Political Roundtable Part XXIII

[pancakes3]

Sounds like the Right Wingers have established their talking points to defend their actions this week:

It's okay, even Obama did it?



Shout outs to Kevin Sorbo for his expert insights. You're my inspiration Hercules.

STD is posting straight up lies. The guy is a sociopath and pathological liar you can’t trust anything he posts.

Are you saying that the Obama admin never used tear gas, cause that's false

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

Even if Obama did authorize the use of tear gas, and even if the liberal media does venerate Obama disproportionately, even if liberals have no standing to judge the gassing of children bc of their stance of abortion, it shouldn't change how you feel about the current situation.

You have the moral high ground. You know this is wrong. S

let's both take a step back as human beings, not a republican or democrat (and for the record I've identified as Republican for most of my adult life), and imagine being a woman on this caravan, which is roughly 20% of the caravan. even if we do indulge all of the negative assertions made by the right. you're a woman in a crowd of rapists and thugs with a baby who's not your baby. can you even breastfeed? are you bringing formula with you? are you fearful for your life from the criminals who have kidnapped you to force you as part of their asylum cover story? wait, how do you keep this baby alive until you make it to the border? where are the diapers coming from. are you using disposable or cloth? you also have a 4 year old with you. where does her food come from? do you have to worry about her safety from the criminals? a month later you're at tijuana. the border is shut down. an indefinite amount of weeks that needs to be spent, trying to keep these kids, who now feel like YOUR kids, alive, and safe from the criminals. this is your life now. maybe you should try to sneak into the U.S. you have no idea what is going on. there's rumors that Trump has shut down the border. you were told you could file for asylum but now you don't know what to do. yeah, probably run for the border. tear gas. your fake baby is crying. your fake toddler is screaming. do you let go? they're not your kids after all. but you're the closest thing to a mother they have.

even in this narrative, this awful, awful narrative, can we agree that the fake mom and her fake kids do not deserve the response that Trump has implemented? can we agree that this is wrong? that instead of implementing a blanket refusal of the immigrants, maybe we should be sifting through the caravan and identifying people that have legitimate claims to enter the country and remove those people from danger?

like, i'll admit that there's no chance that 100% of the caravan has legitimate claims for asylum. most probably do not. there is probably a nucleus of actual asylum seekers and then other immigrants hopped on because there's safety in numbers. but that's not a reason to demonize them. there's no evidence that this is an invasion force, supplemented by ISIS, intended to "invade" the U.S. I don't even know what "invasion" means. they just want to come in, find a job, and in some cases reconnect with their family. we can differ on whether that's appropriate vis a vis the laws of the country but the rift should not and cannot widen to the place of discourse as it currently stands.

[Pointgod]

No Obama didn’t do the same thing in 2013. This is where STD and the rest of the right wing morons that spread this are trash human beings.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Unruly-Crowd-Attack-Organized-at-US-Mexico-Border-San-Diego-233698631.html

Investigators say a clash at the U.S.-Mexico border near San Diego involving more than 100 people pelting Border Patrol agents with rocks and bottles was an event organized long before the chaos began.

CBP officials said many of the Mexican nationals in the crowd were ordered to stop by Border Patrol agents, but they continued walking into the U.S.
Even with backup assistance, the agents were outnumbered by the crowd. Officials said one agent was even hit on the head with a full water bottle. Once agents used “intermediate use-of-force” devices, the group retreated back to the Mexico side of the border.

First off these guys were responding to a preplanned instigation of the problem. They used pepper spray, not tear gas and third its disingenuous to say Obama did the same thing, Obama didn’t give orders to the border patrol. Trump has purposely been using racist rhetoric and ginning up aggression against migrants, even attempting to authorize use of force. So yes he Trump does deserve a lot more scrutiny than Obama. And guess what he’s President now, not Obama so shut the **** up with your fake concern trolling and whataboutism. Obama isn’t President and it’s Trump that’s escalated the problems at the border with his policies. Those are facts not lies from right wing trash.

[daoneandonly]

STD is posting straight up lies. The guy is a sociopath and pathological liar you can’t trust anything he posts.

Are you saying that the Obama admin never used tear gas, cause that's false

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

Even if Obama did authorize the use of tear gas, and even if the liberal media does venerate Obama disproportionately, even if liberals have no standing to judge the gassing of children bc of their stance of abortion, it shouldn't change how you feel about the current situation.

You have the moral high ground. You know this is wrong. S

let's both take a step back as human beings, not a republican or democrat (and for the record I've identified as Republican for most of my adult life), and imagine being a woman on this caravan, which is roughly 20% of the caravan. even if we do indulge all of the negative assertions made by the right. you're a woman in a crowd of rapists and thugs with a baby who's not your baby. can you even breastfeed? are you bringing formula with you? are you fearful for your life from the criminals who have kidnapped you to force you as part of their asylum cover story? wait, how do you keep this baby alive until you make it to the border? where are the diapers coming from. are you using disposable or cloth? you also have a 4 year old with you. where does her food come from? do you have to worry about her safety from the criminals? a month later you're at tijuana. the border is shut down. an indefinite amount of weeks that needs to be spent, trying to keep these kids, who now feel like YOUR kids, alive, and safe from the criminals. this is your life now. maybe you should try to sneak into the U.S. you have no idea what is going on. there's rumors that Trump has shut down the border. you were told you could file for asylum but now you don't know what to do. yeah, probably run for the border. tear gas. your fake baby is crying. your fake toddler is screaming. do you let go? they're not your kids after all. but you're the closest thing to a mother they have.

