A Futile and Stupid Gesture: The History of the First Trump Presidency & Q-Anon

Rambo said:
Kennedy retiring from the supreme court. say goodbye to your abortions ladies.

these ghouls also ruled in favor of Janus so now public sector unions are fucked.
Click to expand...

Should be regulated at the state level, not the federal level, which originally was the issue

Maybe time for some accountability at the public sectors; maybe DMVs will be come more efficient.
 
Last edited:
Pauly Chase said:
Should be regulated at the state level, not the federal level, which originally was the issue
Click to expand...

I’m generally a proponent of state level governance. I like the idea of states basically being experiments; though in the short term it can hurt people (especially those who don’t have the mobility to move to a different state), in the long term it will lead to innovation and improved solutions to societal problems.

As someone with libertarian inclinations, the idea of states regulating abortions seems really terrible. I don’t view the a fetus...and certainly not an embryo...as a living or cognizant entity. Late term abortions make me uncomfortable, but abortions within the first trimester? To me, at that point, the embryo/fetus is clearly more a part of the woman’s body than it is a separate entity. I can’t imagine a bigger breach of autonomy than a government saying “you are not allowed to do this with your body,” especially when that regulation then has extreme ramifications for for the next 18 years of that individual’s life.

Unless they are religious, I don’t understand libertarians who want to either ban abortions or allow states to do so. They know many states will, and as Gary Johnson argues, this would be an egregious violation of personal liberty and one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to protect personal liberty, even from state and municipal governments.
 
InstaHate said:
I’m generally a proponent of state level governance. I like the idea of states basically being experiments; though in the short term it can hurt people (especially those who don’t have the mobility to move to a different state), in the long term it will lead to innovation and improved solutions to societal problems.

As someone with libertarian inclinations, the idea of states regulating abortions seems really terrible. I don’t view the a fetus...and certainly not an embryo...as a living or cognizant entity. Late term abortions make me uncomfortable, but abortions within the first trimester? To me, at that point, the embryo/fetus is clearly more a part of the woman’s body than it is a separate entity. I can’t imagine a bigger breach of autonomy than a government saying “you are not allowed to do this with your body,” especially when that regulation then has extreme ramifications for for the next 18 years of that individual’s life.

Unless they are religious, I don’t understand libertarians who want to either ban abortions or allow states to do so. They know many states will, and as Gary Johnson argues, this would be an egregious violation of personal liberty and one of the responsibilities of the federal government is to protect personal liberty, even from state and municipal governments.
Click to expand...

The government already regulates our bodies. Whether fetus is a part of woman's body or separate being is a whole completely argument, both morally and biologically.

Second part of the sentence, if quality of life is the concern, then this argument goes beyond just abortion.

I was pro abortion until recent years as I got older. I think it should be legal, but to what extend, can be argued on.
 
As you say, the government already regulates our bodies. I’d like to see that reduced, not increased.

It does go beyond abortion, and one of a variety of reasons that a libertarian stance should be the starting point for all policy decisions.
 
InstaHate said:
As you say, the government already regulates our bodies. I’d like to see that reduced, not increased.

It does go beyond abortion, and one of a variety of reasons that a libertarian stance should be the starting point for all policy decisions.
Click to expand...
Hence i think it should be a state issue than a federal issue; each state can have whatever measures they want; and we would expect states like NY, WA, CA, etc to have really relaxed abortion laws. They will be much easier to change too at a state level.
 
TLDR: If state governments are allowed to regulate this, autonomy will be decreased. It’s as simple as that. Governments, at any level, should not tell people what to do with their bodies unless it causes clear harm to others (as would be the case in a viable fetus, in which case it would be unreasonable to suggest it does not warrant personhood). Right now, the federal government reduces regulation on this issue. Delegating it to the states will increase regulation.


One of the factors I consider (and the one being discussed here) in whether something should be a municipal, state, or federal level policy is by asking myself: if adopted at X level, will individual autonomy be increased or decreased? I don’t really care about city autonomy or state autonomy. The whole state’s rights thing is stupid to me. People have rights, not geopolitical entities. Will individual autonomy be increased or decreased. If the federal government says, “governments cannot regulate a woman’s body in this matter,” then autonomy is less infringed upon. If the federal government says “states can decide whether they infringe upon female autonomy,” then autonomy will be more infringed upon. Just like federal government shouldn’t be the default answer given by Democrat types, state government shouldn’t be the default answer given by Republican types. Sometimes the answer is less government, not different government.

