Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[daoneandonly]

You're talking about a situation where a pregnancy can endanger the life of the mother, I'm familiar with ehlers danloss, someone I care for dearly has it, it's a terrible disease to have to live with and my heart goes out to anyone who has it. I'm talking about the vast majority of abortions

News flash! There are always major complicating factors in every abortion. This is how these kinds of discussion always go. "Oh, I wasn't talking about your abortion or their abortion, or their abortion, I just want to ban it because other abortions in hypothetical cases that make up the majority even though I have no evidence to support it because that's what I believe it to be." Nobody is just deciding to abort for no reason. There are always valid reasons - some more valid than others depending on the beholder. And there is always a serious risk of death to the birth mother.

I have not studdied this issue - so my apologies if I have some misconceptions, but ever since my since a sibling of mine went through the "laborious" and expensive process of adopting a baby from China, I've been wondering - why is it apparently so difficult to adopt an American baby - so that adopting parents go to so much effort and expense to adopt babies on the other side of the earth? Isn't there a way to make the process much easier to adopt American babies? And shouldn't that avenue be explored more? To me, that's a question to ask regardless of whether or not a person is pro-choice.

Doc, thank you for sharing that.

There are a few factors. For one, there are fewer American born children because of birth control and more people with disposable income without children.

For two, and this is the crucial one, American adoptions involve a significantly greater degree of supports for the birth mother, and honestly, that's as it should be. There is an old-school imagery of adoption where someone who wants a baby/child but doesn't have one just sort of picks one up. Reality is way more complicated. That child is eventually going to want to search for their birth parents at some point and if they're only 3 towns over, that's entirely different than if they have to travel to China to find look. There is a much greater degree of control there.

And if you're asking a birth mother to risk pregnancy and then not have any sort of connection to their child, that's not necessarily the most wondrous of ideas but can bring in a whole host of complications. This gets even more complicated if you think of certain women who might consider abortions. Addiction-related birth illnesses/defects. Contact with a mother who might have addictions issues of her own. This is a messy subject no matter how you choose to look at it. Why would anyone who wants to adopt want to deal with any of that? They have a clean cut idea of what a baby means in their head and that's what they want. Far easier to simply take that baby from a poor woman an ocean or two away. And I don't fault people who adopt. That takes hard work, a major investment and they clearly want children and are frequently amazing parents who are highly devoted to their children. But then you need some sort of protections here against human trafficking, etc., too, and just because other countries don't always have high standards there doesn't mean the US should eschew them entirely.

The catch here is that with adoption, as with abortion, the best solution is probably very similar and maybe even the same: supports for would-be mothers/parents. It would also involve redefining adoption a bit to include an ongoing relationship with the birth parents which is a significant challenge and quite different from having your own child, but that's really a part of it. If we aren't willing to support women at the most challenging of times, we are going to cause problems and costs for society down the road. We're already doing that.

Funny how you like to declare news flashes and criticize people for making claims they no nothing about, but you yourself proclaim every abortion that ever occurred was for a valid reason, says who? You? I guess you are the judge and jury now. Since day 1 you've tried to paint this picture like people who had abortions are victims and should be applauded for their decision, it's asinine. I don't want to be accountable, I still want to drink and party, you're telling em never has that been a reason for an abortion, I call BS

[daoneandonly]

Tired of being polite so I'm incined to just ignore you (again).
Baby killer is a real conversation stopper. Completely inflamatory
and just your personal extreme position. As for AOC, you better
get used to having her around. To call her a female DJT is laughable
if it weren't so misguided. Unlike AOC, Trump won't read anything and can't string
2 coherent or truthful sentences together. This is what the GOP has
evolved into, a cult following for a malignant narcissist who is also a
criminal who would be under indictment if not in jail (edit to add/correct)
if not for being POTUS.

As Gerson (former Republican) put it-

So: This is blasphemy, in service to ideology, leading to idolatry, justified by heresy.
All in a Sunday’s work.