even in this narrative, this awful, awful narrative, can we agree that the fake mom and her fake kids do not deserve the response that Trump has implemented? can we agree that this is wrong? that instead of implementing a blanket refusal of the immigrants, maybe we should be sifting through the caravan and identifying people that have legitimate claims to enter the country and remove those people from danger?

like, i'll admit that there's no chance that 100% of the caravan has legitimate claims for asylum. most probably do not. there is probably a nucleus of actual asylum seekers and then other immigrants hopped on because there's safety in numbers. but that's not a reason to demonize them. there's no evidence that this is an invasion force, supplemented by ISIS, intended to "invade" the U.S. I don't even know what "invasion" means. they just want to come in, find a job, and in some cases reconnect with their family. we can differ on whether that's appropriate vis a vis the laws of the country but the rift should not and cannot widen to the place of discourse as it currently stands.

Oh I'm in no way defending Trump over his actions here, hurting an innocent child is just that, hurting an innocent child, its cruel and inhumane. What i take additional exception with is how the media, these loser celebrities like alyssa milano, and some of the left poster son this thread are portraying this and using this to beef up their side, when the obama admin used similar methods themselves

im with you on vetting, thats always been my stance, vetting. not let everyone cross and anyone who already crossed gets amnesty that many think is the way to go, simple proper vetting.

[pancakes3]

Are you saying that the Obama admin never used tear gas, cause that's false

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/26/obama-administration-used-tear-gas-border-once-mon/

Even if Obama did authorize the use of tear gas, and even if the liberal media does venerate Obama disproportionately, even if liberals have no standing to judge the gassing of children bc of their stance of abortion, it shouldn't change how you feel about the current situation.

You have the moral high ground. You know this is wrong. S

let's both take a step back as human beings, not a republican or democrat (and for the record I've identified as Republican for most of my adult life), and imagine being a woman on this caravan, which is roughly 20% of the caravan. even if we do indulge all of the negative assertions made by the right. you're a woman in a crowd of rapists and thugs with a baby who's not your baby. can you even breastfeed? are you bringing formula with you? are you fearful for your life from the criminals who have kidnapped you to force you as part of their asylum cover story? wait, how do you keep this baby alive until you make it to the border? where are the diapers coming from. are you using disposable or cloth? you also have a 4 year old with you. where does her food come from? do you have to worry about her safety from the criminals? a month later you're at tijuana. the border is shut down. an indefinite amount of weeks that needs to be spent, trying to keep these kids, who now feel like YOUR kids, alive, and safe from the criminals. this is your life now. maybe you should try to sneak into the U.S. you have no idea what is going on. there's rumors that Trump has shut down the border. you were told you could file for asylum but now you don't know what to do. yeah, probably run for the border. tear gas. your fake baby is crying. your fake toddler is screaming. do you let go? they're not your kids after all. but you're the closest thing to a mother they have.

even in this narrative, this awful, awful narrative, can we agree that the fake mom and her fake kids do not deserve the response that Trump has implemented? can we agree that this is wrong? that instead of implementing a blanket refusal of the immigrants, maybe we should be sifting through the caravan and identifying people that have legitimate claims to enter the country and remove those people from danger?

like, i'll admit that there's no chance that 100% of the caravan has legitimate claims for asylum. most probably do not. there is probably a nucleus of actual asylum seekers and then other immigrants hopped on because there's safety in numbers. but that's not a reason to demonize them. there's no evidence that this is an invasion force, supplemented by ISIS, intended to "invade" the U.S. I don't even know what "invasion" means. they just want to come in, find a job, and in some cases reconnect with their family. we can differ on whether that's appropriate vis a vis the laws of the country but the rift should not and cannot widen to the place of discourse as it currently stands.

Oh I'm in no way defending Trump over his actions here, hurting an innocent child is just that, hurting an innocent child, its cruel and inhumane. What i take additional exception with is how the media, these loser celebrities like alyssa milano, and some of the left poster son this thread are portraying this and using this to beef up their side, when the obama admin used similar methods themselves

im with you on vetting, thats always been my stance, vetting. not let everyone cross and anyone who already crossed gets amnesty that many think is the way to go, simple proper vetting.

Except when you take exception to the portrayal of the media, and when you play the obama card, you are in a way defending Trump's actions.

Like, if you found out that your coworker was fired for beating his wife, and your knee jerk reaction was to take exception to his firing because I called it "beating his wife" instead of "domestic violence" and that I have no moral high ground because 2 years ago I was cited for a domestic disturbance, doesn't it feel like you're defending your wifebeating coworker? Shouldn't your reaction be "oh damn, coworker should probably stop hitting his wife."

It just seems petty and stupid to object to the posting of the libs when ostensibly, you agree with the libs on the issue.

[daoneandonly]

Even if Obama did authorize the use of tear gas, and even if the liberal media does venerate Obama disproportionately, even if liberals have no standing to judge the gassing of children bc of their stance of abortion, it shouldn't change how you feel about the current situation.

