Political Roundtable Part XXV

[dckingsfan]

And birth control can sometimes be a false sense of security - how many women thought they were protected but were not.

[Pointgod]

Because given a vesecrtomy to a baby is moronic and fruitless. I know liberal left doesn't care about a baby, and this further speaks to that, but just the notion is ludicrous. WHo's to say there won't be any complications? Who's to say the reversing is 100% safe?

I'm not about punishing women, I mentioned men who go along or even worse, push for the woman to have an abortion should also be on the abortion registry. These types of people should be known to the world just as sex offenders are

You have to ask yourself, what is worse - millions of abortions or vasectomies? I think that is a no brainer, right?

There's a difference, one is a mandatory forced medical procedure, the other is a selfless decision to kill one's child. So for a woman who's had multiple abortions, would you support mandatory tube tying to stop the madness?

Oh so now you’ve got a problem with government telling people what they should do with their bodies. Funny how that works.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[daoneandonly]

You have to ask yourself, what is worse - millions of abortions or vasectomies? I think that is a no brainer, right?

There's a difference, one is a mandatory forced medical procedure, the other is a selfless decision to kill one's child. So for a woman who's had multiple abortions, would you support mandatory tube tying to stop the madness?

Oh so now you’ve got a problem with government telling people what they should do with their bodies. Funny how that works.

Yea because a procedure on a baby is in the same as holding women accountable for their actions

But then again same party that argues govt stay out of body concerns, but pay for planned parenthood which impacts her body

[dckingsfan]

There's a difference, one is a mandatory forced medical procedure, the other is a selfless decision to kill one's child. So for a woman who's had multiple abortions, would you support mandatory tube tying to stop the madness?

Oh so now you’ve got a problem with government telling people what they should do with their bodies. Funny how that works.

Yea because a procedure on a baby is in the same as holding women accountable for their actions

But then again same party that argues govt stay out of body concerns, but pay for planned parenthood which impacts her body

Except... the most recent example of an abortion law in Ohio has no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Out the window with the "accountable for their actions".

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[daoneandonly]

Oh so now you’ve got a problem with government telling people what they should do with their bodies. Funny how that works.

Yea because a procedure on a baby is in the same as holding women accountable for their actions

But then again same party that argues govt stay out of body concerns, but pay for planned parenthood which impacts her body

Except... the most recent example of an abortion law in Ohio has no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.

Out the window with the "accountable for their actions".

And on the liberal side, there will be some justification or excuse for the rapist. The system failed him, he's predisposed to rape, his socioeconomic status is to blame. Putting him in jail for too long does more harm than good

The majority of the women getting abortions arent raped, theyre just selfish and dont want to be accountable

[dckingsfan]

Yea because a procedure on a baby is in the same as holding women accountable for their actions

But then again same party that argues govt stay out of body concerns, but pay for planned parenthood which impacts her body

Except... the most recent example of an abortion law in Ohio has no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Out the window with the "accountable for their actions".

And on the liberal side, there will be some justification or excuse for the rapist. The system failed him, he's predisposed to rape, his socioeconomic status is to blame. Putting him in jail for too long does more harm than good

The majority of the women getting abortions arent raped, theyre just selfish and dont want to be accountable

So, that is the argument - that is what you are going to tell the women that is raped? You are just being selfish...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/abortion-legislation-rape.html

[pancakes3]

bro, nobody is arguing that rapists shouldn't be jailed. the argument is what to do after the rape happens and how to create a society that produces less rapists. don't be dumb.

[daoneandonly]

Except... the most recent example of an abortion law in Ohio has no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.
Out the window with the "accountable for their actions".

And on the liberal side, there will be some justification or excuse for the rapist. The system failed him, he's predisposed to rape, his socioeconomic status is to blame. Putting him in jail for too long does more harm than good

The majority of the women getting abortions arent raped, theyre just selfish and dont want to be accountable

So, that is the argument - that is what you are going to tell the women that is raped? You are just being selfish...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/abortion-legislation-rape.html

So what do you tell people who are victims of druggies? Inot their fault, its our stupid war on drugs. Science made them this way. The familes who buried loved ones at the hands of the small percentage of illegal immigrants who are criminals?

So the majority of women who have an abortion get an easy out because the small percentage who were actually raped?

[dckingsfan]

The majority of the women getting abortions arent raped, theyre just selfish and dont want to be accountable

So, that is the argument - that is what you are going to tell the women that is raped? You are just being selfish...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/abortion-legislation-rape.html

So the majority of women who have an abortion get an easy out because the small percentage who were actually raped?

Isn't that our system? Innocent until proven guilty? Should we just jail those who committed a crime without a hearing? That would be so cruel and so un-American.

So, yes. In order not to have a cruel system where the victims at a minimum (50K+ reported rapes and 225K+ unreported rapes) are not further traumatized.