AOC strings truthful sentences together? Since when? What about her blatant lies about Amazon that have already been debunked? She likes to scream from the mountain tops to make her seem likes she's fighting for the people, it's all hot air. Not to mention her senseless claims that companies like Amazon should pay for everyone's tuition, beyond the realms of continuing education programs within one's job scope. The handouts never end with Team Progressive

[dobrojim]

Please do educate me about all of AOC's lies.
What did she say about Amazon and what was untrue about it?
Please point me to a reputable source that lays out the untruths.

I ask because your closing statement sounds an awful
lot like the usual whining I often hear from righties,
that somebody somewhere got something they didn't deserve
and that they didn't get. The complaints are typically about someone not
as well off as they are. And they frequently ignore much more grievous
govt handouts that go to rich people. Or to corportions.

As an example, a new FB friend of mine who turns out to
be a Trumpster was whining on his page that Congress
HAD voted to give themselves a $4500/yr raise. As a
result of this post I learned that they raise was not voted
into law, it was a proposal. He stated it had already happened.
Congress has not had a raise in about 10 years. What's ironic
is that there was all this outrage being echoed on his page
but I seriously doubt there was any outrage at all about the
tax bill which the GOP passed which provided a very generous
'reform' to folks with pass-through corps. A significant number
of GOP reps had enjoyed a windfall of around $300,000 each
as a result of this legislation. Crickets. Which is worse, proposing
the 1st pay increase in 10 years of $4500 or re-writing the tax code
in a way that benefits you and your cronies to the tune of about
$300,000 each.

And you've yet to cite a source to back up your claims about frivolous abortions being
the majority of them.

https://thinkprogress.org/here-are-the-massive-tax-cuts-going-to-the-republicans-who-wrote-the-tax-bill-00bf6e9f6f0a/

15 Republicans from tax writing committees in Congress will expect to receive an average tax windfall of $314,000 from the legislation they helped craft.

This includes members of the House Ways and Means Committee like Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Diane Black (R-TN), Jim Renacci (R-OH), and Vern Buchanan (R-FL) among others, and members of the Senate Finance Committee like Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Dean Heller (R-NV).

There are 53 Republican members of Congress not from tax writing committees who will benefit from various provisions in the GOP tax plan. These members of Congress could see an average tax cut of $280,000 dollars.

[dckingsfan]

Court further notes that it is not plaintiff's job to educate defendant about how women would be negatively impacted. Defendant's claim of no negative impact is prima facie evidence of zero knowledge and therefore inability to argue persuasively on subject.

Zonk switching careers to legal council. Actually, what is the intersection of law and economics?

Regulation. Government interventions to correct market failures. I did that for six years at Commerce, had to fight a lot with lawyers, read a lot of court decisions. That and lawyers are very mathematical in thinking so it wouldn't be that tough a switch for me. I've thought about it.

Or second job! Volunteer defense attorney!

[Ruzious]

Just gotta laugh that we somehow have people like Mitch McConnell running the country. He admitted the only reason he's against DC statehood (and PR statehood) is because it'd presumably give the Democrats more representation in Congress. And then he did make the requisite moronic (it is what is - Moronic is a nice word or it, if you want I could call it f'n shyt-stained moronic) comments about that leading to socialism.

"They plan to make the District of Columbia a state—that’d give them two new Democratic senators—Puerto Rico a state, that would give them two more new Democratic senators. […] So this is full bore socialism on the march in the House. And yeah, as long as I’m the majority leader of the Senate, none of that stuff is going anywhere."

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk switching careers to legal council. Actually, what is the intersection of law and economics?

Regulation. Government interventions to correct market failures. I did that for six years at Commerce, had to fight a lot with lawyers, read a lot of court decisions. That and lawyers are very mathematical in thinking so it wouldn't be that tough a switch for me. I've thought about it.

Or second job! Volunteer defense attorney!

I'm teaching a class on development economics at Georgetown this summer, was thinking maybe that could be my glide into retirement profession. This job is ok and I have a chance at getting promoted. If the Republicans ever get their crap together I wouldn't mind doing more cost benefit analysis of regulations stuff like I was doing before (instead of just auctioning off government agencies like a bunch of mafiosis like they're doing now).

