U.S. Federal Elections 2024, Presidential, Senate and U.S. House of Representatives

[Josh]

43 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I do not understand how you can be in favour of mass murder.

I do not understand why you think the state should make fundamental life choices for you.

[Ssnake]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Well the pro life part of the debate hardly seems to be that accommodating, and routinely makes the fact that it wants to regulate everyone else, quite loud.

You also have the extreme end of the pro choice advocates that declare any restriction on abortion whatsoever an attack on women in general. There is lunacy in both camps. As long as that isn't acknowledged, you won't find a solution. I suspect that quite a few people in the political arena aren't interested in a solution at all, quite the contrary, as it serves as a useful pavlovian bell to mobilize their constituencies. The same goes for the problem of black ghetto culture that's getting scores of young black men killed every year, or the recreational use of drugs in all strata of US society. The entire debating culture in US politics is so fucked up.

[Josh]

8 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

You also have the extreme end of the pro choice advocates that declare any restriction on abortion whatsoever an attack on women in general. There is lunacy in both camps. As long as that isn't acknowledged, you won't find a solution. I suspect that quite a few people in the political arena aren't interested in a solution at all, quite the contrary, as it serves as a useful pavlovian bell to mobilize their constituencies. The same goes for the problem of black ghetto culture that's getting scores of young black men killed every year, or the recreational use of drugs in all strata of US society. The entire debating culture in US politics is so fucked up.

Fair enough, but people tend to skew more on the abortion side than the GOP or Trump by a wide margin. And I would argue people who make a personal statement about when abortion is wrong never the less are uncomfortable about the government making that decision.

Abortion is ironically where republicans do not want freedom of choice, and it does not poll well.

[futon]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I think it is a little relevant if onus going to have an opinion on the matter. I think it changes your point of view a little.

Maybe try rephrasing a personal question that's made on the internet.

[futon]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I do not understand why you think the state should make fundamental life choices for you.

The statistics show 1 out of 6 in the US. To me, that looks like a degree of a commodification of the process that creates the birth of a baby. It shows irresponsible use of that process. Even for the athiests, down here on Earth, the birth of a baby is probably more sacred than anything. If a culture doesn't treat it as such, it shows that there are issues with the culture. The birth of a baby entails all the preparation for its care, the trust between the spouses, and the intention of long term commitment. Every time sex is carried out by a member of the culture that does not take that process seriously is a mark against that culture. 

Edited April 10 by futon

[sunday]

From a purely Utilitarian point of view, abortion is hugely wasteful, as the most important natural resource is human intelligence. Even one genius could offset a million of never do wells.

[Rick]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

Fair enough, but people tend to skew more on the abortion side than the GOP or Trump by a wide margin. And I would argue people who make a personal statement about when abortion is wrong never the less are uncomfortable about the government making that decision.

Abortion is ironically where republicans do not want freedom of choice, and it does not poll well.

When a baby is aborted, they will never get a chance to make a choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d6KCx2qSFw

[futon]

5 hours ago, Josh said:

Yes. I have. It didn’t happen; it was a miscarriage.

I'm sorry to hear that. 

[seahawk]

4 hours ago, Josh said:

I do not understand why you think the state should make fundamental life choices for you.

I did not suggest to ban contraceptives.

[sunday]

14 hours ago, Ssnake said:

And it's not just about making it legal. It also must be possible for the women to access such facilities. Where this is denied, abortions will still be carried out, but then often enough without proper medical supervision, risking these women's lives in the process.

Looks like the German mainstream media is still using very obsolete statistics in the matter. As an example, here is a quite thorough piece of research by none other than The Washington Post:

Quote

Planned Parenthood’s false stat: ‘Thousands’ of women died every year before Roe

Quote

(...) One of the citations especially caught our eye: Frederick Taussig, “Abortion Spontaneous and Induced: Medical and Social Aspects,” (1936).

Why was a study from 1936 being referenced?

Taussig, who died in 1943, was a gynecologist and influential advocate of legalized abortion. In his book, he calculated that the number of deaths from abortion was between 8,000 and 10,000 a year. But it was not a very rigorous calculation, based on a mix of theory and data from the United States and Germany. Just 13 states recorded such data in 1927 and 15 in 1928. That added up to 912 deaths from abortion a year. Because the states represented 26 percent of the birth registration of the United States, Taussig multiplied it to come up with 3,508 a year. He then rounded it up to 4,000 to account for oversampling of rural areas. Then he assumed half of the deaths were concealed, so he doubled it to 8,000 and concluded it was no more than 10,000.

But he admitted that just five years earlier, he had estimated 15,000 deaths in another paper. “I am convinced my previous estimates were too high,” he wrote. A few years later, in 1942, he revised the figure yet again, down to 5,000.