If we place a high premium on individual autonomy—with the condition in not then infringed upon the well-being of others—our starting point should be no government and we work our way from there. Right now, the federal government has it set up so that governments (state and federal) don’t get involved in women’s bodies on this issue. With this new Supreme Court, I suspect it’ll become just the federal government won’t get involved, but state governments are free to do so.

For issues that are unique to each state, I prefer states to have more say than federal government. For issues that pertain to our bodies, no government should have a say. Ironically enough, in this case, it’s the federal government preventing increased regulation. So, ironically enough, I find myself pro-federal government on this issue. Were state governments not likely to get themselves involved, I’d feel differently. But we know that at least half the states are going to move to regulate women’s bodies.
 
Two arguments underlying here:

1) Is the fetus a part of woman's body or separate being
2) Would state's control in this case be more favorable

You are mixing the two issues together when they should be separate.
 
The only thing I favor here is kicking it back to the state.

Though I am not religious, I would argue that fetus is a separate being rather than "part of woman's body".
 
Well, I already established that I am arguing from the position that an embryo and an early stage fetus is not reasonably afforded personhood.

As far as would it be more favorable:

From the status quo? It would not, because the change will involve more regulation and not less. From a position in which the federal government is regulating it more than the states are? Yes, knocking it down to the state level is preferable.

About many things, my default position has been to prefer the level of government that results in the least amount of regulation. For the last thirty years, on this issue, it was the federal government. If the federal government is poised to increase the amount of regulation beyond state regulations, which may now be the case, then I’ll prefer state regulation.

I agree with Johnson that one of the most important roles of the federal government is determing what cannot be regulated.
 
President Trump Pressed Aides About an Invasion of Venezuela

"[At] a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?"

"Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.

The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, 'My staff told me not to say this.' Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure."

Yes - because invading a country nets positive results when it comes to regime change and winning the hearts and minds of the people. Afghanistan. Iraq.
 
InstaHate said:
As someone with libertarian inclinations, the idea of states regulating abortions seems really terrible. I don’t view the a fetus...and certainly not an embryo...as a living or cognizant entity.
Click to expand...

Until comparatively recently abortion was illegal in most civilised societies. The Chinese, on the other hand, had compulsory abortions.

Neither a bullet proof vest nor a church could save Tiller the Killer. Sometimes I think Europeans are missing out in not having the right to carry firearms.
 
Kingstonian said:
Until comparatively recently abortion was illegal in most civilised societies.
Click to expand...

Until very recently, a belief system rooted in magic was considered an appropriate foundation for societal ideologies in most Western countries.

Hurray for progress. There is a pretty strong relationship between social and economic development and access to abortion (I think).
 
Last edited:
InstaHate said:
Hurray for progress. There is a pretty strong relationship between social and economic development and access to abortion (I think).
Click to expand...

Progress? Code word for Cultural Marxism.

That has contributed nothing to civilisation. It has just hastened its downfall.
 
Kingstonian said:
Progress? Code word for Cultural Marxism.

That has contributed nothing to civilisation. It has just hastened its downfall.
Click to expand...

The joyous celebrations in Ireland struck me as somewhat sinister, orchestrated and contrived. Abortion is a very a grave action indeed and to celebrate like it is just another form of contraception is plain wrong.
 
Pimpernel Smith said:
The joyous celebrations in Ireland struck me as somewhat sinister, orchestrated and contrived. Abortion is a very a grave action indeed and to celebrate like it is just another form of contraception is plain wrong.
Click to expand...

It is a grave action and should never be undertaken lightly. I know a couple of women who have had abortions and they are both haunted (although perhaps that's too strong an expression) by the thought of what might have been.

However, I thought that the previous situation in Ireland was absurd - teenage rape victims having to travel across the Channel so that their rapist's child could be aborted? Or women with grave medical complications who will certainly die without an abortion, being told that they could not have one - and thus dying and having the child die with them?

It was simply too restrictive and draconian and change was very much overdue.
 
Journeyman said:
It is a grave action and should never be undertaken lightly. I know a couple of women who have had abortions and they are both haunted (although perhaps that's too strong an expression) by the thought of what might have been.

However, I thought that the previous situation in Ireland was absurd - teenage rape victims having to travel across the Channel so that their rapist's child could be aborted? Or women with grave medical complications who will certainly die without an abortion, being told that they could not have one - and thus dying and having the child die with them?

It was simply too restrictive and draconian and change was very much overdue.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the abortion laws in Ireland weren't archaic and wrong, but the response to the gravity of the situation, like it was time for a street party incongruous with the solemnity of all the reasons why abortions are wanted and needed.
 
Kingstonian said:
Progress? Code word for Cultural Marxism.

That has contributed nothing to civilisation. It has just hastened its downfall.
Click to expand...

In this case, the word progress is a reference to GDP and HDI. Those are code words for gross domestic product and human development index. I’m also using it to refer to our movement away from superstition and magic (i.e., organized religion*). All of this correlates with access to abortion. Doesn’t mean progress = access to abortion (though some might argue this is the case). It is just pushing back against your point that abortion was illegal in most Western countries until recently. Now it is is the least developed countries that are most likely to restrict access.

6B7C5406-AF0F-4D09-BAD5-EB68B105D039.webp


* at the individual and even community level, I like religion. It provides people with a sense of meaning and community.
 
Last edited:
Fwiffo said:
A centrist? Who will vote for internment of migrant children then?
Click to expand...

Let the circus begin. Diems were spouting left and left that they would oppose any Trump nominee. A conservative action group will spend $1.4 million on advertising for Kavanaugh. WTF? Where else do you use commercials for supreme court nominations? Only in America.

Pauly Chase Pauly Chase , your pal Bernie is asking if you are ready for a fight. Are you up for it?

So let's see. Kavanaugh is:
  • more conservative than Kennedy so that the Republicans can trust his conservatism or
  • he is reactionary ideologue whose rulings will directly lead to the deaths of countless women as he will dismantle abortion, or
  • he believes illegal alien minors should get contraception or abortions - how do you un-Dem that?
  • he was one of Ken Starr's investigators, ouch Dems x 2
  • More of a Bush man (both of them) than a Trump man
  • He is a product of the Swamp
  • He rose above the Swamp
  • Elite Darkstater
Olololo. Even Cillizza of CNN says he is qualified and can't really slag him.
 
Thruth said:
Let the circus begin. Diems were spouting left and left that they would oppose any Trump nominee. A conservative action group will spend $1.4 million on advertising for Kavanaugh. WTF? Where else do you use commercials for supreme court nominations? Only in America.

Pauly Chase Pauly Chase , your pal Bernie is asking if you are ready for a fight. Are you up for it?

So let's see. Kavanaugh is:
  • more conservative than Kennedy so that the Republicans can trust his conservatism or
  • he is reactionary ideologue whose rulings will directly lead to the deaths of countless women as he will dismantle abortion, or
  • he believes illegal alien minors should get contraception or abortions - how do you un-Dem that?
  • he was one of Ken Starr's investigators, ouch Dems x 2
  • More of a Bush man (both of them) than a Trump man
  • He is a product of the Swamp
  • He rose above the Swamp
  • Elite Darkstater
Olololo. Even Cillizza of CNN says he is qualified and can't really slag him.
Click to expand...

I was surprised and a bit disappointed that a member of the swamp was chosen......
 
Thruth said:
. A conservative action group will spend $1.4 million on advertising for Kavanaugh. WTF?
Click to expand...

Maybe there's a tax reason behind needing to use it up soon. Either that or being a supreme court judge is now a popularity contest.
 
"He told The Sun newspaper before his arrival that he was looking forward to the visit, complimenting the Queen and marvelling at the lack of controversy associated with her over the years.

'She is a tremendous woman. I really look forward to meeting her. I think she represents her country so well,' he said.

'If you think of it, for so many years she has represented her country, she has really never made a mistake. You don't see, like, anything embarrassing. She is just an incredible woman.'"

Compared to......
 
I see that various people are accusing Trump of disrespecting the Queen for a few minor breaches of royal protocol. I rather thought we fought a Revolution to get rid of the British monarchy, and why an American president should bow before the Queen of England is beyond me! The ancient Romans were proud republicans and refused to defer to the sundry monarchs they encountered on their way to dominating the Mediterranean world, and I always thought they were supposed to be role models for Americans.
 
Jan Libourel said:
The ancient Romans were proud republicans and refused to defer to the sundry monarchs they encountered on their way to dominating the Mediterranean world, and I always thought they were supposed to be role models for Americans.
Click to expand...

They were. Especially when language was changed to eliminate the Norman influence. Valour and everything. Yet some of us in British North America and the rest of Americas were content with a constitutional monarchy.
 
Well, many of our forebears in former British North America didn't much dig the forces of the Crown organizing Tory rape gangs as a counter-insurgency tactic or recruiting the bloodthirsty and merciless Redskins to savage our frontiers. And lest anyone here accuse me of racism, family lore has it that we are descended from Joseph Brant.
 
Last edited:
Pimpernel Smith said:
I think you've missed the point and whataboutery aside, the issue is not the conclusion of the report, but the damning things these FBI operatives say and write. That's enough.
Click to expand...

InstaHate said:
It’s only damning if it leads to improper action, which is why the investigation is warranted. Otherwise, they are harmless opinions, optics aside. I said pretty terrible things about Trump, Clinton, and Sanders during the primaries (voted Kasich, despite his views towards atheists) and election (voted Johnson), but that’s only an issue had the opinions those comments reflected influenced my decision making or actions as a public employee...

This is why the conclusion of the report is relevant.
Click to expand...

Journeyman said:
Frankly, I think that the comments that were made in the messages/e-mails were juvenile and foolish, but as I said, everyone has personal views but that does not mean that they cannot do their jobs professionally.

After all, both inside and outside the public service, there are plenty of people who hate their bosses - but they still do their work in a professional manner and they don't let their personal feelings for their boss affect their actual work.

If you subjected everyone who wanted to work for the public service to an interrogation about their political beliefs, you would either end up with a terribly partisan public service (as you would choose people who reflected your beliefs), or you would end up with no public servants at all.
Click to expand...


At the risk of revisiting our discussions from a couple of weeks back, this article is interesting:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-peter-strzok-zaps-his-republican-inquisitors
 
Journeyman said:
At the risk of revisiting our discussions from a couple of weeks back, this article is interesting:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-peter-strzok-zaps-his-republican-inquisitors
Click to expand...

A gushing piece, it even made me blush.

doghouse said:
Click to expand...


Trump's version of the meeting with the Queen in the Piers Morgan interview provides an intriguing counter weight to this load of Twitter bollocks. For one the Queen would never speak in such an uncouth manner.

I've had some Americans over in the last few weeks, these are not what the media portrays as the typical Trump voter and one I know was for Obama and a Democrat voter. Once I got them on the subject of Trump they all said that what he has done in shaking up the liberal establishment is what was needed and that the rabid response is orchestrated by vested interests who are losing control. All agreed that CNN had become a terrible propaganda agency. They all said it's difficult to speak to liberal friends on the subject as they literally froth at the mouth at the mention of Trump in any positive way.

According to Nigel Farage some of the hard truths that Trump bluntly put to the European leaders was like an Emperor's New Clothes moment. Up until then they had been giving it the big licks on hyper-diversity and the end of the European condition.

Trump is the ideal antidote to ours times and here in Europe, he is becomming more popular for he speaks what people secretly think. We are meant to not look back in anger at 22 girls blown up by Islamists at a pop concert, don't ask the awkard questions about, but do instead get enraged over a celebrity touching someone's knee 20 years ago. This madness cannot be allowed to continue. The western liberal elites have failed and as in the USA, here too, they must be removed from office and replaced.
 
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-a-worried-west-awaits-trump-putin-summit-in-helsinki/

"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who came to power following a 2014 revolution that Moscow views as a coup d’état, was left to plead in a Financial Times editorial for Mr. Trump not to make a deal with Mr. Putin involving the future of Ukraine without any Ukrainians present in the negotiations."

The President can do that? This isn't the era of the Great Powers anymore.

"'Ukraine would be the most important thing for Russia. A final solution for Ukraine is what Russia wants more than anything else,' said Pavel Felgenhauer"

Final solution? I'm not sure anyone should be publicly using the term final solution. There's a bit of stigma from that war last century.
 
doghouse said:
I know that you believe that.
Click to expand...

I do believe that for when he says we are screwing up our major cities, people now it is true, but daren't speak in polite compant for being accused of being a bigot. Trump is trolling the establishment here, same as what he did with the US MSM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top Bottom