Political Roundtable Part XXII

[daoneandonly]

But, nate, what makes abortion law more appropriate at the state level than the federal level? That's where most "rights" issues are situated.

More to the point as a question to ask conservatives:

what gives any government at any level a right to legislate on this issue? Abortion has existed since forever, & until the modern era it had been entirely in the hands of women -- for millennia.

A standard conservative position would be to question the power of government to control behavior on this issue. The state took no role in this until quite recently.

By and large, opposition to abortion has emerged out of a set of religious beliefs -- not a political point of view.

That logic can be used in other avenues as well. What gives the government the right to say I can't use cocaine or other drugs? it's my body. What gives the government the right to mandate everyone have health insurance or pay a fine? It's my body and health.

Sometimes the government needs to intervene for the greater good, and when that greater good is an innocent baby who's done no wrong, then yes, they should.

[nate33]

But, nate, what makes abortion law more appropriate at the state level than the federal level? That's where most "rights" issues are situated.

Because that's how our country is designed. That's what's in the Constitution. That's why our nation has lasted as long as it has. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.

More to the point as a question to ask conservatives:

what gives any government at any level a right to legislate on this issue? Abortion has existed since forever, & until the modern era it had been entirely in the hands of women -- for millennia.

A standard conservative position would be to question the power of government to control behavior on this issue. The state took no role in this until quite recently.

By and large, opposition to abortion has emerged out of a set of religious beliefs -- not a political point of view.

Most of our laws were ultimately based on a set of religious beliefs. It's why we don't permit child marriage while other societies do, for example. Religious beliefs are a foundation of our culture and, in turn, our nation.

You are essentially arguing that, since conservatives don't like the state, they would prefer anarchy. That's sophistry.

[I_Like_Dirt]

But the Ds would need to actually legislate. They can't just run on raising taxes and vilifying the top 1% and then having their own favorite tax carveouts. And they can't run on single payer and then not take on the cost drivers for states. Well, they can but it will just be the usual pendulum.

My big fear in all of this is that the true bridge burned from which there might be no going back is taking on cost drivers. They cross parties. They're so big at this point that nobody wants to take them on as the immediate political fallout would be massive and the long-term political fallout isn't something any particular politician wants to gift to a future politician at some unidentified point down the road.

Putting things on credit and otherwise pushing costs into the future has become a mantra of society at large. And frankly, it's been an incredible tool with which to divide generations politically. Environmental costs might suck later, but it would suck to address them right now so let's wait for later to deal with them... oh wait, it's too late and it can't be stopped, so why bother? We will either have to pay now or pay later for a messed up health care system, so why not just pay later? No consideration to the scale of the growing costs for putting off paying in the immediate and very quickly deflected since the future can't be "proven" until it happens.

My big fear with the Ds is that they will have too many competing agendas. Frankly, the Rs have been very obviously intentionally giving them a bunch of competing agendas. Addressing cost drivers is bad enough and isn't really associated with either party uniquely. Addressing any issue while also dealing with racism, sexism/women's rights, environmental issues, corporate/monopoly problems, etc. is waaaay too much for the Ds to handle. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think they have that in them. Frankly, I think the Rs share my belief, which is why they're doing it. The only thing that could stop the Rs at this point is the R supporters themselves - the pendulum is going to continue to swing - and the Rs are confident that their supporters have been happy to do to date.

The hilarious part is that Russia has been so open about their playbook and this is exactly what they wanted - England split from Europe, isolating American, that sort of thing. Of course, they're having problems at home, because it's much easier to tear people apart than it is to bring them together.

[daoneandonly]

Dude please spare us the concern trolling about gender equality and women's rights. You're simultaneously supporting Kavanaugh, a very likely sexual assaulter of multiple women while decrying Hillary for merely inauthentically supporting women and not being genuine enough about it in your made up right wing fan fiction world.