Quote

By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”

The writer was Mary Steichen Calderone, at the time medical director of Planned Parenthood. She attributed the decline in the mortality rate to antibiotics and the fact that 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by trained physicians.

Quote

“Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate, even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now,” Tietze and Sarah Lewit wrote in Scientific American magazine in 1969. “The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.”

Tietze and Lewit, his spouse, were honored by Planned Parenthood in 1973 with the Margaret Sanger award, the organization’s highest honor, for their research, including “identifying the effects of abortion policy on maternal health.” He died in 1984.

A 1978 study found that deaths from abortion declined even more rapidly after 1965 because of more effective forms of contraception and increased availability of legal abortion.

The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. In 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was 24 and from illegal abortions 39, according to the CDC.

Quote

Wen is a doctor, and the ACOG is made up of doctors. They should know better than to peddle statistics based on data that predates the advent of antibiotics. Even given the fuzzy nature of the data and estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal abortions.

Wen’s repeated use of this number reminds us of the shoddy data used by human trafficking opponents. Unsafe abortion is certainly a serious issue, especially in countries with inadequate medical facilities. But advocates hurt their cause when they use figures that do not withstand scrutiny. These numbers were debunked in 1969 — 50 years ago — by a statistician celebrated by Planned Parenthood. There’s no reason to use them today.

 

Edited April 10 by sunday

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I think it is a little relevant if onus going to have an opinion on the matter. I think it changes your point of view a little.

If such is that you will have a more favorable attitude towards abortion then it only proves that one has a poor sense of responsibility. 

I figured out early in college, don't sleep wit a woman I couldn't look at and imagine being married to if a kid was in the picture. If a kid resulted, I had better be prepared to do the responsible thing. 

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I’m confident Trump has never read the constitution and in any case my criticism was based on voters. I am totally fine with him taking that stance; I think it is the worst position he could stake out.

And yet he seems to understand it more than folks like Obama or Biden who say they have and then work to subvert it at every turn. 

 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

no idea, is Obama running this year? Because if he was I suspect he’d wipe everyone else off the map.

Kind of. Someone riding his coat tails. And Obama IS helping him. 

Biden is a continuation of Obama's Policies. And of much of the same staff which means more of the policies. 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

The majority of the country doesn’t feel that way. Let’s just leave it up to a vote. How about that?

Like Roe v Wade was left up to a vote? What a strange pivot on your part. 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

 

that might work if in the same statement you didn’t explicitly take credit for Dobbs, and by extension all of the lawsuits that it perpetuated. IVF being illegal is on Trump; Arizona’s new law is on Trump. No one is going to interpret it any other way when he proudly takes ownership of Dobbs. And I’m glad that he does; that makes it easy.

But Josh, we're leaving it up to a vote. That should make it all good and you should accept that. You literally made that point above and now you decry it. How utterly fatuous. 

 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

Trump has never read the constitution or the Bible and you are a simpleton if you truly believe that and that drives your voting.

I care if the policies conform to the Constitution. Obamacare does not. The past 100 years of gun law federally and at state level didn't either. Medicare for all does not. Roe v Wade didn't even apply anything in a consistent fashion and was a complete farce of law. 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

If you believe he’s better for you, ok, if you believe he could quote the Bible or the constitution, you’re a high functioning idiot.

It's not a matter of believing, it's a matter of looking at policies on energy and trade and defense. Hey, but you think president roomba is a better president. And you can't keep an objective standard in the same post, but I'm the idiot. 

10 hours ago, Josh said:

I shall. As I said above, if you like his politics I will give you that. But if you think he cares about you or has a conscience, then you’re a fucking idiot.

I don't CARE if politicians CARE about me. That's not their job. It is if if the policies fuck me, and the rest of the country or are good for me and the rest of the country. Bidennomics is NOT good for me or the rest of the country. Having someone they care for me while they destroy my interests is silly. 

That you think politicians 'caring' is a valid basis for approval is demented. 

[rmgill]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

Fair enough, but people tend to skew more on the abortion side than the GOP or Trump by a wide margin. And I would argue people who make a personal statement about when abortion is wrong never the less are uncomfortable about the government making that decision.

Why is it ok then for the government to prevent one citizen killing another? 

Are you unhappy that the government makes that choice for you? 

8 hours ago, Josh said:

Abortion is ironically where republicans do not want freedom of choice, and it does not poll well.

You HAVE choice. It is before you have sex. The child is a result of that chain of decision making processes. Actions have consequences. 

[rmgill]

 

[rmgill]

Make no mistake, Trump just staked out a centrist position on Abortion. State level variance is reasonable as it's NOT a universal or even codified right under the US constitution. If it is, please explain how it is. 

A ban on abortions after a certain number of weeks is in keeping even with what's common in Europe. Abortion on demand up to 9 months as a legal avenue is NOT a centrist stance. 