[I_Like_Dirt]

So what do you tell people who are victims of druggies? Inot their fault, its our stupid war on drugs.

Well, given that you continue to insist that harsh on crime somehow prevents drug crimes despite all the evidence to the contrary, it's probably more that there is a large voter base that is more interested in exacting some sort of personal vengeance against drug crimes than actually preventing them.

Not that I'm necessarily in favor of the idea unless there was some serious planning behind it but Portugal decriminalized all drugs and saw their drug usage rates actually drop. If people don't let go of their desire to punish as an attempt to control somehow rather than taking steps to actually prevent the undesired outcomes, it's pointless. In the case of abortion, that's another issue dck hasn't pointed to but lines up with his argument. This idea that we need to punish people rather than take steps to prevent the undesired outcome is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when we bankrupt ourselves doing it.

[dckingsfan]

So what do you tell people who are victims of druggies? Inot their fault, its our stupid war on drugs.

Well, given that you continue to insist that harsh on crime somehow prevents drug crimes despite all the evidence to the contrary, it's probably more that there is a large voter base that is more interested in exacting some sort of personal vengeance against drug crimes than actually preventing them.

Not that I'm necessarily in favor of the idea unless there was some serious planning behind it but Portugal decriminalized all drugs and saw their drug usage rates actually drop. If people don't let go of their desire to punish as an attempt to control somehow rather than taking steps to actually prevent the undesired outcomes, it's pointless. In the case of abortion, that's another issue dck hasn't pointed to but lines up with his argument. This idea that we need to punish people rather than take steps to prevent the undesired outcome is ridiculous. It's even more ridiculous when we bankrupt ourselves doing it.

Add the Netherlands to that list...

[Pointgod]

So, that is the argument - that is what you are going to tell the women that is raped? You are just being selfish...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/abortion-legislation-rape.html

So the majority of women who have an abortion get an easy out because the small percentage who were actually raped?

Isn't that our system? Innocent until proven guilty? Should we just jail those who committed a crime without a hearing? That would be so cruel and so un-American.

So, yes. In order not to have a cruel system where the victims at a minimum (50K+ reported rapes and 225K+ unreported rapes) are not further traumatized.

Daoneandonly gave up the game a long time ago. It’s all about controlling women’s bodies and making them suffer otherwise Conservatives would be in favour of improving childcare, improving maternal healthcare, improving sex education and improving pay equity, everything that would not only reduce abortions but improve the overall well being of the fetus they care about so much and the human woman that’s carrying it.

But it seems like cruelty is the point. That’s all the Conservative ethos has left. They’ve shown that they don’t give a damn about “fiscal responsibility”, don’t care about the rule of law, sure as hell don’t care about morality or even small government. I think the majority of voters know that Republicans will never improve their lives, so the only thing left is to make sure other people suffer. Sad that’s it’s gotten to this point.

[dckingsfan]

So the majority of women who have an abortion get an easy out because the small percentage who were actually raped?

Isn't that our system? Innocent until proven guilty? Should we just jail those who committed a crime without a hearing? That would be so cruel and so un-American.

So, yes. In order not to have a cruel system where the victims at a minimum (50K+ reported rapes and 225K+ unreported rapes) are not further traumatized.

Daoneandonly gave up the game a long time ago. It’s all about controlling women’s bodies and making them suffer otherwise Conservatives would be in favour of improving childcare, improving maternal healthcare, improving sex education and improving pay equity, everything that would not only reduce abortions but improve the overall well being of the fetus they care about so much and the human woman that’s carrying it.

But it seems like cruelty is the point. That’s all the Conservative ethos has left. They’ve shown that they don’t give a damn about “fiscal responsibility”, don’t care about the rule of law, sure as hell don’t care about morality or even small government. I think the majority of voters know that Republicans will never improve their lives, so the only thing left is to make sure other people suffer. Sad that’s it’s gotten to this point.

You might be right.

But maybe think about the other side of that. When all you hear is - women are selfish you start to believe. You don't get into the notion of rape. You don't consider the costs of raising a kid. You have been preached to about welfare queens.

And you are inundated with a message about crime. You don't run into the fact on the national news networks that crime has been decreasing rapidly. You only hear about the few repeat offenders and not about those who have immersed themselves back into society.

In addition, they look at many of the social programs that are failing and never get wacked.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You might be right.

George Lopez had a comedy bit over a decade ago where he talked about Mexicans not celebrating each other's successes and wanting to send "You think you so big" cards and "You ain't ****" balloons in response to the celebrations of others.