You want to say Democrats are being hypocrites and faking all this outrage, but it doesn't matter - Al Franken resigned while Roy Moore and Kavanaugh pushed forward. Democrats may be completely full of **** on this topic(they aren't), but they're walking the walk so it's completely irrelevant.

You dont know me so you can take it down a notch, dude???, seriously what are you a tween? Very likely sexual assaulter according to who? You? Avenetti? 3 women who likely are pro choice? yeah, there's validity there. Whereas, you can prove the Clinton foundation received money from Saudi, UAE, Yemen, etc, see the difference? One's factual and one's speculative.

lmao

Buddy, the right wing talking points you're parroting completely fly in the face of all research that's been done on sexual assault. Multiple studies have concluded that accusers lie about sexual assault anywhere from 2-10% of the time. That's with a single accuser. In other words, it's well over 90+% likely that Kav has sexually assaulted ~someone in his life.

But you don't care about that because you really just want it one way. The nonsense you're throwing around about the Clinton Foundation has all been debunked or proven to be wildly overstated. Not going down the rabbit hole on that one, though - especially since you can, you know, just go read about it yourself.

And in those sexual accusation studies, what did the majority of those women have to gain? if it's just an average Joe, absolutely nothing. In this case, they get notoriety, fame, which can open up avenues for money (or stupid thigns like book deals & interviews), etc. Not to mention, potentially stopping a court ruling for overruling one of the most sickening edicts in the US, which these women would relish being associated as part of the resist movement.

[pancakes3]

having a pro-life stance doesn't explain or justify why kavannaugh specifically had to be confirmed to the court, specifically the validity of the accusations against him or his fitness for office.

Fitness for the office? The man is just as qualified to be a SCOTUS as the democratic proclaimed most qualified person to ever run for president Hillary was to be POTUS.

Claims/accusations, etc, coming out of left field when someone is about to be confirmed shouldn't automatically disqualify someone either, because they are just that, claims.

- if you're going to invite a comparison of fitness, forget a dem nominee but consider a comparison with whoever is next in line for nomination by Republicans - Barrett, Kethledge, Hardiman, Thapar (Indian American fwiw), etc. Each one of those judges would argue that they're more fit for office than Kavanaugh.

- your response is reinforcing my point of it not making sense that even if you're pro-life, why your reaction to the allegations are instinctively defensive, and dismissive.

- claims and accusations may not automatically disqualify someone, but even if uncorroborated, these allegations have revealed some troubling traits in Kavanaugh that do bring his fitness into question. as has been stated many times before - the supreme court is a highly coveted spot and one's resume should be beyond reproach. he'll be hearing thousands of cases during his tenure and just because he's pro-choice doesn't make him qualified to hear cases on the many other cases that won't be concerning abortion. not only that, because it's such a highly competitive position, any blemish DOES automatically disqualify you from the position - as with any other highly competitive job opening. Gorsuch didn't have allegations against him - even ones out of left field. Douglas Ginsberg was withdrawn from nomination because it was alleged that he once smoked weed.

- basically, you've got dozens of super qualified candidates to fill this role - even if you screen for political leanings towards hot-button social issues like abortion. why dig in your heels on kavanaugh instead of someone else? why dig in your heels to dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony? why dig in your heels on all these issues on the periphery that has nothing to do with your *actual* position, your single-issue of abortion? admitting that kavanaugh isn't fit for office isn't some sort of ideological gotcha that would brand you a hypocrite.

[verbal8]

Buddy, the right wing talking points you're parroting completely fly in the face of all research that's been done on sexual assault. Multiple studies have concluded that accusers lie about sexual assault anywhere from 2-10% of the time. That's with a single accuser. In other words, it's well over 90+% likely that Kav has sexually assaulted ~someone in his life.

I can't get the link to work, but something I saw mentioned classes of false accusers - of which Dr. Ford met none. I also think the 2nd accuser would also fall into the generally credible group. The accusations are independent - even the RWNJs aren't alleging that the two were directly in cahoots. Even if you figure the high profile/political stakes might motivate a false accusation - you would have a hard time justifying anything more than a 10% false report rate of each. That works out to a 1% chance that both are false. That seems like it should be way less than the standard of doubt to let a nomination proceed.

[verbal8]

BTW this what a false report looks like:
http://www.khq.com/story/9393991/police-false-report-against-ferris-coach-filed-as-revenge

Any chance this accuser would have made it through the process that Dr. Ford(or even the 2nd accuser) has been through? I feel bad for coach for I am what were 2 weeks of Hell.

[queridiculo]

First of all, do any of you even understand the Constitution? What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand? Nearly all of our laws are made at the State level. Why should laws on abortion be different?

Spare me your sanctimonious bull about the 10th amendment, what part of the establishment clause don't you understand?

Keeping nutjobs from enforcing their delusional beliefs on everybody else is what it's for.

And spare me the fact based argument. What about the abortion issue is not based in fact?

Are you serious?

How about - everything!

Anti-choice is a secular movement using junk science to justify their odious positions.

[daoneandonly]

having a pro-life stance doesn't explain or justify why kavannaugh specifically had to be confirmed to the court, specifically the validity of the accusations against him or his fitness for office.

Fitness for the office? The man is just as qualified to be a SCOTUS as the democratic proclaimed most qualified person to ever run for president Hillary was to be POTUS.

Claims/accusations, etc, coming out of left field when someone is about to be confirmed shouldn't automatically disqualify someone either, because they are just that, claims.

- if you're going to invite a comparison of fitness, forget a dem nominee but consider a comparison with whoever is next in line for nomination by Republicans - Barrett, Kethledge, Hardiman, Thapar (Indian American fwiw), etc. Each one of those judges would argue that they're more fit for office than Kavanaugh.

- your response is reinforcing my point of it not making sense that even if you're pro-life, why your reaction to the allegations are instinctively defensive, and dismissive.

- claims and accusations may not automatically disqualify someone, but even if uncorroborated, these allegations have revealed some troubling traits in Kavanaugh that do bring his fitness into question. as has been stated many times before - the supreme court is a highly coveted spot and one's resume should be beyond reproach. he'll be hearing thousands of cases during his tenure and just because he's pro-choice doesn't make him qualified to hear cases on the many other cases that won't be concerning abortion. not only that, because it's such a highly competitive position, any blemish DOES automatically disqualify you from the position - as with any other highly competitive job opening. Gorsuch didn't have allegations against him - even ones out of left field. Douglas Ginsberg was withdrawn from nomination because it was alleged that he once smoked weed.

- basically, you've got dozens of super qualified candidates to fill this role - even if you screen for political leanings towards hot-button social issues like abortion. why dig in your heels on kavanaugh instead of someone else? why dig in your heels to dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony? why dig in your heels on all these issues on the periphery that has nothing to do with your *actual* position, your single-issue of abortion? admitting that kavanaugh isn't fit for office isn't some sort of ideological gotcha that would brand you a hypocrite.

I think this is a solid post!

i see where you are coming from on a lot of this, and agree positions like SCOTUS and POTUS should be held to the highest of regard. But we've seen the latter particualrly doe snot seem to hold true. My eyebrow raising has more to do with the timing of these allegations and how it all transpired from there. Kavanaugh was on trump's list before he got the nod, his face plastered everywhere, yet we really didnt hear about these things until the 11th hour of when he was all but certain to be confirmed. I just find that suspect in my opinion.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I also don't relate to the note about "adding to what they are already feeling", if a woman has an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy, what is she feeling exactly? To me, not much, she killed her child because she did not want to be accountable for her actions, I don't find much empathy for her in those cases.

I should have addressed this, too. I think you are waaaaay oversimplifying matters here. And frankly, it's this kind of argument that redirects the discussion towards men rather than women. The idea that a woman is somehow not accountable for her actions by having an abortion... I don't think you know many women who have actually had abortions (or at least not ones that have trusted you to talk to you about it or explain themselves openly). Women handle it differently, in my experience, but it's never consequence-free, and frankly, is something they all think about extremely. Some are lost for other reasons already sometimes and self-medicate in different ways, but yeah, that they aren't accountable? They're extremely accountable either way. It's not totally uncommon for women who have had abortions to feel so bad about it that the instead turn around on the issue and become staunch anti-abortion advocates. Someone who feels that bad about how things happened is suffering the consequences of their actions and then some. Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. If we want to create a land of make-believe where women truly don't care and just have abortions for fun because it's easy (anyone who has seen the process and all the stigma, etc. would never think it's easy), sure, but that land doesn't exist, and even if there are a handful of women who are that way (no idea, but not going to rule it out) the idea that we should be complete reshaping society for the worse because of a ridiculously small group of women in particular is flat out ridiculous.

Beyond that, this isn't merely the actions of women they're being accountable for. It's also the actions of men. Men who didn't want to wear a condom for whatever reason and managed to find a way to eventually get the woman to go along with it (knowingly or not). The man frequently has the more powerful position in the relationship (it can't even be called that in all cases) and yet men are absolutely NOT held to account for their actions. Basically everything society does (or doesn't do) is largely making women accountable not just for their own actions, but for the actions of men, too. The consequences of having a child devastate a woman's potential career earnings in most cases. Those consequences are not there for a man, so why should they care?

Again, even if you feel that women should have to face their consequences, why on earth would you want to push a reality that is going to invariably make those consequences even more severe, such as deaths (cases where the woman will die if the child is not aborted), etc. The specific belief that all abortions should be illegal is effectively passing a death sentence on many women, suggesting that the consequence for their action should be death, regardless of whether or not the baby would even survive childbirth. There has to be some nuance here unless a person really isn't interested in discussing it and is more in it for emotional reasons and/or is looking for some sort of reinforcement for their sense of superiority.

If we get passed the idea that all abortions should be banned and are willing to accept that it can't work that way, then we need to get more into the idea that maybe banning abortions is a terrible idea and we need to start discussing how to actually limit them rather than banning them and causing more problems in the process - and then we cycle right back around to my first post regarding holding men and society accountable.

[dobrojim]

Well, technically life begins after fertilization, so you are technically correct, the best kind of correct. I respect your opinion, granted I am not 100% sure on all abortion to be legal myself, but to compare fetus to grown person, and to say that pro abortion people are basically are pro murder is asinine in my opinion. I think there is more to being alive than just DNA cells multiplying,

Please define fertilization including some hopefully logical rationale for that particular definition.

is it:

when the cell membranes of the haploid sperm and egg fuse?

When their haploid nuclei merge?

when the now diploid cell begins to divide?

when the cell becomes implanted in the womb or (hopefully not) fallopian tube?

(All this to point out fertilization is ill-defined at least by lay persons)

what passage in the Bible supports one definition over another? Okay, that's obviously a rhetorical question.

At risk of stating the obvious, so much of our disagreements about abortion arise out of a disagreement
about the point at which the 'personhood' legal threshold is passed. Religious beliefs come into play and
one side wants its preferred interpretation to reign over the over side. But the State is supposed to
be 'areligious' or religiously neutral.

I've posted this before to mixed reviews but it's been a while so I'll throw it out once more

There's a fast moving fire in the Fertility clinic you're visiting. You have just enough time
to save yourself and EITHER a freezer on wheels with hundreds of fertilized embryos OR a year
old infant in a stroller in the waiting room. Which do you save?

One side wants equivalence between a potential human entity in the most early stage of development
with a significantly older one...largely for religious reasons ie some religious authority told them
what to think about this.

If you (UCUW) couldn't tell already, I'm on your side.

[dobrojim]

Before the 2016 election, servers from Trump Tower were communicating with a server in Russia and it has been covered-up.
Hopefully Dems get back the house blow the lid on the entire thing.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, arguably the least credible, most biased reporter in the world, Rachel maddow

Maddow isn't a reporter. She largely summarizes what others have reported,
just like a lot of our 24-7 news programming.

