Pesident Clinton

[ghosttrain]

@frostypaw: Sorry, I mistook one of logsquared's posts as yours, so ignore my post.
EDIT: Actually I take that back. My response was directly to your response on women in the workplace, not abortion. I didn't mistake your post, you had two points, I was responding to one of them.

Again... I don't care what you think. I really don't. You asked for an example.

Wow, seriously? You don't have to care about my opinion but the fact is that is not an example of "religious rights".
And RFRA is against the 14th Amendment of the constitution, Section 1, last sentence.
If you have another example I'm glad to hear it, this is not one.

[logsquared]

Wow, seriously?

Yes, seriously.

You may also find this link interesting. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...s/con-20025568

[ghosttrain]

Sorry didn't find the link interesting. I got something for you too: http://ebay.to/1R0U2u4

[logsquared]

Well played, well played.

[buffo]

For something to be called "women's rights issue" it has to only affect women

I think how the issue is framed (woman's rights vs human rights) depends to a large degree on your position on the issue.

If you are pro-choice, you see abortion bans as forcing a woman to do something with her body (to be blunt: carry an unwanted child to term), and that violates her rights. On the other hand, if you are against abortion, you see an abortion ban as protecting the unborn, which could be male or female, so that puts it in human rights territory.

(And yes, I know that wasn't in direct reply to what I said.)

Regarding politicians' ability to keep their promises...

That is why I really hope Hillary doesn't win.

She has shown herself to be quite slippery, hasn't she? For example, this whole private e-mail server circus really bothers me. Not just because of the breach of security protocol, and not just because she absolutely knew better and did it anyway, but because even now - when she knows that she was caught red-handed - she still doesn't have the integrity to stand up and say "Yes, I did this, and I'll take the punishment." That is not how I expect a leader to act.

But the thing is, Obama in 2007 seemed consistent to me, but somehow when he became president he became inconsistent even with all his previous political career.

*LOTS* of people were disappointed by the gap between what he promised and what he delivered on. Maybe it's something intrinsic to the office? I don't know. But many people lost faith in him after his first term.

So I just think you can't be any more certain even if someone has been in politics for a long time and has been consistent. This is also why I don't think because Trump doesn't have any record he is less likely to keep promises.

Well, Obama really didn't have much of a record prior to being elected. Hillary certainly does, and it's not pretty. Bernie also has a long record, and it appears to be more consistent, but again, there could be compromises forced upon the president by the Washington political machine that are beyond his control too. Not saying that Trump would be any better or worse at resisting that either though...

Honestly, I'm really not rabidly anti-Trump. I don't support him, but I don't hate him either. (Though I do seem to cringe quite often when I hear him speak. He actually came to Charleston in February, and I had a hard time listening to that speech.)

The thing is, he is not racist.

I don't know him personally, but based on the speeches I've listened too, he sounds quite racist to me. When you conflate illegal immigrants with rapists and murderers, that's racist in my book.

We can't tell if he will make speeches the same way if he becomes president. I'm very skeptical he will.

I will grant you that there is a difference between a nomination campaign and an election campaign. The old saying is that you have to veer far to the right (or left) to secure the party's nomination, but then you have to back-pedal towards the middle if you want to actually secure the popular vote. So it could be that we are just seeing more of that out of Trump than is usual for a candidate at this stage in the race.

The problem with this line of reasoning, in my mind at least, is that Trump has frequently spoken like this - all the way back to when he had his reality TV show. He talks about the "Trump Brand", and how his name alone adds billions of dollars in valuation to a project. Except those claims aren't supported by the facts... OK - so he likes to brag, you say. But do we really want a president who likes to brag? Especially when what he is bragging about is unsubstantiated? Is that how we want to be represented on the world's stage?

if you check some of his old interviews it's very interesting how his vocabulary becomes richer when he wants to and he thinks logically. Same can be said if you've read his book The art of the deal.

The man is intelligent, no doubt. And given proper time to compose his message, he does tone down the brash, egocentric language. My concern is whether he will always have that luxury. Possibly I am being overly cautious...

Turkey's fascist president does that all the time

True, but I'd rather not have our nation associated with fascism. (Or at least no more than usual!)

Why is non viability the decisive factor? Why does a conscious being not to be considered a human being with a right to life because it is non viable?

It's a very difficult decision, I agree. Which is why I am personally against abortion - at least for my family. But I also admit that I can conceive of perfectly logical and possible circumstances where an abortion might be the better choice for someone else. I have not, as of yet, found any of those circumstances to apply to myself or my family, but I fully acknowledge that they could in the future. (Well, not really, since I'm shooting blanks these days - WEEEEE!)