Really, he touched off on a point that crosses borders and has more to do with political beliefs. There is a belief that others being held back somehow helps you as though its a zero sum game, and the idea then extends that working to improve everyone's lot actually hurts your lot because you could hurt someone else's lot and improve your own situation, too. In that sense, it isn't even so much about racism or sexism but they're useful lines to draw to exclude others and close the group of people who are accessing power in a way that isn't likely to eliminate you from that pool.

Granted, this is far from the only factor at play and isn't even necessarily the biggest factor at play but it doesn't get enough discussion, in my view. It helps explain why you see racism amongst minorities, too. American Indians against east Indians against Blacks ad infinitum. It gets largely ignored because there are logical reasons for starting with the institutional biases built in which are inherently linked to the group with the disproportionate amount of power. That makes a certain amount of sense when it comes to trying to change things but not necessarily for trying to understand it.

In Canada, you see status Indians fighting to restrict the definition because they want to exclude Inuit, Metis, and non-status Indians from the limited government resources (and they're really limited because the non-aboriginal governments deem it so). It's a selfish force that doesn't recognize divisions but exploits them.

This is also something that crosses political borders, too. It isn't just found amongst Republicans. Democrats show it in their own way. I'm not sure if you'd call them Democrats but the idea that somehow tearing down the rich automatically benefits the poor isn't necessarily true. I do think there is a way to do that right, given the imbalance of power we see right now on a scale I'm not even sure that I understand but it does need to be done carefully. You also see it amongst Democratic capitalists, who frequently see the idea of helping the wealthy by moving around labor for the benefit of the wealthy, regardless of whether they admit it or not. Their actions could absolutely benefit everyone as they frequently suggest, but they don't because they aren't interested in doing it that way.

Why is this important? Because the Republican party has basically been hollowed out by this force right now. You can see it in both parties but the Republicans have it much, much worse. Frankly, conservatives around the world have it much, much worse right now. That won't necessarily always be the case but it's a big problem. Everyone thinks everyone else is benefiting over them and they need to put some others down to fix the problem. No inward searching of why they feel the way they do and what it might represent. No consideration for the fact that their "other" might not actually be accurate.

This is totally an aside, but in my view, this is largely representative of capitalism having outgrown democracy. Capitalism quietly won. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. The real issue is that there needs to be some form of regulation and actual enforcement or we're going to see this get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does given the environmental problems we're witnessing.

[dckingsfan]

...This is totally an aside, but in my view, this is largely representative of capitalism having outgrown democracy. Capitalism quietly won. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. The real issue is that there needs to be some form of regulation and actual enforcement or we're going to see this get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does given the environmental problems we're witnessing.

Pretty much agreed with everything before - so I won't include it. Hope you don't mind me cherry picking

I don't view capitalism as having won or we would still see much larger growth and much larger capital investment.

Instead, I see a convoluted legacy approach to taxation, monopoly control and social services that aren't efficient. And those issues (tax code, healthcare, corporate limitations) are going to be really hard to fix due to their legacy. And then when a truly critical issue comes to play (climate change), we are so focused on the other intransient issues that we are frozen in place and can't move.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I don't view capitalism as having won or we would still see much larger growth and much larger capital investment.

Instead, I see a convoluted legacy approach to taxation, monopoly control and social services that aren't efficient. And those issues (tax code, healthcare, corporate limitations) are going to be really hard to fix due to their legacy. And then when a truly critical issue comes to play (climate change), we are so focused on the other intransient issues that we are frozen in place and can't move.

Fair enough. Maybe I should have said that capitalists won, not capitalism. I just don't necessarily see it as particularly useful distinction. Capitalism, at it's core, is about harnessing people's greed for economic growth that benefits everyone. The problem with this is that while it drives innovation, anyone who thrives to the highest degree either has a strong degree of personal greed or has been driven by others with a strong sense of greed or both. As things get bigger, provided they're done properly, they wind up more efficient and in a position to dominate the market. And it goes beyond antitrust legislation. Capitalism as a whole has grown to a point where the world is having trouble sustaining its size. We currently have a consumption problem and even though innovation can help that, the idea is that the innovation changes the societal requirements towards consuming less which dramatically changes capitalism as we know it at the very least.

Capitalism needs to be guided and controlled or it outgrows itself. The dangers there are that attempts to do so have largely been against the public interest, whether its incompetence, outside forces, design of those who are looking out for their own interests over the public's, or some combination thereof. It doesn't mean we should stop trying, though, because things don't get better on their own. Those checks and balances, such as they are, are currently being eroded by this selfish force out there that is driving others towards their anti-other tendency, and that's a very real problem.

[dobrojim]

You might be right.

George Lopez had a comedy bit over a decade ago where he talked about Mexicans not celebrating each other's successes and wanting to send "You think you so big" cards and "You ain't ****" balloons in response to the celebrations of others.