You have the moral high ground. You know this is wrong. S

let's both take a step back as human beings, not a republican or democrat (and for the record I've identified as Republican for most of my adult life), and imagine being a woman on this caravan, which is roughly 20% of the caravan. even if we do indulge all of the negative assertions made by the right. you're a woman in a crowd of rapists and thugs with a baby who's not your baby. can you even breastfeed? are you bringing formula with you? are you fearful for your life from the criminals who have kidnapped you to force you as part of their asylum cover story? wait, how do you keep this baby alive until you make it to the border? where are the diapers coming from. are you using disposable or cloth? you also have a 4 year old with you. where does her food come from? do you have to worry about her safety from the criminals? a month later you're at tijuana. the border is shut down. an indefinite amount of weeks that needs to be spent, trying to keep these kids, who now feel like YOUR kids, alive, and safe from the criminals. this is your life now. maybe you should try to sneak into the U.S. you have no idea what is going on. there's rumors that Trump has shut down the border. you were told you could file for asylum but now you don't know what to do. yeah, probably run for the border. tear gas. your fake baby is crying. your fake toddler is screaming. do you let go? they're not your kids after all. but you're the closest thing to a mother they have.

even in this narrative, this awful, awful narrative, can we agree that the fake mom and her fake kids do not deserve the response that Trump has implemented? can we agree that this is wrong? that instead of implementing a blanket refusal of the immigrants, maybe we should be sifting through the caravan and identifying people that have legitimate claims to enter the country and remove those people from danger?

like, i'll admit that there's no chance that 100% of the caravan has legitimate claims for asylum. most probably do not. there is probably a nucleus of actual asylum seekers and then other immigrants hopped on because there's safety in numbers. but that's not a reason to demonize them. there's no evidence that this is an invasion force, supplemented by ISIS, intended to "invade" the U.S. I don't even know what "invasion" means. they just want to come in, find a job, and in some cases reconnect with their family. we can differ on whether that's appropriate vis a vis the laws of the country but the rift should not and cannot widen to the place of discourse as it currently stands.

Oh I'm in no way defending Trump over his actions here, hurting an innocent child is just that, hurting an innocent child, its cruel and inhumane. What i take additional exception with is how the media, these loser celebrities like alyssa milano, and some of the left poster son this thread are portraying this and using this to beef up their side, when the obama admin used similar methods themselves

im with you on vetting, thats always been my stance, vetting. not let everyone cross and anyone who already crossed gets amnesty that many think is the way to go, simple proper vetting.

Except when you take exception to the portrayal of the media, and when you play the obama card, you are in a way defending Trump's actions.

Like, if you found out that your coworker was fired for beating his wife, and your knee jerk reaction was to take exception to his firing because I called it "beating his wife" instead of "domestic violence" and that I have no moral high ground because 2 years ago I was cited for a domestic disturbance, doesn't it feel like you're defending your wifebeating coworker? Shouldn't your reaction be "oh damn, coworker should probably stop hitting his wife."

It just seems petty and stupid to object to the posting of the libs when ostensibly, you agree with the libs on the issue.

I disagree, because I fele the difference is I acklowedge and own the faults in the party and many of its members that i support, we rarely ever see that on the liberla side

you mentioned yourself you identified as a republican and you've disagreed with many of the things Trump & team have done. One of those things he deserves to eb called out for is how he is handling Saudi, yet almost none (if any) of the liberals here will own to Hillary's, heck even Barack's close knit relationship to the kingdom, it only works one way for them. If the Dems do anything similar to what trump did, it gets ignored. Im happy to call him out for all his wrong, way he labeled Mexicans, mocking a disabled person, even things that have no bearing in politics, cheating on his spouse, he's wrong for all that. Just tired of the narrative that Obama was a saint when he's far far from it

[Jamaaliver]

Only new age liberals would embrace immigrants, refugees and poor foreigners seeking asylum and a new life.

It's simply not what our nation stands for. Never has. Never will.

[dckingsfan]

Or maybe people just don't look at abortion the same way you do?

You hit the nail on the head.

On the one hand, you have a group believes that conception that looks at the fetus as a child that should be given the highest level of protections. It is murder. Adoption vs. abortion. Babies should be carried even in the case of rape - they shouldn't be punished for another's crime. Taxes shouldn't be used for abortion or contraception. Young women don't have enough life experience to make those decisions and it will cause them lifelong pain and they are just being irresponsible. Once the baby is born, it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure they are looked after.

On the other hand, you have a group that believes that since a fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. The mother is at the top of the list at this point not the fetus. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Abortion is a much safe medical procedure than birth. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights (and privacy). Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. The stress of abortion is much less than the stress of giving up a baby.

Note: Life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs are used for IVF are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Murder?

Note: Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies; less than 3 percent.

Note: Teenagers that have kids are much more likely to leave school, receive poor care for the deliveries (higher death rate) and develop health problems.

Not all believe babies should be carried in the case of rape, thats a broad brush. Rape is not the fault, consequence, or doing by the woman, just like if her life or the baby's life are in danger, those are terrible circumstances. We're talking the #1 reason for abortion, oopsie, didn't mean to get pregnant. That is of their doing, they know even when using protection its not 100%, your responsibility, be accountable.

And yeah government paying for contraception is ridiculous, ppl should pay for it their damn selves. We're not talking a house, car, etc, we're talking freaking contraception, anyone with a job can afford it. These are the type of things people need to stop extending their palms for expecting a handout.

First, not that broad a brush at all if you look at the statistics - a vast majority that want to ban abortions want to ban all abortions.

To your second point, there is the question of "proving" the rape. If they have to "prove" the rape that would take it past the first trimester. And if they don't have to "prove" the rape - that would then open it up to basically all. That is where the "argument" fails miserably.

