Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Vitriol against all the democrats? There are a handful, 99% of the party supports the proposals the HEAD of the democratic party proposed. Those I have an issue with are the 6 in the house including reps from NJ, NY, and Ca. Honestly if these folks want to gain something for their constituents that might hit home get the SALT deductions back. Those are 3 of the hardest hit states. 

The pharma industry gets billions in research funding from the US gvmt. Them crying about how they need to charge more due to drug research falls on deaf ears with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6817

  • DRW50

    5990

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

I hadn't read this post until just now, but I've already indicated that abortion is a complicated issue with people of goodwill on both sides. As Democrats have rightly criticized many in the GOP for being anti-science, I should point out that yet another reason why people are opposed to abortion at the 20-week point is because--while the scientific research has concluded varying results--there is some research indicating that fetuses can feel pain at that point (or shortly after that point):

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3#xref-ref-30-1

I've tried very hard to keep my conversations with you respectful, but I really think it's a low blow for you to suggest that I'm "sick" because I support a policy that limits abortions after a certain point. (In fairness, you didn't explicitly call me "sick," but you painted my position as such, which--IMO--isn't all that different.)

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well you missed what I said most which is the majority of abortions don't occur after 20 weeks as it is. So basically what your suggesting is that it needs to be legislated because the small number of women who have to have them need to be monitored to make sure their life is at risk or the situation is dire enough to warrant it. It's not enough to trust the woman to consult with her doctor. That is the part I find offensive. Its not an attack on you it's the entire mindset that if a baby was found to have so many congenital defects that the babe would not live, it should be the gvmt's decision as to whether I should or shouldn't carry the baby to full term. If there is pain beyond 20 weeks to the fetus, the fetus would be in pain for the duration also.

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jane, I overreacted to what you wrote, and I do apologize.

I understand why you feel the way you do, and that it's a deeply moral issue to you. But those on the opposing side also see it as a deeply moral issue. And as I stated earlier, a sizable minority of women are pro-life, and they certainly aren't motivated by a desire to have men regulate their bodies.

If a fetus were found to have congenital defects, it obviously would be a tragic development. My own view would still be to do all that was possible to carry the baby to term, even if the doctors thought the baby (once born) had a low chance of survival. I acknowledge that as a man, my view is not as important as yours. But again, I'm sure that there are women who feel the same way.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

THIS!!

While I acknowledge that it's virtually impossible to rid our laws completely of religious influence, since religion is such a big part of our history and has influenced the way we think in so many ways, both direct and indirect, I absolutely believe that we should strive to lessen it's influence as much as we can.

Religion is a personal belief, and laws are for everyone, whichever religion you follow, if any. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Exactly this. This particular government, for all its educational credentials (Eton, Oxbridge) is mediocre, lazy and has zero imagination or ideas. It has no vision beyond 'I wanna stay in power for the foreseeable future.' So they trot out Brexit talking points because for the base, Brexit is the emotional touchstone which goes beyond mere policy. And in their mind's eye, they are giving Johnny Foreigner a kicking -- it makes them feel good about their own lives. The government has no other policies except to erode those institutions which put a check on its power and bribe-taking.

They have learned the Trump culture-war lesson well. I'd like to think this latest accumulation of mess -- Brexit shortages, fuel & heat prices, Tory corruption -- is finally going to chip at potential voters to the point where they cannot stand seeing them anymore. But the fact is, many voters have their own reasons for keeping this sorry bunch in power, and will take pretty much any indignity as a result.

The other problem is that the opposition has been utterly neutered, so no viable alternatives to the National Brexit 'Conservative' Party. This is a problem befalling many Socialist parties in Europe, which have seen their voter share drop to single-digits. The difference is that, in parts of Europe, the Green party has filled the left-wing void. Not so in the UK. At least, not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I believe it's unfair to keep dragging out this "high minority of women" talking point.. Part of the problem is how the right has portrayed the issue. Its intentional. Also you mention that but fail to mention over 70% of Americans believe Roe should stay in place.

1. No where have I heard the right say  Legalizing abortion has decreased the number of abortions overall. Women are counseled and educated now because it's legal by physicians, counselors, and in some cases faith members. Also legalizing forms of birth control has  been a huge factor as has education. Oh that's right sex education is a no no in schools also. Forget that it has led to lowered teen pregnancies.

2. The right focuses on late term abortions when they represent less than 2% of abortions. That should indicate that women who have to have them are intending to carry the fetus to birth and the rational to have one is dire. Ralph Northam the current Gov of Vi who is also a Child Neurologist said as much and talked about late term abortions on a radio show. OF course the right misrepresented what he said and called him a baby killer. You really think it's easy for a woman and man to decide to end a pregnancy due to severe problems where the babe would not live? You know nothing about this. You say abortions should not be legal after 20 weeks due of pain to the fetus but then on the flip side your said YOU believe a fetus should be carried to term regardless subjecting that same fetus to pain to term, and a tragic death. You believe in science when it comes to information about "pain" to a fetus but not certain death of a babe upon delivery. I guarantee you I know what I am talking about. 

