US Politics Thread

[The Future’s Blue!]

BotH pArTiEs aRe tHe samE, I sAw iT oN YoUTube…

I think I need to stop popping into this thread, America has gone fucking nuts!

 

[andyhinch]

I’m wondering if they’re anti mask too differentiate themselves from the real Taliban ?

 

[SWP's back]

I think I need to stop popping into this thread, America has gone fucking nuts!

Honestly, the religious right have all lost the fucking plot.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I agree with those who think abortion is an issue about dueling rights. That of the mother to her bodily autonomy vs that of the unborn child's right to survival.

I agree that a balancing of those rights makes the most sense. Generally, the right of the woman predominates earlier on in the pregnancy cycle. Partly as a function of nature of the feutus early on in the Pregnancy. But as the Feutus grow and becomes more stable, the feutus rights also grows and begins to put limits on the unfettered rights of the mother had l\to extinguish it.

To that effect, laws that strike a balance between those rights strikes me as the best compromise.

As it relates to when the rights of the feutus begins to limit those of the mom, there are 3 general theories: Heartbeat, Sensation, and Viability.`•

I think there are legitimate arguments for an against all 3 periods.

That aside, the right of the feutus to continue growing is also further limited by the superior right of the Mother's to her health and survival.


The above framework underpins the the arguments I find most convincing.
L
As such, I don't find arguments about "a woman's unabridged rights any more convincing than a life at conception argument.


.Out of curiosity, where do you get your news? What outlets do you trust - or more to the point, which shows do you trust?

For general news coverage, I enjoy watching Rising. It's an online News and Opinion show. They give what I believe is the most balanced view on most issues.


That said, I watch clips of the Reid Out, Chris Hayes, Tucker Carlson, Ingram, Ben Nader, TYT, Bret Weinstein, Nate the Lawyer, Bryan Tyler Cohen, Don't Walk Run, Trevor Noah, Bill Maher, Micheal Knowles, Reason TV, Sam Harris, Larry Elder etc

So I get a good enough picture of most topics I find interesting.

Hmmm - a reasonable response. Very much unlike your response to my previous post, wherein you engaged in 1-sentence dismissal of my opinions and resorted to juvenile name-calling.

That said, if you're a right-leaning centrist, why on earth do you bother defending Trump - a far right, unbalanced, immoral maniac who did everything possible to circumvent democracy in an attempt to remain in power despite election results?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Hmmm - a reasonable response. Very much unlike your response to my previous post, wherein you engaged in 1-sentence dismissal of my opinions and resorted to juvenile name-calling.

That said, if you're a right-leaning centrist, why on earth do you bother defending Trump - a far right, unbalanced, immoral maniac who did everything possible to circumvent democracy in an attempt to remain in power despite election results?

Trump isn’t far right. He’s a populist who uses far right views as bait to the amoebae who lap it up.

If it helped his cause, he’d advocate communism if it gave him more popularity.

The bloke doesn’t stand for anything apart from massaging his ego. That’s why he’s dangerous.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

I was decrying your poor understanding of the constitutional right 'to bear arms.'


Why would or should there be?


What would be the basis of such a regulation?

A bizarre post from a supposed centrist.

>> I was decrying your poor understanding of the constitutional right 'to bear arms.'
For starters, let's take my "poor understanding of the constitutional right 'to bear arms.'
I think, rather that you have a poor understanding of the 2nd Amendment. The primary motivation for the amendment was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...econd-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

The 2nd Amendment was not concerned about the individual right to bear arms.
====
>> Why would or should there be?
Next, you're comfortable with citizens brandishing automatic weapons in public.

As a centrist, I believe that owning automatic weapons should be outlawed. Whatever benefit derives from ownership is swamped by the potential for tragic outcomes. And you, seem to take up the extreme viewpoint that not only should citizens be allowed to own such weapons... moreover it's A-OK to carry them around in public. Such a position is patently ridiculous. Carrying automatic weapons in public is extremely intimidating. A bunch of machine gun toting radicals demonstrating and shouting far-right slogans outside a voting station immediately leaps to mind as just one of the many, many, many examples why this is a very bad idea. And yet, you're on board. Or at least, you're willing to excuse Fox from opposing the right to carry machine guns in public.
===
>> What would be the basis of such a regulation?
I'm pretty sure that it's illegal for a citizen to own a tank and to drive the tank around town wherever he or she wants.

Ditto sarin gas; grenades; land mines; and so forth.

I'll leave it to you to draw the dots behind the above illegality and the basis for legislation that would prohibit the owning of machine guns.
===
Note - I'm using the term "machine gun" as a stand-in for "automatic weapon" - there is a difference between these two types of armaments - I oppose both. I'm pretty sure that the friends and families of those killed by an automatic non-machine gun don't care about such technicalities - nor do I.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

Trump isn’t far right. He’s a populist who uses far right views as bait to the amoebae who lap it up.

If it helped his cause, he’d advocate communism if it gave him more popularity.

The bloke doesn’t stand for anything apart from massaging his ego. That’s why he’s dangerous.

Agree.

But is there any difference in outcome from a self-serving individual who thinks that the best path to success is to endorse far right opinions and then who sticks with this path out of convenience, to a far right nut job who actually believes in these extreme viewpoints?

I rather think, not.

So I'm going to continue labeling Trump as a far right extremist - he's far to the right in his actions, speech and policies. His personal opinions are, IMO, irrelevant, in this context.

 

[Bigga]

Who knew the Fat Golfer would come up with a continuing argument nobody is having, except with himself!

Just because some crazies take some policies to the nth degree doesn't mean the general outcome of incremental policies doesn't affect the welfare of the citizen to same degree in the end.

All because (and, clearly, I have to say it AGAIN!) both parties are funded by Big Business over serving the voter, which makes both parties essentially the same.

The non-funding of healthcare, the insurance racket, the suppression of wages, inflation, subsidising Big Business, infrastructure, war, the global climate changing, enforcing regime change, housing and homelessness, redlining, union suppressing and now, playing games with laws in order to get people out to vote.

Point out the lie and I'll concede the point.

I hope someone tells the dumb cnut who pretends he's got me on 'ignore'.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

That said, if you're a right-leaning centrist, why on earth do you bother defending Trump - a far right, unbalanced, immoral maniac who did everything possible to circumvent democracy in an attempt to remain in power despite election results?

Because he’s a liar?

You can read that two ways. Or three ways.

 

[SWP's back]

Hell of a thread on how Russia has been running the GOP