But if you accept that there is a possible scenario where an abortion is the better choice, then you also need to determine the point at which the baby's right to life must be considered. The spectrum starts at pre-conception (which is clearly a non-issue, otherwise masturbation and wet dreams would be classified as future-infanticide), and runs through birth (which is also a non-issue, since a live-born baby is clearly a person with inalienable rights). You now need to decide where to put the decision line on that spectrum.

Medical science says that at around 6 months, there is a chance that the fetus could survive. That is why many people choose to put the line there, and why I support that idea. I'll even be willing to move it further along in the pregnancy in extreme conditions (e.g. threat to mother's life), but admittedly this is where logic fails and you have to consider things on a case-by-case basis. Since I am not qualified to do so, I trust in the physicians who understand the problem better than I do.

Others say the moment of conception should be where the line is drawn, either because they say that this is where the chain of life begins, or because this is where the "soul" is created. I understand this line of reasoning, although I reject it because I prefer to lean on medical science rather than matters related to faith.

If you accept that the fetus in early stages has no moral value most utilitarians would agree with you

Moral value is a difficult concept to define legally. But yes, this moral obligation is exactly why I do not personally feel that abortion was ever a viable option in my family. But I have not had to face the challenges that some people have, and I am willing to vote to permit abortion (with reasonable limits as explained above) because statistics show that in this country at least, late term abortions are rare, and are almost always related to health emergencies involving the mother. I can live with that moral burden.

We just give different priorities to the same issues.

Abortion is not a litmus test for my political decisions. It's one of many topics, and I have voted for lots of candidates in the past who did not support my views on abortion but who were otherwise far more favorable than the alternative. (Which is another reason why we need to move past the two party system and implement something like instant-runoff voting. But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime - if ever.)

Adam

[ghosttrain]

Sorry that I'm not responding to your comments on abortion. I did read them and I think there's more we could discuss about it but I feel we're going too offtopic here.

I think how the issue is framed (woman's rights vs human rights) depends to a large degree on your position on the issue.

Sorry about that, I mistook someone's post for someone else's. What I meant was women treated unjustly in the workplace because of the employer's beliefs was not a women's rights issue, but he didn't say that. I wasn't responding to abortion.

there could be compromises forced upon the president by the Washington political machine that are beyond his control too. Not saying that Trump would be any better or worse at resisting that either though...

Right, exactly.

(Though I do seem to cringe quite often when I hear him speak. He actually came to Charleston in February, and I had a hard time listening to that speech.)

I can understand that. But in my opinion he's speaking in simple language to get his point across to larger people and that both seems logical and effective.

True, but I'd rather not have our nation associated with fascism. (Or at least no more than usual!)

Yeah.
My point is if a fascist president from a relatively weak country can talk shit about others and not start a war I don't see why US has to worry about having a president who harshly criticizes other countries. Again, I don't think we will speak the same way as the president of the US, but even if he did I don't see that being dangerous.

I don't know him personally, but based on the speeches I've listened too, he sounds quite racist to me. When you conflate illegal immigrants with rapists and murderers, that's racist in my book.

In mine too, well not really "racist" but rather prejudiced towards illegal immigrants. Except he hasn't.
That's the whole deal, the media has been very effective at misquoting what he says and repeating the lie so many times almost everyone believes it.
I'm sorry I can't dig it up now but I'll try to find a video segment of his interview where he mentioned the rapists and murderers.
What he said was some of the illegal immigrants were murderers and rapists and there were statistics. Media turned that into him saying all illeagal immigrants are murderers and rapists, then that got turned into "all immigrants are murders and rapists", then "immigrants" was changed into mexicans. Same story with terrorists vs refugees. It's pathetic.
When it's easy to enter a country illegally, it attracts a lot of criminals vs when there is a strong border control and a proper procedure. Wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: here's a video clip:


0:18 "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best...they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with them: they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people..."
0:49: "They're sending us not the right people. It's coming more than from Mexico, it's coming from all over South and Latin America and it's coming probably from the Middle East."

I wouldn't mind if we talked about Bernie a little. Does he have any chance against Hillary at this point?

[planters]

Frankly, I agree with Rubio and Romney that Trump is a con man, phony and a fraud worthy to be lumped with scumbag televangelists like Creflo Dollar and Benny Hinn

Most of the other back and forth issues have been worked out since my last post. The history with Rubio is that he was put into the Senate by the efforts of the Tea Party as a strong advocate for enforcing our existing immigration laws and preventing the current problems with flagrant disregard for the rule of law. He went to Washington and promoted the gang of eight bill that directly contradicted this position. He is a proven con man who says one thing and does another. His statement that Trump is a con man carries no credibility. Furthermore why do you accept his statement with this history? Or, were you unaware of it?