[dobrojim]

By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their religious indoctrination or preferences (kinder gentler word).

Fixed.

[daoneandonly]

I also don't relate to the note about "adding to what they are already feeling", if a woman has an abortion because of an accidental pregnancy, what is she feeling exactly? To me, not much, she killed her child because she did not want to be accountable for her actions, I don't find much empathy for her in those cases.

I should have addressed this, too. I think you are waaaaay oversimplifying matters here. And frankly, it's this kind of argument that redirects the discussion towards men rather than women. The idea that a woman is somehow not accountable for her actions by having an abortion... I don't think you know many women who have actually had abortions (or at least not ones that have trusted you to talk to you about it or explain themselves openly). Women handle it differently, in my experience, but it's never consequence-free, and frankly, is something they all think about extremely. Some are lost for other reasons already sometimes and self-medicate in different ways, but yeah, that they aren't accountable? They're extremely accountable either way. It's not totally uncommon for women who have had abortions to feel so bad about it that the instead turn around on the issue and become staunch anti-abortion advocates. Someone who feels that bad about how things happened is suffering the consequences of their actions and then some. Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise. If we want to create a land of make-believe where women truly don't care and just have abortions for fun because it's easy (anyone who has seen the process and all the stigma, etc. would never think it's easy), sure, but that land doesn't exist, and even if there are a handful of women who are that way (no idea, but not going to rule it out) the idea that we should be complete reshaping society for the worse because of a ridiculously small group of women in particular is flat out ridiculous.

Beyond that, this isn't merely the actions of women they're being accountable for. It's also the actions of men. Men who didn't want to wear a condom for whatever reason and managed to find a way to eventually get the woman to go along with it (knowingly or not). The man frequently has the more powerful position in the relationship (it can't even be called that in all cases) and yet men are absolutely NOT held to account for their actions. Basically everything society does (or doesn't do) is largely making women accountable not just for their own actions, but for the actions of men, too. The consequences of having a child devastate a woman's potential career earnings in most cases. Those consequences are not there for a man, so why should they care?

Again, even if you feel that women should have to face their consequences, why on earth would you want to push a reality that is going to invariably make those consequences even more severe, such as deaths (cases where the woman will die if the child is not aborted), etc. The specific belief that all abortions should be illegal is effectively passing a death sentence on many women, suggesting that the consequence for their action should be death, regardless of whether or not the baby would even survive childbirth. There has to be some nuance here unless a person really isn't interested in discussing it and is more in it for emotional reasons and/or is looking for some sort of reinforcement for their sense of superiority.

If we get passed the idea that all abortions should be banned and are willing to accept that it can't work that way, then we need to get more into the idea that maybe banning abortions is a terrible idea and we need to start discussing how to actually limit them rather than banning them and causing more problems in the process - and then we cycle right back around to my first post regarding holding men and society accountable.

I'll agree with you on the all abortion sentiment. It's about circumstances beyond control to me. if the woman's life or baby's life is in danger, of course an abortion should be an option, as in the case of rape. Those are circumstances that cannot be foreseen, she did nothing to warrant that form happening, and again no human should ever have to deal with.

But if its simply an accidental pregnancy, whether you wore protection or not, the risks are known, and people should have to be accountable accordingly if they happen to get pregnant. And I do indeed mean people, as you mentioned both the man or the woman. Though, another sad reality in this whole thing is if a woman wants the abortion but the man doesn't, he's just out of luck, because it's 100% the woman's choice.

[GhostofChenier]

Dude please spare us the concern trolling about gender equality and women's rights. You're simultaneously supporting Kavanaugh, a very likely sexual assaulter of multiple women while decrying Hillary for merely inauthentically supporting women and not being genuine enough about it in your made up right wing fan fiction world.

