-live

He could be the orange dumbster, yelling 'fake news' and mean and unfair, and none of this never happened anyway.  And everybody is lying and is jealous of him. It's a conspiracy!

Quote

 

 

Former Cambridge Analytica chief executive Alexander Nix used his return to the DCMS Committee to hit back against the reporting that led to his company’s downfall, and took advantage of parliamentary privilege to attack Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower who sparked the run of stories, as a “resentful” “liar” who had made allegations that were “proven false”.

In the face of hostile questioning from MPs, who forced him to recant elements of his previous testimony in front of the committee, Nix made his case that Cambridge Analytica was the victim in the affair: the victim of a “concerted campaign” by the “global liberal media” – including the “extremely powerful” Guardian – to destroy his company in an attempt to spark a second EU referendum and bring down Donald Trump as President.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

If you know so much then why do you make such declarations as you did?  And where the eff do you get off with your superiority to those who point out the callousness and just wrongness of your words?  Talk about immaturity, doubling down in the hole you dug with your own words.  It's kinda hilarious, really that you just did what you accused me of doing. You know nothing Jon Snow! :D

Yeah, with the glaring difference being that I rarely lash out at people while you do it on the reg. But regardless, what exactly did I say that was callous in the post you quoted? Because all I did was write a nuanced post in favor of abortion rights. Not exactly the hottest of takes.  

40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

While we talk about Sarah Sanders' lies, we are not talking about the thousands of US citizens who died due to negligence and incompetence in the worst natural disaster in 80 years. 

It’s only going to get worse over this impending hurricane season. NPR has been doing a lot of on the ground reporting, and it sounds like the island, outside of San Juan, is still largely in shambles. How are people supposed to protect themselves with tarp roofs?   

https://the1a.org/shows/2018-06-04/hurricane-season-has-begun-is-puerto-rico-ready-for-another-storm

http://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2018/05/31/hurricane-maria-death-toll-in-puerto-rico-thousands-higher-than-initial-reports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

By how people articulate their opinions. I feel like this is easier to understand for people who aren’t particularly religious because they don’t have that internal conflict, at least not as often.

Circling back to the original point, if you say your faith teaches you that abortions are immoral, and therefore should be illegal, you’re acting in an unconstitutional manner if and when you propose a law to outlaw abortions. If you can argue that there’s a medical reason why abortions should be illegal in some instances absent your faith, you’re good. Your faith can absolutely influence your perception of morality, but it can’t be your driving motivation for passing legislation. There has to be a practical reason that exists outside of your religious beliefs.

The problem is having this high of a bar is still relatively new, especially for older generations that still have a stranglehold on power in the U.S. Back in the day, nearly everyone in the U.S. was some type of Christian, so their ethical and religious moral values were one in the same and went unchecked. That’s starting to change, and the hypocrisy is being called out more often now. And that played a huge role in why Trump won.

My question actually pertained to the fact that arguments against abortion are usually religious and ethical. For example, I would like to know how you would categorise the below:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church

Pope John Paul II

Secondly, surely your first amendment doesn't say you can't have religious reasons for proposing a law. Rather it states that the government may not set up a state religion or prohibit the exercise of any religion. Interpreted more broadly it may mean nothing can be done with government funds or power that has no non-religious purpose. However, preventing abortions can always be construed as having a non-religious purpose so this does not really help. 

I also find your continuing juxtaposition of religious rationales for abortion with medical justifications highly strange. Are these two types of reasoning an exhaustive way of categorising arguments on this subject in your view? Does it not make more sense to speak of religious vs secular justifications?

I am bamboozled as to the meaning of your last two sentences. Could you explain them to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The bolded are religious arguments: they appeal to the authority of religion.

1 hour ago, Chaircat Meow said:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The bolded here are closer to being ethical arguments.

In the first case there's little to argue about with anyone who believes in it.
In the second case however, one can discuss the definition of a "human being" and of "the natural law."

In my eyes the core difference is that where ethics is concerned there can be a reasonable -and possibly fruitful- discussion between people holding different views on the matter. Religion otoh suffers very little discussion: you either believe or you don't, you either accept the authority of the Church orr you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It Really Looks Like Trump Wants to Kill NAFTA

https://slate.com/business/2018/06/trump-wants-to-kill-nafta-not-negotiate-a-better-deal.html

Quote

 

Donald Trump does not want to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He wants to kill it.