3. Nothing presented by the right is going to lessen abortions in fact it will increase them. And who is impacted? Poor women. But that's intentional. It's just another way for our gvmt to punish poor people especially women and women of color by the way who already have the highest mortality rates when it comes to giving birth in the western world.

What you have done is demonstrated how hypocritical the argument is and yet again how the women and in many cases the couple must have the gvmt legislate their decision. Your lucky you never had to go through anything like that. With that I am done with this discussion. 

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By the way Jim Acosta from CNN (still detest CNN) ran this segment. Makes you wonder since the right was setting up Va to be another "Stolen" election narrative, would Youngkin have conceded had he not won? The GOP candidate in NY hasn't conceded though he lost by more votes than McAuliffe lost by.  I had no idea the "they are stealing another election" narrative was pushed as hard as it was. Funny how when the right wins it's all nice and clean.

Acosta: No more whining, sore losers or lies. Just stop the squeal (msn.com)

Edited by JaneAusten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't have personal animus towards women who get late-term abortions or those who support that issue. But I do believe that men--including those who have never been in the situation of supporting women with troubled pregnancies--are entitled to their opinions. The fact of the matter is that I am moved by science such as this:

"Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures.[1]  These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.[2]  In some cases, especially when the fetus is past the stage of viability, the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero to ensure that the fetus is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive."

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

And opposition to abortion after 20 weeks is not some out-of-the-mainstream position by global standards, since the United States is only one of seven nations on earth to allow abortions after that point.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/house-democrats-unite-to-advance-barbaric-abortion-bill/

If one wants to take the position that government just shouldn't be telling women what to do, one could take such an argument to absurd new issues that have nothing to do with reproductive rights; for instance, when women (and men) are required to wear seat belts, it's because the government is telling them to do so.

I've already said that Ciattarelli should have conceded, and the longer this drags out the more politically damaging it becomes for him. Just today, Governor Murphy has called for Ciattarelli to concede.

I try extra hard to avoid being hypocritical, which is why there are so many politicians I cannot stand. Democratic State Senate President Steve Sweeney is also refusing to concede, in spite of his opponent (whom as I said before, is a vile human being that has no place in government) having a lead that cannot be overcome. So how, exactly, do the Democrats (who are outraged over Ciattarelli's refusal to concede) feel about Sweeney's post-election behavior? And while Murphy did say that Sweeney lost, he still hasn't yet called for Sweeney to concede.

https://www.insidernj.com/sweeney-puts-murphy-pickle-ciattarelli/

Hypocrisy like this is one major reason why I don't see myself ever putting on a "Team Blue" jersey, or see myself ever again putting on a "Team Red" jersey. And I strongly disagree with those who say I have to choose between the two major parties, "because it's a binary choice" bulls**t. (I may vote for certain Republicans and even certain Democrats, but I'll likely not vote for either choice in future elections. And I will continue to hope for a viable, third alternative.)

I also agree that the two of us should end this conversation, given how heated and intense it has become.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ohio turning so solidly red has been one of the most surprising political swings of the last decade, as it was the quintessential swing state for over 100 years. The long-time swing state of Iowa has seen an even more rightward shift. On one hand, that may not be so surprising given the state's demographics. On the other hand, Iowa had been considerably more Democratic than Ohio.

I personally believe that Georgia will become the next Virginia or Colorado, in the sense that it won't be long before Georgia is solidly blue. While I think that Republicans will still win statewide elections in Georgia, such victories will be few and far between (such as this year's VA elections or when Cory Gardner won a narrow Senate race in Colorado in 2014).

What's a real question mark, IMO, is just how much further Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and (to a lesser extent) Minnesota will drift rightward and how much more favorable Texas will become for the Democrats. I already think that Arizona is a lean-Democratic state, but I don't see it completely following Georgia's transformation; instead, I think that Arizona will become a lot like Nevada politically.