Third, many of those "oops" moments you refer to are also a result of faulty contraception. Also, not the fault of the women, faulty birth control, faulty condoms, etc.. Where would that fall?

I don't disagree at all on contraception. But then you are at least going to add "some" additional abortions.

It is the same on support of those babies once born. You would reduce the number of abortions if you guarantee support for the women and child.

Hopefully you can (also) see the contradiction in what you advocate.

In a way the Ds could be closer. They have advocated support for women and children within their platform. If they also provided counseling to women to keep their babies - they might be closer to the platform you want - interesting.

[daoneandonly]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-kushner-to-receive-mexicos-highest-honor/ar-BBQa7sX?li=BBnb7Kz

[dckingsfan]

What is interesting is dichotomy between being the lighthouse that Emma Lazarus envisioned and (newer) social services that we provide and the rule of law (or lack thereof). Neither side really has a solid policy to take us forward the next 100 years (IMO).

Only new age liberals would embrace immigrants, refugees and poor foreigners seeking asylum and a new life.

It's simply not what our nation stands for. Never has. Never will.

[daoneandonly]

You hit the nail on the head.

On the one hand, you have a group believes that conception that looks at the fetus as a child that should be given the highest level of protections. It is murder. Adoption vs. abortion. Babies should be carried even in the case of rape - they shouldn't be punished for another's crime. Taxes shouldn't be used for abortion or contraception. Young women don't have enough life experience to make those decisions and it will cause them lifelong pain and they are just being irresponsible. Once the baby is born, it is not the government’s responsibility to make sure they are looked after.

On the other hand, you have a group that believes that since a fetus is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. The mother is at the top of the list at this point not the fetus. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion because it remains the woman's choice whether or not to give her child up for adoption. Abortion is a much safe medical procedure than birth. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. Pregnancy can occur even with responsible contraceptive use. The ability of a woman to have control of her body is critical to civil rights (and privacy). Taxpayer dollars are used to enable poor women to access the same medical services as rich women, and abortion is one of these services. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. The stress of abortion is much less than the stress of giving up a baby.

Note: Life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs are used for IVF are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Murder?

Note: Statistics show that very few women who give birth choose to give up their babies; less than 3 percent.

Note: Teenagers that have kids are much more likely to leave school, receive poor care for the deliveries (higher death rate) and develop health problems.

Not all believe babies should be carried in the case of rape, thats a broad brush. Rape is not the fault, consequence, or doing by the woman, just like if her life or the baby's life are in danger, those are terrible circumstances. We're talking the #1 reason for abortion, oopsie, didn't mean to get pregnant. That is of their doing, they know even when using protection its not 100%, your responsibility, be accountable.

And yeah government paying for contraception is ridiculous, ppl should pay for it their damn selves. We're not talking a house, car, etc, we're talking freaking contraception, anyone with a job can afford it. These are the type of things people need to stop extending their palms for expecting a handout.

First, not that broad a brush at all if you look at the statistics - a vast majority that want to ban abortions want to ban all abortions.

To your second point, there is the question of "proving" the rape. If they have to "prove" the rape that would take it past the first trimester. And if they don't have to "prove" the rape - that would then open it up to basically all. That is where the "argument" fails miserably.

Third, many of those "oops" moments you refer to are also a result of faulty contraception. Also, not the fault of the women, faulty birth control, faulty condoms, etc.. Where would that fall?

I don't disagree at all on contraception. But then you are at least going to add "some" additional abortions.

It is the same on support of those babies once born. You would reduce the number of abortions if you guarantee support for the women and child.

Hopefully you can (also) see the contradiction in what you advocate.

In a way the Ds could be closer. They have advocated support for women and children within their platform. If they also provided counseling to women to keep their babies - they might be closer to the platform you want - interesting.

if a woman lies about a rape to get an abortion in this type of situation, she is as low on the human life totem pole as they come, that's just vile to the nth degree

Faulty contraception, again, they teach u in 5th grade health class its not 100%, they know the risks, to me, not a reason to abort

I'm all for helping out a family in desperate times, when things beyond their control impact their ability to provide and make a life for their family. What I long said though its 2018, we have handheld devices that can navigate us from point a to be at the touch of a button, same goes for ordering something from a store, we have ppl tossing their eye glasses away because laser eye surgey, if we cna do all these things, we can better weed out ppl who legitimately need a helping hand up vs those who are just flat out lazy, unaccountable, and caused their own circumstances to occur and hence should not be leeching off the general public.

[dckingsfan]

Not all believe babies should be carried in the case of rape, thats a broad brush. Rape is not the fault, consequence, or doing by the woman, just like if her life or the baby's life are in danger, those are terrible circumstances. We're talking the #1 reason for abortion, oopsie, didn't mean to get pregnant. That is of their doing, they know even when using protection its not 100%, your responsibility, be accountable.

And yeah government paying for contraception is ridiculous, ppl should pay for it their damn selves. We're not talking a house, car, etc, we're talking freaking contraception, anyone with a job can afford it. These are the type of things people need to stop extending their palms for expecting a handout.

First, not that broad a brush at all if you look at the statistics - a vast majority that want to ban abortions want to ban all abortions.

To your second point, there is the question of "proving" the rape. If they have to "prove" the rape that would take it past the first trimester. And if they don't have to "prove" the rape - that would then open it up to basically all. That is where the "argument" fails miserably.

Third, many of those "oops" moments you refer to are also a result of faulty contraception. Also, not the fault of the women, faulty birth control, faulty condoms, etc.. Where would that fall?

I don't disagree at all on contraception. But then you are at least going to add "some" additional abortions.

It is the same on support of those babies once born. You would reduce the number of abortions if you guarantee support for the women and child.

Hopefully you can (also) see the contradiction in what you advocate.

In a way the Ds could be closer. They have advocated support for women and children within their platform. If they also provided counseling to women to keep their babies - they might be closer to the platform you want - interesting.

if a woman lies about a rape to get an abortion in this type of situation, she is as low on the human life totem pole as they come, that's just vile to the nth degree

Faulty contraception, again, they teach u in 5th grade health class its not 100%, they know the risks, to me, not a reason to abort

I'm all for helping out a family in desperate times, when things beyond their control impact their ability to provide and make a life for their family. What I long said though its 2018, we have handheld devices that can navigate us from point a to be at the touch of a button, same goes for ordering something from a store, we have ppl tossing their eye glasses away because laser eye surgey, if we cna do all these things, we can better weed out ppl who legitimately need a helping hand up vs those who are just flat out lazy, unaccountable, and caused their own circumstances to occur and hence should not be leeching off the general public.

And there you have gone and complete ducked the issues.
1) Does a rape have to be proved?
2) There are dosing issues miscalculations and flaws in condoms. Do they need to be proven.
3) If you really want to reduce abortions you have to have a plan that instills confidence in women - you did no such thing.

Sorry but your logic is either badly flawed or you just want all abortions banned regardless.

But I think you can see that there would be a lot of concerns that you have to brush over to make it about irresponsible women.

[daoneandonly]

First, not that broad a brush at all if you look at the statistics - a vast majority that want to ban abortions want to ban all abortions.

To your second point, there is the question of "proving" the rape. If they have to "prove" the rape that would take it past the first trimester. And if they don't have to "prove" the rape - that would then open it up to basically all. That is where the "argument" fails miserably.

Third, many of those "oops" moments you refer to are also a result of faulty contraception. Also, not the fault of the women, faulty birth control, faulty condoms, etc.. Where would that fall?

I don't disagree at all on contraception. But then you are at least going to add "some" additional abortions.

It is the same on support of those babies once born. You would reduce the number of abortions if you guarantee support for the women and child.

Hopefully you can (also) see the contradiction in what you advocate.

In a way the Ds could be closer. They have advocated support for women and children within their platform. If they also provided counseling to women to keep their babies - they might be closer to the platform you want - interesting.

if a woman lies about a rape to get an abortion in this type of situation, she is as low on the human life totem pole as they come, that's just vile to the nth degree

Faulty contraception, again, they teach u in 5th grade health class its not 100%, they know the risks, to me, not a reason to abort

I'm all for helping out a family in desperate times, when things beyond their control impact their ability to provide and make a life for their family. What I long said though its 2018, we have handheld devices that can navigate us from point a to be at the touch of a button, same goes for ordering something from a store, we have ppl tossing their eye glasses away because laser eye surgey, if we cna do all these things, we can better weed out ppl who legitimately need a helping hand up vs those who are just flat out lazy, unaccountable, and caused their own circumstances to occur and hence should not be leeching off the general public.

And there you have gone and complete ducked the issues.
1) Does a rape have to be proved?
2) There are dosing issues miscalculations and flaws in condoms. Do they need to be proven.
3) If you really want to reduce abortions you have to have a plan that instills confidence in women - you did no such thing.

Sorry but your logic is either badly flawed or you just want all abortions banned regardless.

But I think you can see that there would be a lot of concerns that you have to brush over to make it about irresponsible women.

Not ducking, the rape issue is a touchy, complicate done

1. There's layers here, she can claim to be raped and there cna be at least some evidence to the point, even if it were not true. Then again, there can be no shred of evidence and yet she was in fact raped. So where would one draw the line? Claim and rape and abortion, bam. So because the vile act of rape exists, that somehow makes an abortion okay even when the woman was not raped.
2. No they dont need to be proven, this argument makes no sense. You KNOW the risks going on even using them, whether they are faulty or not, is ur problem after the fact, they teach u this in basic sex ed, not as a scare tactic, but as truth. if it fails, it happens, and u should be responsible. I use the pronoun you as in the person, not you specifically obviously
3. its the woman's responsibility, not the world's. Yes there can be measures to assist, but she and her partner got herself pregnant, so they shouldnt just get some easy, callous out in the form of an abortion

[dckingsfan]

if a woman lies about a rape to get an abortion in this type of situation, she is as low on the human life totem pole as they come, that's just vile to the nth degree

Faulty contraception, again, they teach u in 5th grade health class its not 100%, they know the risks, to me, not a reason to abort

I'm all for helping out a family in desperate times, when things beyond their control impact their ability to provide and make a life for their family. What I long said though its 2018, we have handheld devices that can navigate us from point a to be at the touch of a button, same goes for ordering something from a store, we have ppl tossing their eye glasses away because laser eye surgey, if we cna do all these things, we can better weed out ppl who legitimately need a helping hand up vs those who are just flat out lazy, unaccountable, and caused their own circumstances to occur and hence should not be leeching off the general public.

And there you have gone and complete ducked the issues.
1) Does a rape have to be proved?
2) There are dosing issues miscalculations and flaws in condoms. Do they need to be proven.
3) If you really want to reduce abortions you have to have a plan that instills confidence in women - you did no such thing.

Sorry but your logic is either badly flawed or you just want all abortions banned regardless.

But I think you can see that there would be a lot of concerns that you have to brush over to make it about irresponsible women.

Not ducking, the rape issue is a touchy, complicate done

1. There's layers here, she can claim to be raped and there cna be at least some evidence to the point, even if it were not true. Then again, there can be no shred of evidence and yet she was in fact raped. So where would one draw the line? Claim and rape and abortion, bam. So because the vile act of rape exists, that somehow makes an abortion okay even when the woman was not raped.
2. No they dont need to be proven, this argument makes no sense. You KNOW the risks going on even using them, whether they are faulty or not, is ur problem after the fact, they teach u this in basic sex ed, not as a scare tactic, but as truth. if it fails, it happens, and u should be responsible. I use the pronoun you as in the person, not you specifically obviously
3. its the woman's responsibility, not the world's. Yes there can be measures to assist, but she and her partner got herself pregnant, so they shouldnt just get some easy, callous out in the form of an abortion

No - it isn't complicated - it is touchy because it shows the flaw in the logic (cognitive dissonance).

You are either going to accept the women's word on rape (or flawed contraceptive technology) or you are not. If you do, you don't have a way to prevent abortions - it is that simple.

And if you make it the women's responsibility, well then, it is the women's responsibility. And if they don't feel that they have the resources to raise the child out of poverty - then you don't have much an argument.

Some might even call the argument evil: We will make the decision that women will have the baby regardless of if they were raped and either take the baby away or let her live in poverty (we just don't care).

Or going back to gtn's - maybe some folks don't look at abortion the same way you do... he is dead on.

[pancakes3]

Oh I'm in no way defending Trump over his actions here, hurting an innocent child is just that, hurting an innocent child, its cruel and inhumane. What i take additional exception with is how the media, these loser celebrities like alyssa milano, and some of the left poster son this thread are portraying this and using this to beef up their side, when the obama admin used similar methods themselves

im with you on vetting, thats always been my stance, vetting. not let everyone cross and anyone who already crossed gets amnesty that many think is the way to go, simple proper vetting.

Except when you take exception to the portrayal of the media, and when you play the obama card, you are in a way defending Trump's actions.

Like, if you found out that your coworker was fired for beating his wife, and your knee jerk reaction was to take exception to his firing because I called it "beating his wife" instead of "domestic violence" and that I have no moral high ground because 2 years ago I was cited for a domestic disturbance, doesn't it feel like you're defending your wifebeating coworker? Shouldn't your reaction be "oh damn, coworker should probably stop hitting his wife."

It just seems petty and stupid to object to the posting of the libs when ostensibly, you agree with the libs on the issue.

I disagree, because I fele the difference is I acklowedge and own the faults in the party and many of its members that i support, we rarely ever see that on the liberla side

you mentioned yourself you identified as a republican and you've disagreed with many of the things Trump & team have done. One of those things he deserves to eb called out for is how he is handling Saudi, yet almost none (if any) of the liberals here will own to Hillary's, heck even Barack's close knit relationship to the kingdom, it only works one way for them. If the Dems do anything similar to what trump did, it gets ignored. Im happy to call him out for all his wrong, way he labeled Mexicans, mocking a disabled person, even things that have no bearing in politics, cheating on his spouse, he's wrong for all that. Just tired of the narrative that Obama was a saint when he's far far from it

i think you're devolving into oversimplification and whataboutism in this post.

i think there are many libs on here who are critical of Obama when there is cause to be critical - and the media included. the biggest tarnish of the Obama administration are probably both Middle-East-related in ISIS and Yemen.

However, you're citing Barack's "close knit relationship to the kingdom" out of... nothing really. Obama was no friend to KSA and if you want to play gotcha games, go look up Barack's condemnation of how the Saudis arrested, imprisoned, and flogged political dissident Raif Badawi. For a guy that Trumpers gave grief for not saying "radical islamic terror," Obama had no problem calling that spade a spade when Trump has a problem condemning the ordered assassination of a journalist. I guess it's not radical islam when gas prices are in play.

But really this is sidestepping the real issue I have with your posting - that it stands on a platform built on impotent rage and misemphasized/characterized hypocrisy.

If I may cite to a cliched and overused Eleanor Roosevelt quote - "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people."

I think the quality of the posting of this thread would improve massively (SD notwithstanding*) if references to killary, or babykillers are checked at the door and discussion is held true to the topic at hand.

*I say this not in a mean-spirited way, but in that I think SD has legitimate mental problems and cannot discuss politics in a meaningful way. This is not to take away from whatever real estate prowess or dental skills he has, but I think he lacks the human empathy to discuss issues that involve people other than himself.

One aspect in particular that's been irking me, you can see the sociopathy in his repeated allusions to altruism of providing for his community. He doesn't treat it as an act of love for his fellow man. He uses it as crutch for moral superiority in a cosmic game of keep karmic score, while at the same time questioning the charitable character of everyone else - as if (1) that disqualifies us from commenting on politics, (2) is evidence that we don't do charity work, or (3) if the relative amounts of charity work done (measured in dollars apparently) qualifies us to opine on politics.

At the risk of outing myself, I personally regularly volunteer at Miriam's Kitchen, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities pro bono legal work, and have done other pro bono projects. I have also tutored at after-school programs, and my goal for 2019 is to get into either Big Brother/Big Sis or youth sports - workload permitting. I'm saying this not to score cred but to rebut SD's toxic message and to also remind people whose opinions differ from mine that it's still people on the other side of the aisle. In some cases, it's people on your own aisle. Or even that aisles don't matter.

[closg00]

I love Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez more with each day, she takes zero BS from Fox News clowns or clowns in the Congress/Senate...love her tweets

[stilldropin20]

Except when you take exception to the portrayal of the media, and when you play the obama card, you are in a way defending Trump's actions.

Like, if you found out that your coworker was fired for beating his wife, and your knee jerk reaction was to take exception to his firing because I called it "beating his wife" instead of "domestic violence" and that I have no moral high ground because 2 years ago I was cited for a domestic disturbance, doesn't it feel like you're defending your wifebeating coworker? Shouldn't your reaction be "oh damn, coworker should probably stop hitting his wife."

It just seems petty and stupid to object to the posting of the libs when ostensibly, you agree with the libs on the issue.

I disagree, because I fele the difference is I acklowedge and own the faults in the party and many of its members that i support, we rarely ever see that on the liberla side

you mentioned yourself you identified as a republican and you've disagreed with many of the things Trump & team have done. One of those things he deserves to eb called out for is how he is handling Saudi, yet almost none (if any) of the liberals here will own to Hillary's, heck even Barack's close knit relationship to the kingdom, it only works one way for them. If the Dems do anything similar to what trump did, it gets ignored. Im happy to call him out for all his wrong, way he labeled Mexicans, mocking a disabled person, even things that have no bearing in politics, cheating on his spouse, he's wrong for all that. Just tired of the narrative that Obama was a saint when he's far far from it

i think you're devolving into oversimplification and whataboutism in this post.

i think there are many libs on here who are critical of Obama when there is cause to be critical - and the media included. the biggest tarnish of the Obama administration are probably both Middle-East-related in ISIS and Yemen.

However, you're citing Barack's "close knit relationship to the kingdom" out of... nothing really. Obama was no friend to KSA and if you want to play gotcha games, go look up Barack's condemnation of how the Saudis arrested, imprisoned, and flogged political dissident Raif Badawi. For a guy that Trumpers gave grief for not saying "radical islamic terror," Obama had no problem calling that spade a spade when Trump has a problem condemning the ordered assassination of a journalist. I guess it's not radical islam when gas prices are in play.

But really this is sidestepping the real issue I have with your posting - that it stands on a platform built on impotent rage and misemphasized/characterized hypocrisy.

If I may cite to a cliched and overused Eleanor Roosevelt quote - "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people."

I think the quality of the posting of this thread would improve massively (SD notwithstanding*) if references to killary, or babykillers are checked at the door and discussion is held true to the topic at hand.

*I say this not in a mean-spirited way, but in that I think SD has legitimate mental problems and cannot discuss politics in a meaningful way. This is not to take away from whatever real estate prowess or dental skills he has, but I think he lacks the human empathy to discuss issues that involve people other than himself.

One aspect in particular that's been irking me, you can see the sociopathy in his repeated allusions to altruism of providing for his community. He doesn't treat it as an act of love for his fellow man. He uses it as crutch for moral superiority in a cosmic game of keep karmic score, while at the same time questioning the charitable character of everyone else - as if (1) that disqualifies us from commenting on politics, (2) is evidence that we don't do charity work, or (3) if the relative amounts of charity work done (measured in dollars apparently) qualifies us to opine on politics.

At the risk of outing myself, I personally regularly volunteer at Miriam's Kitchen, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Charities pro bono legal work, and have done other pro bono projects. I have also tutored at after-school programs, and my goal for 2019 is to get into either Big Brother/Big Sis or youth sports - workload permitting. I'm saying this not to score cred but to rebut SD's toxic message and to also remind people whose opinions differ from mine that it's still people on the other side of the aisle. In some cases, it's people on your own aisle. Or even that aisles don't matter.

Well… I Gotta say...this...this....you are moving way up my list here... that charitable work you’re doing… I am really proud of you. And God sees what you’re doing. He is proud of you too. I’m coming around. I’m warming up. The fruit of my loins is glistening with hope.

I don’t want to be toxic anymore. So please. I beg of you. Show me the way. Show me the light. How can I keep trump in my life and make things right with you? There must be a path forward. For There is always a path.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[daoneandonly]

And there you have gone and complete ducked the issues.
1) Does a rape have to be proved?
2) There are dosing issues miscalculations and flaws in condoms. Do they need to be proven.
3) If you really want to reduce abortions you have to have a plan that instills confidence in women - you did no such thing.

Sorry but your logic is either badly flawed or you just want all abortions banned regardless.

But I think you can see that there would be a lot of concerns that you have to brush over to make it about irresponsible women.

Not ducking, the rape issue is a touchy, complicate done

1. There's layers here, she can claim to be raped and there cna be at least some evidence to the point, even if it were not true. Then again, there can be no shred of evidence and yet she was in fact raped. So where would one draw the line? Claim and rape and abortion, bam. So because the vile act of rape exists, that somehow makes an abortion okay even when the woman was not raped.
2. No they dont need to be proven, this argument makes no sense. You KNOW the risks going on even using them, whether they are faulty or not, is ur problem after the fact, they teach u this in basic sex ed, not as a scare tactic, but as truth. if it fails, it happens, and u should be responsible. I use the pronoun you as in the person, not you specifically obviously
3. its the woman's responsibility, not the world's. Yes there can be measures to assist, but she and her partner got herself pregnant, so they shouldnt just get some easy, callous out in the form of an abortion

No - it isn't complicated - it is touchy because it shows the flaw in the logic (cognitive dissonance).

You are either going to accept the women's word on rape (or flawed contraceptive technology) or you are not. If you do, you don't have a way to prevent abortions - it is that simple.

And if you make it the women's responsibility, well then, it is the women's responsibility. And if they don't feel that they have the resources to raise the child out of poverty - then you don't have much an argument.

Some might even call the argument evil: We will make the decision that women will have the baby regardless of if they were raped and either take the baby away or let her live in poverty (we just don't care).

Or going back to gtn's - maybe some folks don't look at abortion the same way you do... he is dead on.

The tjing is no one ever said life was meant to be easy, or we are owed anything in life. The key diff here, not hypocrisy, is an adult has means to fight, change the course of their life, rise up, a baby doesnt. For that reason alone, they deserve to have someone speak on there behalf, u and i can do so fpr ourselves well because we have life.

Such as easy way to think of it, if any of our parents had an abortion while we were in the womb, we would need be here. There's not many other circumstances u can say the same about on the political spectrum. Example, if there was no welfare, i for one would still be here regardless of how beneficial it is

[dckingsfan]

Not ducking, the rape issue is a touchy, complicate done

1. There's layers here, she can claim to be raped and there cna be at least some evidence to the point, even if it were not true. Then again, there can be no shred of evidence and yet she was in fact raped. So where would one draw the line? Claim and rape and abortion, bam. So because the vile act of rape exists, that somehow makes an abortion okay even when the woman was not raped.
2. No they dont need to be proven, this argument makes no sense. You KNOW the risks going on even using them, whether they are faulty or not, is ur problem after the fact, they teach u this in basic sex ed, not as a scare tactic, but as truth. if it fails, it happens, and u should be responsible. I use the pronoun you as in the person, not you specifically obviously
3. its the woman's responsibility, not the world's. Yes there can be measures to assist, but she and her partner got herself pregnant, so they shouldnt just get some easy, callous out in the form of an abortion

No - it isn't complicated - it is touchy because it shows the flaw in the logic (cognitive dissonance).

You are either going to accept the women's word on rape (or flawed contraceptive technology) or you are not. If you do, you don't have a way to prevent abortions - it is that simple.

And if you make it the women's responsibility, well then, it is the women's responsibility. And if they don't feel that they have the resources to raise the child out of poverty - then you don't have much an argument.

Some might even call the argument evil: We will make the decision that women will have the baby regardless of if they were raped and either take the baby away or let her live in poverty (we just don't care).

Or going back to gtn's - maybe some folks don't look at abortion the same way you do... he is dead on.

The tjing is no one ever said life was meant to be easy, or we are owed anything in life. The key diff here, not hypocrisy, is an adult has means to fight, change the course of their life, rise up, a baby doesnt. For that reason alone, they deserve to have someone speak on there behalf, u and i can do so fpr ourselves well because we have life.

Such as easy way to think of it, if any of our parents had an abortion while we were in the womb, we would need be here. There's not many other circumstances u can say the same about on the political spectrum. Example, if there was no welfare, i for one would still be here regardless of how beneficial it is

And there you have it... you have just backed yourself into the corner of "there should be no abortions regardless". And "life is tough but have that baby regardless".

I understand where you are coming from - I do. But, you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around why others don't see it your way (I say that because you call them baby killers instead of trying to understand their issue(s) - which by your responses - you don't have answers.

And if you want to flip from anecdotal to global arguments. If you got rid of Social Security and Medicare - yes, elderly would die. If vaccines were only given to those who could pay - yes, people would die because of that.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[daoneandonly]

No - it isn't complicated - it is touchy because it shows the flaw in the logic (cognitive dissonance).

You are either going to accept the women's word on rape (or flawed contraceptive technology) or you are not. If you do, you don't have a way to prevent abortions - it is that simple.

And if you make it the women's responsibility, well then, it is the women's responsibility. And if they don't feel that they have the resources to raise the child out of poverty - then you don't have much an argument.

Some might even call the argument evil: We will make the decision that women will have the baby regardless of if they were raped and either take the baby away or let her live in poverty (we just don't care).

Or going back to gtn's - maybe some folks don't look at abortion the same way you do... he is dead on.

The tjing is no one ever said life was meant to be easy, or we are owed anything in life. The key diff here, not hypocrisy, is an adult has means to fight, change the course of their life, rise up, a baby doesnt. For that reason alone, they deserve to have someone speak on there behalf, u and i can do so fpr ourselves well because we have life.

Such as easy way to think of it, if any of our parents had an abortion while we were in the womb, we would need be here. There's not many other circumstances u can say the same about on the political spectrum. Example, if there was no welfare, i for one would still be here regardless of how beneficial it is

And there you have it... you have just backed yourself into the corner of "there should be no abortions regardless". And "life is tough but have that baby regardless".

I understand where you are coming from - I do. But, you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around why others don't see it your way (I say that because you call them baby killers instead of trying to understand their issue(s) - which by your responses - you don't have answers.

And if you want to flip from anecdotal to global arguments. If you got rid of Social Security and Medicare - yes, elderly would die. If vaccines were only given to those who could pay - yes, people would die because of that.

Well what stirs up a reaction in me, warranted or not, is when pro choice ppl scream political foul for anything related to children and attack ppl who dont like Trump but voted for him for SCOTUS purposes

We may disagree, but i enjoy debating with u because u dont attack me personally, u just state ur feelings