That, more or less, is the message Larry Kudlow, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, delivered during a Tuesday morning appearance on Fox & Friends. The president “is very seriously contemplating kind of a shift in the NAFTA negotiations,” which are currently at an impasse, Kudlow said. “His preference now, and he asked me to convey this, is to actually negotiate with Mexico and Canada separately. He prefers bilateral negotiations.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

My question actually pertained to the fact that arguments against abortion are usually religious and ethical. For example, I would like to know how you would categorise the below:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church

Pope John Paul II

Secondly, surely your first amendment doesn't say you can't have religious reasons for proposing a law. Rather it states that the government may not set up a state religion or prohibit the exercise of any religion. Interpreted more broadly it may mean nothing can be done with government funds or power that has no non-religious purpose. However, preventing abortions can always be construed as having a non-religious purpose so this does not really help. 

I also find your continuing juxtaposition of religious rationales for abortion with medical justifications highly strange. Are these two types of reasoning an exhaustive way of categorising arguments on this subject in your view? Does it not make more sense to speak of religious vs secular justifications?

I am bamboozled as to the meaning of your last two sentences. Could you explain them to me.

I'll address the last part first. I was referencing how Trump played on people's fears of losing their status in our society, which are largely Christian white males. Their anxiety helped propel Trump to the presidency.

Yes, they often times are both, but you have to ask yourself what is the driving factor, and I'd say more often than not it would be religion. I largely agree with @Rippounet's break down of the Pope's quote, and while yes he is making an ethical case, the driving force IMO is religious authority. Now, that's not saying the Pope is wrong to make the argument as he does for the Church, but it would be out of bounds to then take that sentiment and try and turn it into law here in the U.S.

I'm not sure why you find my medical qualifier strange. To me, once you conclude that abortions should be acceptable and legal, I would think the next questions you would ask would be for the medical community, as an abortion is a medical procedure. 

The last thing I'll say with regards to ethics is this: is it more ethical to ban abortions and promote policies that would lead to even more abortions, as Republicans often do, forcing women into having back alley or is it more ethical to promote policies that will reduce unwanted pregnancies thus making abortions less likely to occur? To me the correct answer is obviously the latter, though that does require the acceptance of abortions as a legal medical practice. Considering there's a zero percent chance that you'll ever end the practice, you might as well make it as safe as possible. To me, that's the most ethical thing you can do. Banning legal abortions, again IMO, does not seem particularly ethical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

While we talk about Sarah Sanders' lies, we are not talking about the thousands of US citizens who died due to negligence and incompetence in the worst natural disaster in 80 years. 

They blew a hole in the budget, though. Fortunately it wasn't a real disaster, like Texas.

Just throw some more towels at them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NFL Is Too Dumb To Realize That Donald Trump Is Never Going To Stop With This Shit

https://deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-too-dumb-to-realize-that-donald-trump-is-nev-1826558748

Quote

 

The only people who could not have seen it coming are the very people who did not see it coming—the plump defective oligarchs who run the NFL, many of whom gave millions of their own dollars to Trump’s rancid failed prank of a campaign. They believed that Trump was their peer or their friend or anything but what he is and has always so blaringly been, so they tried to make some sort of deal with him on the player protests against police violence and impunity that Trump identified as something that could be weaponized in his favor.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I don't think this is specifically Trump-related; my theory is that DOJ is investigating Nunes for leaking. Which, if he's indicted, would be a small victory, but glorious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

So I don't think this is specifically Trump-related; my theory is that DOJ is investigating Nunes for leaking. Which, if he's indicted, would be a small victory, but glorious.

He deserves prison time just for making Trey Gowdy look like the adult in the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Warlock of Quarth said:

In other news, the judge who sentenced Brock Turner (remember him?) has been recalled.

For a nuanced report about both sides of the recall, there's this excellent article from HuffPost:

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/brock-turner-michele-dauber/

All in all, I feel this kind of thing sets a bad precedent.

Thanks for the article, it was pretty interesting.  I didn't know a single thing about the case before reading it.  Funny how as I read it, I'm initially "this judge was really bad".  By the end I would have voted against the recall if it was my district.  It sounds like both sides argued in bad faith and potentially the recall side used some very shoddy statistics.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'll address the last part first. I was referencing how Trump played on people's fears of losing their status in our society, which are largely Christian white males. Their anxiety helped propel Trump to the presidency.