I dunno. I'm going to make a decision when I turn fifty in two years. Crap or get off the pot.

[Zonkerbl]

Hey did you guys know that concentration camps are basically any camps where you gather up people you don't like and keep them separate in usually inhumane conditions? That the Nazis got the idea from the Trail of Tears? That death/extermination camps only came a decade after the Nazis first started gathering up Jews in concentration camps? That the Nazis gradually pushed the overton window of what was acceptable treatment of jews until they were able to get away with full on death camps in 1945 (they were also desperate to kill as many jews as cheaply as possible since by then they knew Russia had beaten them).

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

[Ruzious]

Hey did you guys know that concentration camps are basically any camps where you gather up people you don't like and keep them separate in usually inhumane conditions? That the Nazis got the idea from the Trail of Tears? That death/extermination camps only came a decade after the Nazis first started gathering up Jews in concentration camps? That the Nazis gradually pushed the overton window of what was acceptable treatment of jews until they were able to get away with full on death camps in 1945 (they were also desperate to kill as many jews as cheaply as possible since by then they knew Russia had beaten them).

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

Nah, that's too harsh. But Trump... if he thought he could get away with it, I wouldn't put anything horrible past him. But he knows he couldn't get away with that.

[JWizmentality]

Hey did you guys know that concentration camps are basically any camps where you gather up people you don't like and keep them separate in usually inhumane conditions? That the Nazis got the idea from the Trail of Tears? That death/extermination camps only came a decade after the Nazis first started gathering up Jews in concentration camps? That the Nazis gradually pushed the overton window of what was acceptable treatment of jews until they were able to get away with full on death camps in 1945 (they were also desperate to kill as many jews as cheaply as possible since by then they knew Russia had beaten them).

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

I think nate and the late STD have gone on record supporting that actually. I may be wrong about nate but STD certainly did.

[pancakes3]

I'm sure principled constitutionalists will tell you that we've held people, even citizens in camps before during a national emergency, and it was upheld as constitutional in Korematsu.

[Zonkerbl]

Hey did you guys know that concentration camps are basically any camps where you gather up people you don't like and keep them separate in usually inhumane conditions? That the Nazis got the idea from the Trail of Tears? That death/extermination camps only came a decade after the Nazis first started gathering up Jews in concentration camps? That the Nazis gradually pushed the overton window of what was acceptable treatment of jews until they were able to get away with full on death camps in 1945 (they were also desperate to kill as many jews as cheaply as possible since by then they knew Russia had beaten them).

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

I think nate and the late STD have gone on record supporting that actually. I may be wrong about nate but STD certainly did.

Yes in fact I asked Nate this question. He refused to answer and then accused me of trying to trick him.

I think this is an entirely fair question to ask of all Trump supporters and I don't think you'd be too happy at the answers.

[Zonkerbl]

There's lots of questions like these you could ask.

Do you think it's ok to murder abortion providers?

Have you ever considered using your guns to murder liberals?

Have you ever considered murdering Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

<smug arrogant white privileged voice>I'm just asking questions

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[montestewart]

Hey did you guys know that concentration camps are basically any camps where you gather up people you don't like and keep them separate in usually inhumane conditions? That the Nazis got the idea from the Trail of Tears? That death/extermination camps only came a decade after the Nazis first started gathering up Jews in concentration camps? That the Nazis gradually pushed the overton window of what was acceptable treatment of jews until they were able to get away with full on death camps in 1945 (they were also desperate to kill as many jews as cheaply as possible since by then they knew Russia had beaten them).

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

I think nate and the late STD have gone on record supporting that actually. I may be wrong about nate but STD certainly did.

Yes in fact I asked Nate this question. He refused to answer and then accused me of trying to trick him.

I think this is an entirely fair question to ask of all Trump supporters and I don't think you'd be too happy at the answers.

