Jump to content
Tornado

The General 'Murican Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

Just now, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

If the Democrats take power in November, the Senate will be focused on blocking overly conservative appointees,

Not trying to take sides, but what exactly are Democrats definition of someone being "overly conservative"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RedFox99 said:

Not trying to take sides, but what exactly are Democrats definition of someone being "overly conservative"?

They're most likely going to try and strike out any judges who would weaken abortion protections, same sex marriage, etc.

One of Trump's lower appointees was apparently a conspiracy theorist who never really had any judicial position, he just had a blog. But he would support the administration's policies, so he was a-okay in the Senate's book.

Also, if any judicial appointments open up in 2020, Trump can wager they will not be filled unless he nominates liberals. The Garland precedent means we will be seeing a lot of revenge in future appointment processes.

We'll probably also see stronger criticism of any Cabinet appointments that crop up. Democrats would love to stock the Department of Education with people who would reinstate the LGBT and sexual assault protections that Betsy DeVos has gutted.

The one mitigating factor in Democratic extremism is they have a weaker hand in the Senate. The Senate is slanted towards red states, so Democrats cannot be as overly partisan as Republicans in the chamber. There were plenty of Democrats ready to cross the aisle and vote for Kavanaugh, but then things started cropping up about him that raised eyebrows, and so most of those red state Democrats have backed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

They're most likely going to try and strike out any judges who would weaken abortion protections, same sex marriage, etc.

Yeah, Democrats would probably hate a lot of religious folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

Yeah, Democrats would probably hate a lot of religious folks.

More like they hate religious bigots.

They’d have no problem so long as they’re not forcing their beliefs on people who’s differences cause no harm to anyone whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/richard-ojeda-west-virginia-trump-country-congress/index.html

All eyes are on West Virginia, where Richard Ojeda is seen as a test of whether or not Democrats can retake rural parts of the country from the GOP. Ojeda voted for Trump on the basis of his populist message, but has turned against the GOP when he sees Trump focusing more on a border wall and filling his Cabinet with rich people like DeVos than helping the people of West Virginia with jobs and healthcare.

Ojeda supports legalizing marijuana to weaken Big Pharma and help alleviate the opioid crisis, and feels building flood walls would do far more good for the state than any border wall. Ojeda is supportive of the coal industry and the jobs it creates, but he has enormous disdain for coal executives and how they've concentrated profits towards themselves.

Ojeda's criticism of Clinton is scathing. He explains the reason coal country voted for Trump over Clinton was Clinton's message to people was that they needed to take lower paying jobs, often in another part of the country. When Trump was making promises to bring coal back, he naturally sold better to that class of voters. While Ojeda has given praise to Trump for loosening coal regulations, he feels Trump is an autocrat lover and plutocrat enabler who is far away from the working class, populist ideas that many people voted for him for.

And that's why he's running as a Democrat, and only a few points behind the Republican in a district Trump carried by 49 points in 2016.

17 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

Yeah, Democrats would probably hate a lot of religious folks.

Most Democratic politicians are religious is the thing. And a lot of them are personally pro-life (some people say this is the same as being pro-choice, but the wording is chosen for a reason, to separate them from the "lump of cells" activists) and pro-traditional marriage.

But they don't think those religious morals should inform public policy, because not everyone is of that faith, and there are economic, irreligious reasons to support pro-choice legislation and gay marriage.

Then you have John Bel Edwards of Louisiana. He has strong religious values and signed into law the toughest abortion ban in the country. And even he thinks the GOP's foaming at the mouth to destroy Planned Parenthood is irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Then you have John Bel Edwards of Louisiana. He has strong religious values and signed into law the toughest abortion ban in the country. And even he thinks the GOP's foaming at the mouth to destroy Planned Parenthood is irresponsible.

I mean, I'm firmly against abortion, but I think single mothers should be given resources to help raise the kid(s) or at least be allowed to give them up for adoption. Granted, when it comes to cases where the mother and or the baby could die, I'm not entirely sure what to do in that scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supporting options that would reduce the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies, and with it the chances of abortions, goes a long way.