Yes, they often times are both, but you have to ask yourself what is the driving factor, and I'd say more often than not it would be religion. I largely agree with @Rippounet's break down of the Pope's quote, and while yes he is making an ethical case, the driving force IMO is religious authority. Now, that's not saying the Pope is wrong to make the argument as he does for the Church, but it would be out of bounds to then take that sentiment and try and turn it into law here in the U.S.

I'm not sure why you find my medical qualifier strange. To me, once you conclude that abortions should be acceptable and legal, I would think the next questions you would ask would be for the medical community, as an abortion is a medical procedure. 

The last thing I'll say with regards to ethics is this: is it more ethical to ban abortions and promote policies that would lead to even more abortions, as Republicans often do, forcing women into having back alley or is it more ethical to promote policies that will reduce unwanted pregnancies thus making abortions less likely to occur? To me the correct answer is obviously the latter, though that does require the acceptance of abortions as a legal medical practice. Considering there's a zero percent chance that you'll ever end the practice, you might as well make it as safe as possible. To me, that's the most ethical thing you can do. Banning legal abortions, again IMO, does not seem particularly ethical to me.

I think this shows how your arguments are pretty fundamentally flawed.  You seem to be conflating ethics with practicality.  On an ethical basis, there is an absolute justification to ban abortions.  If you perceive the unborn child as a live human being, there is a pretty strong ethical argument against most abortions.  Of course, it is totally subjective to say when life begins, so this isn't an issue that can be "won" by either group.  

There is then a practical reality which you refer to, that they happen and will happen.  But this is divorced from the ethical argument, and frankly can be made to greater or lesser degrees about many legislated crimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the primaries have been in the USA news a fair bit, and on BBC News, just to clarify: what's the rationale behind primaries? Why do they exist? Isn't it much cheaper just to have preferential voting? And easier? And time-saving? And more representative?

This isn't being facetious; preferential voting has existed longer than the USA primary system, so what was the rationale behind adopting this runoff election system rather than making it much faster and better and not as protracted and expensive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Since the primaries have been in the USA news a fair bit, and on BBC News, just to clarify: what's the rationale behind primaries? Why do they exist? Isn't it much cheaper just to have preferential voting? And easier? And time-saving? And more representative?

This isn't being facetious; preferential voting has existed longer than the USA primary system, so what was the rationale behind adopting this runoff election system rather than making it much faster and better and not as protracted and expensive?

They’re a democratic way to decide who will represent your party. Don’t really have much to do with preferential voting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, now liberal sorts of people, it's time we faced up to the immigration problem.

Yes we have an immigration problem. But, it isn't a problem that concerns a group of people.

It's an immigration problem that concerns one guy.

That's right. Just one guy.

Which is conservative idiot and all around knucklehead Niall Ferguson.

 

Now it seems to me that the US has comparative advantage in producing conservative knuckleheads. That means we should be exporting conservative knuckleheads. Not importing them.

Now UK we love ya. But, would you mind if we shipped this conservative knucklehead back? Like overnight express maybe?

.................................................................................................................................

The Republican Party:

We got nuthin' to say about Trump's racist,sexist, and authoritarian ways.

But, tariff's on aluminum imports? Whoa! That's just too much.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a feature not a bug

So give your racist god king a big ol hug

He won't tell the truth

Never tells a lie

Right wing authority will never die

Nazis on the left

God is on the right

Hitler wasn't that bad

Put up a good fight 

 

Oooh don't ya just love your alternative facts

Getting new realities from old ass hacks

But make sure to keep your ass in check

Touch another dude's and we'll hang you by the neck!

But bitches be needing to give up all three holes

Don't worry bout 'no' cause that's just a lie

Never been a bitch who didn't need a guy

To tell her where to go and just what to think

If she talks back just hit her head on the sink

 

Oooh it's a feature not a bug

Show any females your impressive slug

She really wants it don't ask for advice

Even lookin' at her is really nice

And just remember if she's a tough old hag

Find one you deserve with titties that don't sag

 

I dedicate this song to Mrs. Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Pony Empress Jace said:

I dedicate this song to Mrs. Trump.

The current and former Mrs. Trump's?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...