I can believe STD said that, always looking for a reaction. Politically/ideologically, Nate and me don't agree on too much, including and maybe especially race issues, but I don't recall him ever saying anything like that. I vaguely recall the exchange you reference, but recall it slightly differently. I would have to see the exact language.

Anyway, the popularity of Trump has both brought aspects of previously marginalized racialist views back into the mainstream and also seems to have found new adherents among people who presumably suppressed these views (consciously or subconsciously). You can come up with a variety of legitimate economic and even social arguments against certain aspects of immigration, but the large, critical core of opposition is and always has been about race and religion. Let the white one in.

[Ruzious]

I think nate and the late STD have gone on record supporting that actually. I may be wrong about nate but STD certainly did.

Yes in fact I asked Nate this question. He refused to answer and then accused me of trying to trick him.

I think this is an entirely fair question to ask of all Trump supporters and I don't think you'd be too happy at the answers.

I can believe STD said that, always looking for a reaction. Politically/ideologically, Nate and me don't agree on too much, including and maybe especially race issues, but I don't recall him ever saying anything like that. I vaguely recall the exchange you reference, but recall it slightly differently. I would have to see the exact language.

Anyway, the popularity of Trump has both brought aspects of previously marginalized racialist views back into the mainstream and also seems to have found new adherents among people who presumably suppressed these views (consciously or subconsciously). You can come up with a variety of legitimate economic and even social arguments against certain aspects of immigration, but the large, critical core of opposition is and always has been about race and religion. Let the white one in.

Plus 1,000.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I can believe STD said that, always looking for a reaction. Politically/ideologically, Nate and me don't agree on too much, including and maybe especially race issues, but I don't recall him ever saying anything like that. I vaguely recall the exchange you reference, but recall it slightly differently. I would have to see the exact language.

Anyway, the popularity of Trump has both brought aspects of previously marginalized racialist views back into the mainstream and also seems to have found new adherents among people who presumably suppressed these views (consciously or subconsciously). You can come up with a variety of legitimate economic and even social arguments against certain aspects of immigration, but the large, critical core of opposition is and always has been about race and religion. Let the white one in.

Nate doesn't hide his views or anything if asked questions earnestly. He's admitted that he believes there is likely a fundamental genetic relationship between skin color and intelligence/violence/etc. and that further study is required to confirm it. It happened around the time Wizkev left the boards because he couldn't handle posting on a forum where such views were so strongly represented.

[Zonkerbl]

I think nate and the late STD have gone on record supporting that actually. I may be wrong about nate but STD certainly did.

Yes in fact I asked Nate this question. He refused to answer and then accused me of trying to trick him.

I think this is an entirely fair question to ask of all Trump supporters and I don't think you'd be too happy at the answers.

I can believe STD said that, always looking for a reaction. Politically/ideologically, Nate and me don't agree on too much, including and maybe especially race issues, but I don't recall him ever saying anything like that. I vaguely recall the exchange you reference, but recall it slightly differently. I would have to see the exact language.

Anyway, the popularity of Trump has both brought aspects of previously marginalized racialist views back into the mainstream and also seems to have found new adherents among people who presumably suppressed these views (consciously or subconsciously). You can come up with a variety of legitimate economic and even social arguments against certain aspects of immigration, but the large, critical core of opposition is and always has been about race and religion. Let the white one in.

The exchange went as I described it. That's how much he refuses to admit he's wrong. Which he is. On virtually *everything* he says.

It's weird because his basketball opinions/observations are spot on.

[Zonkerbl]

It just takes a weird personality to come to a discussion board, regurgitate some racist idea that got you all excited that you saw on fox, that literally 30 seconds of googling can prove wrong, to mindlessly spew out these logically baseless ideas and then defend them *to the death.* It's like, are white people ok? Because it happens A LOT.

[verbal8]

Have you ever asked a Trump supporter to go on the record saying they would never support extermination of immigrants under any circumstances? Why does no one ever ask this question? Isn't that kind of the key question?

IIRC Nate came really close to advocating lethal force against illegal aliens.