Really, he touched off on a point that crosses borders and has more to do with political beliefs. There is a belief that others being held back somehow helps you as though its a zero sum game, and the idea then extends that working to improve everyone's lot actually hurts your lot because you could hurt someone else's lot and improve your own situation, too. In that sense, it isn't even so much about racism or sexism but they're useful lines to draw to exclude others and close the group of people who are accessing power in a way that isn't likely to eliminate you from that pool.

Granted, this is far from the only factor at play and isn't even necessarily the biggest factor at play but it doesn't get enough discussion, in my view. It helps explain why you see racism amongst minorities, too. American Indians against east Indians against Blacks ad infinitum. It gets largely ignored because there are logical reasons for starting with the institutional biases built in which are inherently linked to the group with the disproportionate amount of power. That makes a certain amount of sense when it comes to trying to change things but not necessarily for trying to understand it.

In Canada, you see status Indians fighting to restrict the definition because they want to exclude Inuit, Metis, and non-status Indians from the limited government resources (and they're really limited because the non-aboriginal governments deem it so). It's a selfish force that doesn't recognize divisions but exploits them.

This is also something that crosses political borders, too. It isn't just found amongst Republicans. Democrats show it in their own way. I'm not sure if you'd call them Democrats but the idea that somehow tearing down the rich automatically benefits the poor isn't necessarily true. I do think there is a way to do that right, given the imbalance of power we see right now on a scale I'm not even sure that I understand but it does need to be done carefully. You also see it amongst Democratic capitalists, who frequently see the idea of helping the wealthy by moving around labor for the benefit of the wealthy, regardless of whether they admit it or not. Their actions could absolutely benefit everyone as they frequently suggest, but they don't because they aren't interested in doing it that way.

Why is this important? Because the Republican party has basically been hollowed out by this force right now. You can see it in both parties but the Republicans have it much, much worse. Frankly, conservatives around the world have it much, much worse right now. That won't necessarily always be the case but it's a big problem. Everyone thinks everyone else is benefiting over them and they need to put some others down to fix the problem. No inward searching of why they feel the way they do and what it might represent. No consideration for the fact that their "other" might not actually be accurate.

This is totally an aside, but in my view, this is largely representative of capitalism having outgrown democracy. Capitalism quietly won. And it isn't necessarily a bad thing, either. The real issue is that there needs to be some form of regulation and actual enforcement or we're going to see this get much worse before it gets better, if it ever does given the environmental problems we're witnessing.

There are way too many people who see society as a hierarchy and measure freedom by how well they themselves
are able to make sure those below them in the hierarchy are held in that position of inferior status.

Then you also have all the disillusioned and aggrieved people wondering and concluding in many
cases that those doing better OR NOT(!) got special help that they themselves didn't get and which was undeserved.

[dckingsfan]

I don't view capitalism as having won or we would still see much larger growth and much larger capital investment.

Instead, I see a convoluted legacy approach to taxation, monopoly control and social services that aren't efficient. And those issues (tax code, healthcare, corporate limitations) are going to be really hard to fix due to their legacy. And then when a truly critical issue comes to play (climate change), we are so focused on the other intransient issues that we are frozen in place and can't move.

Fair enough. Maybe I should have said that capitalists won, not capitalism. I just don't necessarily see it as particularly useful distinction. Capitalism, at it's core, is about harnessing people's greed for economic growth that benefits everyone. The problem with this is that while it drives innovation, anyone who thrives to the highest degree either has a strong degree of personal greed or has been driven by others with a strong sense of greed or both. As things get bigger, provided they're done properly, they wind up more efficient and in a position to dominate the market. And it goes beyond antitrust legislation. Capitalism as a whole has grown to a point where the world is having trouble sustaining its size. We currently have a consumption problem and even though innovation can help that, the idea is that the innovation changes the societal requirements towards consuming less which dramatically changes capitalism as we know it at the very least.

Capitalism needs to be guided and controlled or it outgrows itself. The dangers there are that attempts to do so have largely been against the public interest, whether its incompetence, outside forces, design of those who are looking out for their own interests over the public's, or some combination thereof. It doesn't mean we should stop trying, though, because things don't get better on their own. Those checks and balances, such as they are, are currently being eroded by this selfish force out there that is driving others towards their anti-other tendency, and that's a very real problem.

I do think that there is a distinction between capitalism and capitalists especially ones that control large segments of a market. For example, if no company was over 200 people, you probably don't have an issue.

But many of the points that I make - for example the tax code - were problems whose roots weren't with the capitalists. For example, carveouts around having employer sponsored healthcare had little influence by capitalists. And yet those policies broke healthcare. And there are many such examples in the tax code.

There are examples of monopolistic practices that are indeed results of what you describe. Large money influencing policy.

But with respect of capitalism having grown to the size where it is folding in on itself - I would disagree. I think that the policy choices we have made in the past are constraining our growth - not the other way around.