Surely you understand 'Muslim' isn't a nationality or race.... That refugee and migrant are different words for a reason... right?

Yes, I understand both these points and I used Muslim very intentionally. The vast majority of these people entering Europe are Muslims, some are refugees, some are immigrants and some are invaders.

My point is that nobody should go hungry just because he can't or is not willing to have a job, especially not in times where machines can do all the hard or menial work.

The machines can't do all the hard work. If he is unwilling to work then should he have shelter, clothing or medical care? How about a phone because without that he will find it hard to function in society. How about pot and maybe a little, just a little mind you, fun spending money.

If you feel this way then all the other issues we discuss here become just noise. We will never agree on the derivatives and the details of a social system starting from such diametrically opposed viewpoints.

I'm actually with you there - it should be purely based on talent and ability - the workplace should be sex-blind. I think it's just well-intentioned efforts to break a centuries old imbalance

But, it is not. Try firing a gay black women. This well intentioned effort redress one wrong with another and perpetuates the unfairness.

No no, that's not through your biased glasses. Actually thanks for reminding me that. I don't disagree with you that climate change is real.

I agree that the climate is changing, so is the Earth's orbit. But, I disagree that "climate change" and that whole tainted industry of political control, is real. The religious "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER" heresy stinks. The Greenland ice core data the global satellite temperature data both are very convincing reasons to keep an open mind. The agreement by the West to cut CO2 emissions substantially by 2025 when the Chinese don't even begin the process until 2030 (bet they'll stick to that ), undermines the argument that this is a real environmental issue rather than a political tool.

Reading Eric's views on this, it feels an outdated ideal that there can be no social fabric for a nation, as all of the other evidence points to it being something we need to start changing attitudes about NOW

You misunderstand my view. I believe there can and should be a social fabric for a nation. The mistake is that we have relegated this to be through the machinery of the state, through government. My argument against socialism is against this ECONOMIC philosophy. The state has increasingly used its power to interfere with the social fabric in order, in part, to pressure people to support the needs of socialist economics.

Otherwise my vision of it at least, is fairly bleak for the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

It is already very bleak. But, it is as much about the ins and the outs. The new wealth is access to the system. Enlarging the state and giving it even more power to control the flow of resources is throwing petrol on the fire. The Washington elite are at odds with the citizens. Did you know that M. Obama was asked if she would run for President? Are you f***ing kidding me? Based on what?? It's like we have reentered a dark age where the sickly, idiot son of a king is the prince and destined to become the king of some poor doomed kingdom. We desperately need outsiders.

Short of war, revolution or economic collapse, we need someone like Trump.

[ghosttrain]

But, it is not. Try firing a gay black women. This well intentioned effort redress one wrong with another and perpetuates the unfairness.

It's true. But please lets not start another discussion on "neo-feminism".

I agree that the climate is changing, so is the Earth's orbit. But, I disagree that "climate change" and that whole tainted industry of political control, is real. The religious "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER" heresy stinks. The Greenland ice core data the global satellite temperature data both are very convincing reasons to keep an open mind. The agreement by the West to cut CO2 emissions substantially by 2025 when the Chinese don't even begin the process until 2030 (bet they'll stick to that ), undermines the argument that this is a real environmental issue rather than a political tool.

What most people don't seem to understand is conspiracy theories are sometimes about conspiracies that have been proven to be real. CTs like shapeshifting alien lizardmen rulling the world have created the assumption that any conspiracy theory is a similar crazy idea only crazies believe.



Now, is global warming caused by human CO2 emissions a conspiracy theory? I don't think so but I'll admit I haven't done much research myself on this and just take the words of the scientists. I wouldn't be very surprised if it turned out to be false, half-true, exaggerated, etc.

[frostypaw]

It's like we have reentered a dark age where the sickly, idiot son of a king is the prince and destined to become the king of some poor doomed kingdom. We desperately need outsiders.

...

Short of war, revolution or economic collapse, we need someone like Trump.

These statements are, to me at least, a delightful juxtaposition albeit not in their intended context.

I think whether Bernie wins or not he should keep going as the point needs driving home very, very hard that there's a huge will for change on both sides - in such divisive times we all need governance that can find a balance or there'll always be half the population steaming. Assuming the idiot prince doesn't somehow get to start his dark kingdom and Hillary does end up being the 'any port' then she'd better pay attention to the near half of democrats and most of republicans who want that change.

It'll be very interesting to see how Obama's supreme court appointment game plays out too.

[dchammonds]

It'll be very interesting to see how Obama's supreme court appointment game plays out too.

The Senate could stall around till after the election- if the Democrats win, they will consider Obama's choice before the next president is sworn in.