Edited by Max
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I can not see Kat as a police officer and do not want that for her. Thats not her passion nor does she care about that stuff. The stuff with Eva and Leslie is specific to her life and wanting to protect her family. Her "detective" skills have more to do with her business background, which makes her very analytical and pay close attention to details. If this show had a corporation, she'd make a shrewed businesswoman and CEO  
    • I would make Jan, Ashley's mom, Anita and Vernon's maid. It would lock in to why Leslie would choose to befriend both her and Mona. It also gives Ashley a connection to the Duprees and explains how she befriended Naomi. I would have had Derek start the show as a cop to explain his connection to Jacob. Kat needs to realize that she is MADE to be a detective. Have her go through police training, making the appropriate comments about the uniform along the way. Have her prove she is so much more than a rich princess, even to herself. Then, when Jacob's partner is proven to be dirty, Kat is assigned as Jacob's rookie trainee. At the same time, Naomi does finally get a case she can follow through on. Her client is a person that Jacob arrested. This puts them at odds because Jacob knows this person did it, as does Kat, but Naomi only sees the extenuating circumstances and believes he deserves a lighter sentence and a second chance. THAT is when Jacob will turn to Kat in frustration and she will lose her virginity to him. 
    • This opened my eyes and appeals to my logic. But, don't you also think that the fact that they are so ill-suited means that, by soap-opera-laws, they aren't a long term item?  I like how Belle is written now, so I appreciate the fact that she is in this story.  But, I don't believe anything will become of it, and I think EJ is going to mess it up very soon.  Which explains why I don't get too worked up over it. I'm also suspending my outrage until I see how EJ treats Belle during her mourning.  If he cheats with Cat, then we'll know that he was never meant to be happy.
    • Kristen also raped John post-Paris with a Magic Mirror.  Her pregnancy was "delicate" and they couldn't be intimate.  She had already lost the baby, needed to get pregnant immediately again and set a Stefano tricked out Magic Mirror to hypnotize John and John thought he was  having sex with Marlena.  John woke up the next day and thought it was a dream.
    • The show is only a few months in and still finding it's footing. I'm hoping MVJ has years of story in place for these characters and will pretty much stick to that plan (obviously with tweaking along the way) I do have some issues with the initial structure. Making the Duprees the centerpiece and not having a male with that name. Making Martin Vernon and Anita's would have solved that and made the age of the character more appropriate. I agree about not having a young couple in the beginnings of a romance. And having too many married couples. Jacob and Naomi could be just living together. That makes the possibility of other relationships more viable than within a marriage. Same with Smitty/Martin. Having them married with kids limits the story especially in terms of them as a gay couple.  The white characters existing in another universe is also a problem. That ties in with the workplace/job issues. I don't think they needed the hospital-instead the police station/real estate office or Martin's workplace could have utilized and have Derek/Ashley/Vanessa/Smitty/Shanice etc working and interacting there. ATM too many characters are meeting up in cafes etc-we're not seeing them at work. We needed to see more of how various characters interact eg Jacob/Bill, Ted/Bill. There were a lot of extended family scenes but there should be more one on one to get a sense of character and family dynamics. Leslie is a great character but her bag of tricks is getting over exposed. I would hate that she is kept on and other character's made to look like idiots by accepting her presence. They'll need some good writing and twists to keep her around. We can only hope some of the lesser actors improve as I don't want too many recasts or writeouts. So it's early days and I look forward to seeing the show evolve. And give the Duprees some staff!
    • Thanks. I barely remember any of the backstory there, just his ties to her parents. It was all so convoluted, everything with Tangie.
    • 81 and 82 were rather bad, with the infamous invasion of the Kirkland family. But sometime in late 82 or early 83, Claire Labine was rehired as head-writer and immediately put the focus back on the Ryan's. This time Labine's tenure was short, but she did great work. The entire show was compelling again -- especially the Charlotte Greer storyline (one of the best plots of the entire series).  But Labine was fired, yet again, and Ryan's Bar was bombed, resulting in most of the action being transferred to Greenberg's Deli, and a focus on younger characters with little connection to the Ryan family. So that is what you are probably seeing from 84.   
    • It wasn't that altruistic. He made Tangie a substitute for Blake and was apparently so creepy about it that Tangie spent the years in between getting away from him and running into him in Springfield believing that he had purchased her to be his child bride. It was only when she got to know Blake that she realized that she realized his feelings for her were paternal and suddenly she and Roger became friends.
    • When I watched 1999 Daytime Emmys in real time, I was like "Daytime Emmys will never top this" and that's exactly what happened (at least IMO).
    • Yes in Sami's case lots of people took issue with her being with Dumbell Austin outside of the Carrie issue, cause she drugged him and raped him by pretending to be Carrie. Austin didn't consent & well Ejami fans have used that as a smokescreen against the backlash of Sami & EJ being paired. It's also not so much as being paired with someone period, but paired with his victim & his victim sister. That's a line that should never be crossed by Belle/EJ esp Belle cause Sami isn't the only person in her family that EJ has terrorized. For all points and purposes since she was aged to a teen, Belle has been a daddy's girl so on top of the betrayal when it comes to Sami it's also with John. He ran him down & murdered him after raping her sister. On top of all the other evil [!@#$%^&*] he has done. "Good dick", ONS with a monster one time is one thing we all have lapses of judgements, it's whole different thing to be a whole bird who throws her self respect out the window for a roll in the hay relationship with a monster & act like you have selective amnesia about his many crimes towards your family. While getting on your self righteous hoiler than thou horse about others. No there wouldn't be as much as outrage if he was paired with someone like his equally rapey Black family terrorizing sister, or Ava, Gabi or even Nicole. So it's not as much as about him being paired with someone period, it's more of who he should never be paired with his rape victim, her sister's or anyone in the family of the man he viciously ran down. I don't expect much of anything from EJ but I expect a lot more from Belle. As far as Kristen goes Brady has been called everything but the word of God rightfully so for being with his rapist, his brothers rapist, the psycho who terrorized his parents for decades, family, the woman he claimed to love after she violated her by using a mask of her face

      Please register in order to view this content

      to pretend to be her so he would sleep with her. Drugging his sister ie,: Sami. If Kristen was paired with someone that wasn't her victim or victims like Alex, Xander, [!@#$%^&*] even Ben no one would really care for the most part. So I hope this gives you a little insight and I hope you know I wasn't trying to be rude.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy