Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[queridiculo]

Banning abortions I’m strongly against, and I’m certainly conservative when it comes to finance. Socially though while I love the entitlement programs for the abuelas and truly disabled the system is games hard in ways people never exposed to the inner city (or poor rural areas) simply don’t understand.

Solution? I wish he government would produce a lot more remote work for these mothers via the internet. But then you have an issue with the public schools in inner city, they are absolute trash (in nyc at least outside of the specialty schools). Algebra 1 in 12th grade isn’t acceptable, far too lenient. And despite the specific curriculums I’ve seen kids get slapped with the learning disability tag just to graduate. Meanwhile they just don’t want to do the work.

To me the biggest issue here is that some people in our society want to have it both ways.

They want to defund organizations like planned parenthood that provide advice on contraception, teach abstinence only curriculums and then push an anti-choice agenda at the same time.

Anybody that's truly, honestly concerned with abortions should do everything in their power to help educate young people so that they're not in a position to make this terrible choice in the first place.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Again, a notable difference is, people who are against drug reform, ACA, mandated health, immigration measures, etc, whatever have you, they can fight, they have a voice, a say. An innocent, precious baby does not, so there are those of us who choose to fight for them, be their voice, try and let them have a puncher's chance

Here's a fun one - a key factor in abortions is access to health care. The ACA has many, many problems. It either needs to be fixed or replaced. The idea that everyone should have health care IS related to abortion, though. How many people aren't in support of the idea of everyone having health care unless they can afford it or have the right job (or likely both). It turns out there is some evidence to support that the ACA actually helped lower the abortion rate.

I'm all for ACA reform, but anyone trying to scrap it completely without actually having a better plan to offer more widespread health care while also claiming to want to prevent abortions is being extremely hypocritical, in my view. Not as simple as ban or not ban. Change the system to help and watch the results change. Make the system judgemental with a focus on branding people as criminals or not rather than impacting actual outcomes and you have the have your own subjective moral high ground but you aren't solving any problems you claim to be concerned about.

[Induveca]

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

You don't own the moral high ground here, especially not by digging in on the non-sensical claim that women are running around killing/aborting babies.

No one has the moral high ground. It’s an emotional debate. Honestly it’s a debate that just results in gridlock and one used for political donations which let both sides dig in and become more polarized.

It’s silly abortions aren’t going to be outlawed, both sides know this. I am more concerned of the impact of entitlements etc which keep the poor forever chained to government handouts.

System is too easy to game, despite the supposed morality of it all. And a shocker, I don’t mind Western European style democratic socialism. It can work in smaller/less diverse countries. But when you introduce free money/programs which result in 500% increased standard of living vs just getting a job and paying market rates for housing? It’s hard to get people out of the inner city cycle of handouts and actually participating in capitalism.

I offer no real solution, admittedly, but giving 4000 bucks a month to a 21 year old in NYC with a poor education in housing projects is a dead-end. Just keeps those kids chained to impoverished areas with no exposure to the invaluable exposure to mentors in industries such as tech/finance. No solid math or science skills upon graduation kills any upward mobility.

[Induveca]

Banning abortions I’m strongly against, and I’m certainly conservative when it comes to finance. Socially though while I love the entitlement programs for the abuelas and truly disabled the system is games hard in ways people never exposed to the inner city (or poor rural areas) simply don’t understand.

Solution? I wish he government would produce a lot more remote work for these mothers via the internet. But then you have an issue with the public schools in inner city, they are absolute trash (in nyc at least outside of the specialty schools). Algebra 1 in 12th grade isn’t acceptable, far too lenient. And despite the specific curriculums I’ve seen kids get slapped with the learning disability tag just to graduate. Meanwhile they just don’t want to do the work.

To me the biggest issue here is that some people in our society want to have it both ways.

They want to defund organizations like planned parenthood that provide advice on contraception, teach abstinence only curriculums and then push an anti-choice agenda at the same time.

Anybody that's truly, honestly concerned with abortions should do everything in their power to help educate young people so that they're not in a position to make this terrible choice in the first place.

Completely agree!

[daoneandonly]

It matters because America gave us 2 terrible, horrific, vile candidates to choose from in the general election, so I as many ppl felt stuck, we had to vote for one of these historically bad candidates, I voted for who I felt was the better of the 2 options.

Explain why you support Trump shrugging off SA murdering a WaPo journalist without mentioning Hillary Clinton.

I don't support it, at all. The last news I heard about him relating to it was he said there would be hell to pay if they're proven guilty. if he truly ignores it as if nothing happened, then he deserves to be called out and criticized.

[daoneandonly]

There's no superiority in thinking a baby should have a chance at life, it's more basic human decency. They deserve a voice

You don't own the moral high ground here, especially not by digging in on the non-sensical claim that women are running around killing/aborting babies.

And nor should anyone hold moral high ground saying I have to help pay for stuff I don't use like PP, Welfare, etc, because morally it's the right thing to do, can't have it both ways

[daoneandonly]

Banning abortions I’m strongly against, and I’m certainly conservative when it comes to finance. Socially though while I love the entitlement programs for the abuelas and truly disabled the system is games hard in ways people never exposed to the inner city (or poor rural areas) simply don’t understand.

Solution? I wish he government would produce a lot more remote work for these mothers via the internet. But then you have an issue with the public schools in inner city, they are absolute trash (in nyc at least outside of the specialty schools). Algebra 1 in 12th grade isn’t acceptable, far too lenient. And despite the specific curriculums I’ve seen kids get slapped with the learning disability tag just to graduate. Meanwhile they just don’t want to do the work.

To me the biggest issue here is that some people in our society want to have it both ways.

They want to defund organizations like planned parenthood that provide advice on contraception, teach abstinence only curriculums and then push an anti-choice agenda at the same time.

Anybody that's truly, honestly concerned with abortions should do everything in their power to help educate young people so that they're not in a position to make this terrible choice in the first place.

Completely agree!

Both sides want it both ways. Querid pointed one side, the other side is my body my choice, government should stay out, but they have no problem going to government funded facilities for any issues with their body.

[daoneandonly]

Again, a notable difference is, people who are against drug reform, ACA, mandated health, immigration measures, etc, whatever have you, they can fight, they have a voice, a say. An innocent, precious baby does not, so there are those of us who choose to fight for them, be their voice, try and let them have a puncher's chance

Here's a fun one - a key factor in abortions is access to health care. The ACA has many, many problems. It either needs to be fixed or replaced. The idea that everyone should have health care IS related to abortion, though. How many people aren't in support of the idea of everyone having health care unless they can afford it or have the right job (or likely both). It turns out there is some evidence to support that the ACA actually helped lower the abortion rate.

I'm all for ACA reform, but anyone trying to scrap it completely without actually having a better plan to offer more widespread health care while also claiming to want to prevent abortions is being extremely hypocritical, in my view. Not as simple as ban or not ban. Change the system to help and watch the results change. Make the system judgemental with a focus on branding people as criminals or not rather than impacting actual outcomes and you have the have your own subjective moral high ground but you aren't solving any problems you claim to be concerned about.

Without a doubt there has to be an alternative before anything can be repealed, that should go without saying. My issue is, I monitor my paycheck closely, everything related to it, before ACA, my health premiums were in line with your standard inflation, cost of living increases. After ACA, that thing shot up a spanking 21%, why? Why should I have to pay more for something I'm not apart of?

[Induveca]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

My last ACA bill when in the US was 700/month. With my wife? 1400 a month. Kid? 2k+. ACA kills the “take a risk” vibe that helped me thrive when I was younger.

I can’t see me quitting my high paying tech job 15 years ago to start my first tech firm. 180 bucks a month with no deductible vs 700 with 7500 deductible wouldn’t have allowed it financially.

[verbal8]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

It was relatively low health costs, that allowed you to take that opportunities. The dramatic rise happened before ACA and continued during ACA, but is not caused by ACA.

A fixed ACA would separate employment from health care - which should encourage risk taking. One thing is an early start-up can often lower income which would make the subsidies come in to play.

[nate33]

It matters because America gave us 2 terrible, horrific, vile candidates to choose from in the general election, so I as many ppl felt stuck, we had to vote for one of these historically bad candidates, I voted for who I felt was the better of the 2 options.

Explain why you support Trump shrugging off SA murdering a WaPo journalist without mentioning Hillary Clinton.

I don't support it, at all. The last news I heard about him relating to it was he said there would be hell to pay if they're proven guilty. if he truly ignores it as if nothing happened, then he deserves to be called out and criticized.

I have been pretty busy at work lately and haven't followed this story all that deeply.

I'm not trying to be provocative here and fully admit that I may be grossly misinformed on the matter. Am I correct in understanding that Jamal Khashoggi is a Saudi-born Saudi citizen with a long history of criticizing the Saudi government? He has been fired from multiple state run newspapers. In 2017, he characterized the Saudi government as "forcing him to shut up" and he later fled the country because he believed his situation was growing "more precarious each day". He ultimately disappeared while on Saudi Arabian soil in a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Obviously, we as a free society don't condone the silencing and murder of journalists, but authoritarian regimes do this stuff all the time. I'm sure China has killed or imprisoned journalists for speaking out yet we still maintain relations with them and don't interfere in their internal affairs. We look the other way in all kinds of shady stuff that our Middle Eastern "allies" do to their own citizens. What exactly makes this different?

Is it because he now works for the Washington Post? Is that the deal? If you are a dissident journalist in an authoritarian country, all it takes is for you to land a job with a U.S. corporation for a year or so and suddenly you get the full protection of the U.S. government? Effectively, whomever does the hiring at the Washington Post has tremendous influence over our foreign policy. Is this what we want? The Washington Post can suck us into economic sanctions, a trade war, or outright open conflict by hiring the wrong guy?

[pancakes3]

and the counterargument is that you're trying to give a voice to something that doesn't have a voice. bc it doesn't even have brain function yet.

Isn’t this kind of a pointless argument? On both sides?

I’ve had too many cousins who have had abortions at a young age, and it really **** with their lives. Taught them it was an easy way out of anything. But I don’t judge them, their boyfriends would just skip the country or disappear in nyc.

The ones who kept the babies usually got knocked up by a rich guy from a club or equivalent and hold them hostage for 18 years. It’s a lifestyle problem in the inner city. Get pregnant by the right guy, it’s a paycheck for most of their adult lives. Then throw on food stamps, welfare, public housing there is little incentive to escape.

Banning abortions I’m strongly against, and I’m certainly conservative when it comes to finance. Socially though while I love the entitlement programs for the abuelas and truly disabled the system is games hard in ways people never exposed to the inner city (or poor rural areas) simply don’t understand.

Solution? I wish he government would produce a lot more remote work for these mothers via the internet. But then you have an issue with the public schools in inner city, they are absolute trash (in nyc at least outside of the specialty schools). Algebra 1 in 12th grade isn’t acceptable, far too lenient. And despite the specific curriculums I’ve seen kids get slapped with the learning disability tag just to graduate. Meanwhile they just don’t want to do the work.

I love Hong Kong and Singapore’s school systems. They blast kids with math and science very early. Seems opposite in the US, at least in the inner cities.

i do agree with the premise that America slow-walks its students through the k12 curriculum, especially with math and science, but pointing to HK/Singapore schools is a false dichotomy.

when a kid fails out of school in Asia, the blame is on the kid for not working hard enough. when a kid fails out of school in America, the blame is on the school system. it's an cultural difference.

and the counterargument is that you're trying to give a voice to something that doesn't have a voice. bc it doesn't even have brain function yet.

you have no clue what that child is learning and thinking in the womb. No clue at all! The science suggest the childs brain is already learning at 14 weeks. Ever heard of a baby addicted to crack? How did it learn to like crack in the womb!!??

using your logic. you can chop off a childs head the second it is born. Which is just as disgusting as killing it at 20 weeks.

i dunno DOCTOR. how did the baby become chemically dependent on a substance that you're characterizing as a learned behavior?

[Induveca]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

It was relatively low health costs, that allowed you to take that opportunities. The dramatic rise happened before ACA and continued during ACA, but is not caused by ACA.

A fixed ACA would separate employment from health care - which should encourage risk taking. One thing is an early start-up can often lower income which would make the subsidies come in to play.

Doesn’t work that way. Most tech startups are 1-2 people taking a massive risk with their own limited capital.

[verbal8]

Explain why you support Trump shrugging off SA murdering a WaPo journalist without mentioning Hillary Clinton.

I don't support it, at all. The last news I heard about him relating to it was he said there would be hell to pay if they're proven guilty. if he truly ignores it as if nothing happened, then he deserves to be called out and criticized.

I have been pretty busy at work lately and haven't followed this story all that deeply.

I'm not trying to be provocative here and fully admit that I may be grossly misinformed on the matter. Am I correct in understanding that Jamal Khashoggi is a Saudi-born Saudi citizen with a long history of criticizing the Saudi government? He has been fired from multiple state run newspapers. In 2017, he characterized the Saudi government as "forcing him to shut up" and he later fled the country because he believed his situation was growing "more precarious each day". He ultimately disappeared while on Saudi Arabian soil in a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Obviously, we as a free society don't condone the silencing and murder of journalists, but authoritarian regimes do this stuff all the time. I'm sure China has killed or imprisoned journalists for speaking out yet we still maintain relations with them and don't interfere in their internal affairs. We look the other way in all kinds of shady stuff that our Middle Eastern "allies" do to their own citizens. What exactly makes this different?

Is it because he now works for the Washington Post? Is that the deal? If you are a dissident journalist in an authoritarian country, all it takes is for you to land a job with a U.S. corporation for a year or so and suddenly you get the full protection of the U.S. government? Effectively, whomever does the hiring at the Washington Post has tremendous influence over our foreign policy. Is this what we want? The Washington Post can suck us into economic sanctions, a trade war, or outright open conflict by hiring the wrong guy?

While murder and torture happen in authoritarian regimes, they are not often so brazen.

This is obviously connected to Saudi Arabia and potentially at the highest levels of government.
It happened in another Country to someone associated with a 3rd(the US) country.
While he isn't a citizen he is a US resident and is entitled to many US protections. Many US soliders have been residents vs. citizens.

It looks like there have been roughly 30 events involving murders(one was a massacre of 30) and torture of journalists in the last 10 years:
https://cpj.org/data/killed/2018/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5B%5D=Confirmed&type%5B%5D=Journalist&typeOfDeath%5B%5D=Murder&typeOfDeath%5B%5D=eq%3Atortured%3Atrue&start_year=2008&end_year=2018&group_by=location

It seems most typically rebels/terrorists and rouge cops are the culprits.

[verbal8]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

It was relatively low health costs, that allowed you to take that opportunities. The dramatic rise happened before ACA and continued during ACA, but is not caused by ACA.

A fixed ACA would separate employment from health care - which should encourage risk taking. One thing is an early start-up can often lower income which would make the subsidies come in to play.

Doesn’t work that way. Most tech startups are 1-2 people taking a massive risk with their own limited capital.

My point is if you are in the "start up phase" your income will be at point where you can qualify for subsidized health care under ACA.

Once you have to start using real salaries and benefits to attract employees - then I agree the health care situation is a big hindrance to innovation/economic growth. But I think that challenge exists with or without ACA.

[dckingsfan]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

My last ACA bill when in the US was 700/month. With my wife? 1400 a month. Kid? 2k+. ACA kills the “take a risk” vibe that helped me thrive when I was younger.

I can’t see me quitting my high paying tech job 15 years ago to start my first tech firm. 180 bucks a month with no deductible vs 700 with 7500 deductible wouldn’t have allowed it financially.

You just laid out the biggest reason to move to single payer. New company starts are down, productivity and wages are stagnant in part to the lack of startups. If corporations and government workers all were on the same program - it would definitely spur innovation.

[Induveca]

ACA has a larger issue. It kills any possibility of a young entrepreneur from a poor background taking a chance on a company/idea.

My last ACA bill when in the US was 700/month. With my wife? 1400 a month. Kid? 2k+. ACA kills the “take a risk” vibe that helped me thrive when I was younger.

I can’t see me quitting my high paying tech job 15 years ago to start my first tech firm. 180 bucks a month with no deductible vs 700 with 7500 deductible wouldn’t have allowed it financially.

You just laid out the biggest reason to move to single payer. New company starts are down, productivity and wages are stagnant in part to the lack of startups. If corporations and government workers all were on the same program - it would definitely spur innovation.

International/global insurance is far cheaper has saved me huge. Good stopgap.

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

lmfao

[gtn130]

Explain why you support Trump shrugging off SA murdering a WaPo journalist without mentioning Hillary Clinton.

I don't support it, at all. The last news I heard about him relating to it was he said there would be hell to pay if they're proven guilty. if he truly ignores it as if nothing happened, then he deserves to be called out and criticized.

I have been pretty busy at work lately and haven't followed this story all that deeply.

I'm not trying to be provocative here and fully admit that I may be grossly misinformed on the matter. Am I correct in understanding that Jamal Khashoggi is a Saudi-born Saudi citizen with a long history of criticizing the Saudi government? He has been fired from multiple state run newspapers. In 2017, he characterized the Saudi government as "forcing him to shut up" and he later fled the country because he believed his situation was growing "more precarious each day". He ultimately disappeared while on Saudi Arabian soil in a Saudi consulate in Turkey.

Obviously, we as a free society don't condone the silencing and murder of journalists, but authoritarian regimes do this stuff all the time. I'm sure China has killed or imprisoned journalists for speaking out yet we still maintain relations with them and don't interfere in their internal affairs. We look the other way in all kinds of shady stuff that our Middle Eastern "allies" do to their own citizens. What exactly makes this different?

Is it because he now works for the Washington Post? Is that the deal? If you are a dissident journalist in an authoritarian country, all it takes is for you to land a job with a U.S. corporation for a year or so and suddenly you get the full protection of the U.S. government? Effectively, whomever does the hiring at the Washington Post has tremendous influence over our foreign policy. Is this what we want? The Washington Post can suck us into economic sanctions, a trade war, or outright open conflict by hiring the wrong guy?

The nuance behind Khashoggi's relationship with KSA or the US doesn't really matter that much to me when I already don't support the US-KSA relationship as it stands. If KSA is murdering dissidents and doing things that don't align with our values as a nation, we shouldn't be doing business with them, and this goes against the foreign policy establishment of both parties, as you know.

Things aren't black and white, and I'm sure there are plenty of hypocrisies and inconsistencies in any hardline foreign policy position, but I really don't see how the American people benefit from the existing quasi-alliance between the US and Saudi Arabia.

[queridiculo]

Both sides want it both ways. Querid pointed one side, the other side is my body my choice, government should stay out, but they have no problem going to government funded facilities for any issues with their body.

That's a gross misrepresentation. The pro-choice movement is simply that, pro-choice.

The other side is anti-choice, while actively undermining programs that would actually reduce the number of abortions that they purport to care so much about.

Studies have shown time and time again that abortions positively correlate with socioeconomic standing, education level and unintended pregnancies.

It stands to reason that if you actually cared about reducing the rate of "baby killing", letting go of your binary world view to embrace policies that empower and educate people would be far more effective than moral posturing.