Starting with not restricting women from having access to birth control. That is the single stupid solution to stop women from having abortions, when such would very likely reduce it in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Granted, when it comes to cases where the mother and or the baby could die, I'm not entirely sure what to do in that scenario.

I mean saying they still shouldn’t have abortion even at that point just comes off a bit unreasonable, but yeah conquering makes a good point, that we should allow methods and options that allow for better protection that can result in less unwanted pregnancies. That in itself would severely lessen the number of abortions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Supporting options that would reduce the likelihood of unwanted pregnancies, and with it the chances of abortions, goes a long way.

Starting with not restricting women from having access to birth control. That is the single stupid solution to stop women from having abortions, when such would very likely reduce it in itself.

Teaching women not to have sex when they may not be able to support the baby, as well as teaching self-defense to possibly defend themselves against rapists. 

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I mean saying they still shouldn’t have abortion even at that point just comes off a bit unreasonable,

Again, I'm not the wisest person around, so I don't know if I could give you straight answer when it comes to that scenario. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedFox99 said:

Teaching women not to have sex when they may not be able to support the baby, as well as teaching self-defense to possibly defend themselves against rapists. 

Yeah, but a lot of women like sex as much as men do. You can’t, nor should you, try to control them from doing that.

So in the event they decide they want to, they should have options and be educated on them. I mean, which is more important to you that you want to prevent—women having sex if they can’t support the baby but are using contraceptives that would prevent such a thing, or them not using birth control and wind up having a baby they can’t support and consider abortion the solution?

If I were against abortion (which personally, I am, but I Know I don’t have much say on it), I’d rather let women have birth control—it doesn’t really hurt anyone at the end of the day, and it has the bonus of reducing abortions.

Women defending themselves against rapists should be common sense. The real issue is shaming or downplaying the rape victim trauma, which we’ve been seeing a lot thest past few years that are only now given the push to fight back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Conquering Storm’s Servant said:

Yeah, but a lot of women like sex as much as men do. You can’t, nor should you, try to control them from doing that.

I really should have phrased my words better as by includung that men should also be taught to not have sex recklessly as well if it may result in an unwanted child, especially without any forms of birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with abstinence only is it just goes against human nature.

We, like any species, are inclined to breed to stave off natural selection.

That same act also provides a lot of emotional health benefits that make not participating a really tough sell unless a person is completely asexual.

Access to contraception is really the best route. But even those are not foolproof, so it leads to a bit of a conundrum.

That said, the pro-life movement would be far better served aligning itself with the Democrats than the GOP. The leading reason people cite for having abortions is lack of funds to raise the child. And foster care being what it is (it's not good overall), a lot of mothers are not comfortable with the adoption option either. What's more, since the Democrats do not worship austerity the same way the GOP does, they would be in a better position to allocate funding for viability technology. Under the Casey decision, the further back technology pushes the practicality of removing a fetus and supporting it with artificial means, the narrower the timeframe for legal abortion becomes.

The emotional process women have before, during, and after the process is generally more akin to that last day with your pet at the vet. It is a very emotional decision filled with lots of regrets and what-ifs at first, but most women end up deciding it was the best choice. It's not murder, it's euthanasia.

Overall though, a vast amount of social spending on education, financial assistance, and scientific technology will do a lot more to limit abortions than any full-on ban, and it will not incur the same negative externalities that a ban would.

4 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Granted, when it comes to cases where the mother and or the baby could die, I'm not entirely sure what to do in that scenario.

There's a reason it's one of the instances where practically everyone agrees abortion should be an option. At that point, it really is up to the mother to weigh the options and make the choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

That said, the pro-life movement would be far better served aligning itself with the Democrats than the GOP.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the pro-life movement should just be neutral when it comes to political alignment. I can't say I completely trust the Democrats either.

10 minutes ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

It's not murder, it's euthanasia.

To be honest, I still don't support it in most situations, especially since I feel comparing fetuses to pets may not be the best analogy. I know I don't have much rights to say that to some given I'm male and I could probably never truly comprehend how a woman can feel in that scenario. 

10 minutes ago, Coyote (Ogilvie) said:

Overall though, a vast amount of social spending on education, financial assistance, and scientific technology will do a lot more to limit abortions than any full-on ban, and it will not incur the same negative externalities that a ban would.