You want to say Democrats are being hypocrites and faking all this outrage, but it doesn't matter - Al Franken resigned while Roy Moore and Kavanaugh pushed forward. Democrats may be completely full of **** on this topic(they aren't), but they're walking the walk so it's completely irrelevant.

You dont know me so you can take it down a notch, dude???, seriously what are you a tween? Very likely sexual assaulter according to who? You? Avenetti? 3 women who likely are pro choice? yeah, there's validity there. Whereas, you can prove the Clinton foundation received money from Saudi, UAE, Yemen, etc, see the difference? One's factual and one's speculative.

lmao

Buddy, the right wing talking points you're parroting completely fly in the face of all research that's been done on sexual assault. Multiple studies have concluded that accusers lie about sexual assault anywhere from 2-10% of the time. That's with a single accuser. In other words, it's well over 90+% likely that Kav has sexually assaulted ~someone in his life.

But you don't care about that because you really just want it one way. The nonsense you're throwing around about the Clinton Foundation has all been debunked or proven to be wildly overstated. Not going down the rabbit hole on that one, though - especially since you can, you know, just go read about it yourself.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/01/05/politics/clinton-foundation-arkansas-probe/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/12615340/hillary-clinton-foundation

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-fbi-investigating-clinton-foundation-2018-1

https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/32459/US-Justice-Department-mulls-special-prosecutor-to-probe-Clinton-Foundation

No no all is good. 23 billions of weapon to sa bye Clinton.

[nate33]

First of all, do any of you even understand the Constitution? What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand? Nearly all of our laws are made at the State level. Why should laws on abortion be different?

Spare me your sanctimonious bull about the 10th amendment, what part of the establishment clause don't you understand?

Keeping nutjobs from enforcing their delusional beliefs on everybody else is what it's for.

And spare me the fact based argument. What about the abortion issue is not based in fact?

Are you serious?

How about - everything!

Anti-choice is a secular movement using junk science to justify their odious positions.

First of all, you are moving the goalposts on my initial point that a state-level decision would result in more people living in a locality where the laws respect their own beliefs. That point is true whether or not you believe it to be constitutional.

And your point about the Establishment Clause is valid, but not conclusive. Clearly, the matter isn't settled or else there wouldn't be such consternation about Kavanaugh's appointment. Abortion law was decided at the state level for 150 years before Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade passed with a 7-2 majority but has been narrowly affirmed in subsequent cases by a mere 5-4 majority.

And explain to me how it's unscientific to conclude that an embryo that already has a head, nose, mouth, fingers, toes, fingernails and a beating heart isn't on it's way to becoming a living thing with human rights that should be defended. As I've said before, I can sympathize with those who think that the right to govern one's own body supersedes the right to defend a fetus, and reasonable people can certainly make that argument. I'm just struggling to understand why you think that pro-life stance is somehow unscientific.

[TGW]

Before the 2016 election, servers from Trump Tower were communicating with a server in Russia and it has been covered-up.
Hopefully Dems get back the house blow the lid on the entire thing.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, arguably the least credible, most biased reporter in the world, Rachel maddow

Maddow isn't a reporter. She largely summarizes what others have reported,
just like a lot of our 24-7 news programming.

She's a conspiracy theorist and a huge hack.

[pancakes3]

https://www.docdroid.net/CM5sWm7/r2-huma-abedin-giustra-hillary-clinton-racketeering-indictment.pd

this is fake. i don't really care how you found it, but you should know that whatever the source, it's feeding you misinformation.

[TGW]

"Stupid idiot" Senator Warren helps to create a real free market for hearing aids:

Read on Twitter

[GhostofChenier]

https://www.docdroid.net/CM5sWm7/r2-huma-abedin-giustra-hillary-clinton-racketeering-indictment.pd

this is fake. i don't really care how you found it, but you should know that whatever the source, it's feeding you misinformation.

Yes sorry I look more. But others true. Not intent.

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/saudi-arabia-panel-of-scientists-admits-women-are-mammals-yet-not-human/