I agree with that to a degree. I will say that I'm rather surprised no one has verbally attacked, given how my opinion can be seen as very conservative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, in the cases of rape, I feel like abortion is much more of a reasonable option since women aren’t in any regard given the choice whether they’re educated or not. It’s not their fault they got pregnant and they shouldn’t have to deal with that weight when they aren’t ready, or have that in their life plan. Granted I feel in general it should be a option for women, but most definitely in those situations like rape or life threatening should it be a no brainer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Honestly, in the cases of rape, I feel like abortion is much more of a reasonable option since women aren’t in any regard given the choice whether they’re educated or not. It’s not their fault they got pregnant and they shouldn’t have to deal with that weight when they aren’t ready, or have that in their life plan. Granted I feel in general it should be a option for women, but most definitely in those situations like rape or life threatening should it be a no brainer.

Hmm... I'm sure how to phrase my response correctly, so here's my best attempt: I do feel sympathy for rape victims, especially when it results in pregnancy since that will almost certainly leave mental scars. However, I don't think I can truly get behind taking away the unborn child's chance of having a life because of situations that are far beyond his/her control. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dozens of people who came forward about Kavanaugh were not allowed to be interviewed, and the investigation was not permitted to cover Kavanaugh's drinking, or whether he lied to congress.

The party that cried "Rigged!" so loudly in 2016 seems to be guilty, AGAIN, of projecting their corruption.

I can only hope that the Democrats flip the House and immediately launch a proper investigation into Kavanaugh, since the GOP will not permit due diligence to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man this investigation seems so stupidly rigged in the gop’s favor it’s annoying how it’s not gonna probably lead to anything substantial. Especially when important key people are being ignored, and the things they’re looking into don’t actually clear much up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Dozens of people who came forward about Kavanaugh were not allowed to be interviewed, and the investigation was not permitted to cover Kavanaugh's drinking, or whether he lied to congress. The party that cried "Rigged!" so loudly in 2016 seems to be guilty, AGAIN, of projecting their corruption.

I can only hope that the Democrats flip the House and immediately launch a proper investigation into Kavanaugh, since the GOP will not permit due diligence to be done.

Good grief...

Was hoping this investigation would be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all were, @RedFox99, but unfortunately, McConnell, Grassley et al are desperate to get this done before the midterms, no matter the cost.

You'd think that confirming a SCOTUS nominee with skeletons like that in his closet, which are more than likely to find their way into the press now that the FBI investigation has been fixed, would burn the Republicans far more than simply accepting Kavanaugh's clear unsuitability and nominating literally anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Teaching women not to have sex when they may not be able to support the baby

Every study in the history of ever has shown that teaching abstinence just doesn't work. Evolution has hardwired humans to desire and pursue sex as often as possible in order to ensure the survival of the species. This made a lot of sense back when most children would never reach adulthood but today, with advances in medical technology drastically lowering the infant mortality rate, such large scale reproduction has become unsustainable. Unfortunately, our biology has not changed to match our society so we still instinctively pursue sex, even when we don't need to reproduce. Humans crave sex, and telling them to stop having sex is a lot like telling a smoker not to have a cigarette, they may be able to resist for a while, but most will break down eventually.

Furthermore, sex, masturbation, and similar activities are known to have positive social and psychological benefits, including stress relief and strengthening interpersonal relationships. Sexless marriages tend to crumble pretty fast and a society full of sexually repressed people is not a pleasant place to live. Indeed, places with über-conservative views on sex tend to face the brunt of sex-related woes, including sexual violence, STDs, and teen pregnancies. Birth control lets humans reap the benefits of sex without many of the drawbacks of unprotected sex. Seriously, fewer rapes, fewer abortions, fewer children in poverty, fewer STDs, fewer teen pregnancy, fewer divorces... Conservatives should love contraception.

 

3 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

as well as teaching self-defense to possibly defend themselves against rapists. 

It's never a bad idea to know a few self defense techniques, but they're far from guaranteed to repel an attacker, especially one who's larger than the victim, is armed, has backup, and/or is using a nonphysical method of coercion (ie: blackmail). Plus, as Dr. Ford's testimony has made clear, even a failed rape attempt can scar the victim for life. Perhaps most importantly, promoting self defense techniques as the primary means of dealing with rape implicitly puts blame on the victim, for failing to repel an attempted rape, instead of the perpetrator, for attempting rape in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patticus said:

We all were, @RedFox99, but unfortunately, McConnell, Grassley et al are desperate to get this done before the midterms, no matter the cost.

You'd think that confirming a SCOTUS nominee with skeletons like that in his closet, which are more than likely to find their way into the press now that the FBI investigation has been fixed, would burn the Republicans far more than simply accepting Kavanaugh's clear unsuitability and nominating literally anyone else.

Him being even labeled “alleged rapist” should be enough disqualify him. I’d rather not take the risk 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Him being even labeled “alleged rapist” should be enough disqualify him. I’d rather not take the risk 

Even a hint of impropriety, not even an allegation, would have been enough for Obama to withdraw a nominee and select somebody else. This is as it should be.

We should never doubt the Supreme Court's impartiality, nor its honesty. With Kavanaugh on the bench, likely presiding over some historic wins for the far right, we will.

The next Democratic House should investigate him to the fullest extent possible, and vote to impeach him, if it can. The next Democratic Senate should take that impeachment and turn it into removal proceedings, if at all possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the pro-life movement should just be neutral when it comes to political alignment. I can't say I completely trust the Democrats either.

A movement is rather meaningless if it is not actively siding with political forces. Democrats would ultimately serve the pro-life movement more in the long run, because Democratic policies could quite possibly make abortion a moot issue. Republican policies will just force abortion into the shadows, with all the ethically questionable procedures that entails.

Quote

To be honest, I still don't support it in most situations, especially since I feel comparing fetuses to pets may not be the best analogy.

Not the best analogy, but it's the same principle. There's a lot of emotional weight that goes into the decision and it's something a lot of people would prefer to avoid.

A lot of women seeking an abortion would be happy to become mothers, but they need more support first. They need financial assistance to take care of the child's needs. They need a male partner who will offer to sacrifice his career rather than expecting she will sacrifice hers. In absence of that, they'd at least like assurance that if they put the child up for adoption, they will have a decent quality of life. Sadly, a lot of pro-life activists are also in the "make adoption as hard as possible" camp, even as studies pour in that say gay parents, single parents, etc. are all better than no parents.

Quote

I agree with that to a degree. I will say that I'm rather surprised no one has verbally attacked, given how my opinion can be seen as very conservative. 

This thread has a left-wing tilt but that doesn't mean moderators are just going to allow blatant ad hominem attacks on conservatives.

7 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

Hmm... I'm sure how to phrase my response correctly, so here's my best attempt: I do feel sympathy for rape victims, especially when it results in pregnancy since that will almost certainly leave mental scars. However, I don't think I can truly get behind taking away the unborn child's chance of having a life because of situations that are far beyond his/her control. 

The sexual assault was beyond the mother's control, is the thing.

The abstinence-only argument against abortion is based on making someone face consequences for their actions. If rape is not granted as an exception, it makes the original argument seem much more hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/senate-receives-fbi-kavanaugh-file/index.html

While the investigation remains published as a single copy in the Capitol and is not being released to the public, it appears to be complete.

Jeff Flake and Collins have hinted that they will vote for Kavanaugh's confirmation. McConnell is cheering the report as having no information to support Ford's testimony.

There are naturally lots of sore feelings about how the report is not being made public.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html

Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee who formed part of the Court's liberal wing, has said that Kavanaugh should not be allowed to serve on the Court. He cites Kavanaugh's emotional outburst at the hearing and overt political bias as reasons he is not fit to serve.

Considering the Court's legitimacy stems from good temperament and a perception of judges as having political values without being overly political, Stevens has a point here. Kavanaugh is really not a good pick. There are countless other choices.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/sasse-kavanaugh-nominate-woman/index.html

In fact, Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse originally asked Trump to appoint a woman to the position. He anticipated a #MeToo possibility with any male appointee, so urged Trump to err on the side of caution so as to avoid dragging down the Senate and Court.

It's no surprise Trump did not listen.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.