The Biden admin is the one that's staked out the radical left position. 

[rmgill]

Here, watch this for some of the absurdity of the ATF and the Biden Admin's stance. This is a case Garland is party to. 
 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

I don't follow US internal politics so I need help here.

I think Trump had solid foreign policy, far better than Biden. Less micromanaging, more macromanaging and better defense outline including:

1. Allies must strive toward higher levels of security independence.

2. Allies must decouple economically from hostile nations.

3. Hostile nations are in fact hostile (Russia, China, Iran, DPRK etc).

4. Bilateral over unilateral relationships.

But I cannot really support a US president if he's good only in terms of foreign policy but is overly goofy in internal policy. So what's his general ideology there? I only know he's overly divisive but I want to know more.

[rmgill]

Trump is overly divisive. But Biden who challenges voters who he's soliciting for votes and who disagree with him at Town halls, he calls them fat and challenges them to fist fights. 

Biden is awful as a 'cares for your person'. He's not a kind old man. He's an opportunistic predator who's been at the government food trough for as long as I've been alive. 

 

[sunday]

36 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Trump is overly divisive. (...)

All (R) politicos are divisive, but all the (D) ones are unifiers.

Get on with the narrative, sport!

[Ssnake]

My biggest problems with Trump are his personality; he's a shameless liar, narcissist, vindictive. And his tendency to undermine US alliances - either because it's his business practice of 50 years to go into negotiations with maximum demands and aggro level, or because at his heart he's an isolationist and really wants to get out of it all. Unfortunately that makes war more likely where I live, whether Germany and our neighbors actually do something about our defense spending or not (and we do, but it takes time). Also, his rather dubious positions on nuclear non-proliferation like his suggestion that South Korea and Japan should get their own nukes, with very little thought about the consequences of such a change in policy.

The rest - tolerable or "not so bad, actually".

Biden is pretty terrible, except when it comes to security in Europe; yeah, I'm kinda selfish here, but in my defense, I have skin in the game.

[rmgill]

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

My biggest problems with Trump are his personality; he's a shameless liar, narcissist, vindictive.

That's politicians. Trump just doesn't have the smarmy smile on his face while he's NOT effecting the reach around.

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

And his tendency to undermine US alliances - either because it's his business practice of 50 years to go into negotiations with maximum demands and aggro level, or because at his heart he's an isolationist and really wants to get out of it all.

Explain the situation with Israel then please. 

Trump foments the unprecedented accord of peace between Israel and about all of the other Sunni states in Arabia. Biden gets into office, scuppers that, gives money to Iran, sends money to Hamas, gets a war, and is now making noises that Israel is supposed to be finding and giving some sort of accommodations to Hamas even while Hostages are still outstanding including 4 Americans. 

Which ally did Trump throw under the bus in that regard? 
 

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Unfortunately that makes war more likely where I live, whether Germany and our neighbors actually do something about our defense spending or not (and we do, but it takes time).

War is more likely with Biden's foreign policy because he's weak. Like Obama he's conciliatory to our enemies, expecting that if we give them money they'll be friendly. 

Iran/Russia/China are in a loose knit alliance. The attacks on western shipping going around Yemen specifically resulted from that weak FP vis a vis Iran and Hamas. 

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Also, his rather dubious positions on nuclear non-proliferation like his suggestion that South Korea and Japan should get their own nukes, with very little thought about the consequences of such a change in policy.

North Korea has Nukes. They're not going to give them up. The current trend is More aid from Russia/China/Iran to NK for their Ballistic missiles. 

26 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Biden is pretty terrible, except when it comes to security in Europe; yeah, I'm kinda selfish here, but in my defense, I have skin in the game.

What has Biden done for security in Europe? Does Allowing Russia to invade Ukraine manifest as GOOD for European Security? Is Russia weaker because of Germany's policy on Russian NG and Oil Dependence? 

Trump was making noises about that dependence at a meeting of NATO members. Was that divisive and bad for German Security or warning you you had a problem that your officials visibly laughed at? 
 

Just for the record, who are the 4 grinning fools at 0:25?

[Skywalkre]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:45 AM, Josh said:

And in Arizona, yet another conservative state court trips on it’s own dick and hands democrats an issue to fight on, in a swing state that likely will already have a referendum on abortion. I think the GOP seriously just lost AZ this year, both the EC and the senate seat (not that Lake was a strong candidate to begin with).

Like the IVF ruling in Alabama, it makes me question what the fuck these judges think they will accomplish with radical rulings.

In defense of the AZ supreme court... from what I've gathered the real blame here lies with the legislature.  All the AZSC said was that there was a law on the books that once RvW was overturned should have been applicable again.  The legislature could have repealed that law back when they were pushing their abortion law in '22.

We might actually see said law repealed (which would mean state law would default to that '22 law if I'm not mistaken) before this election.  One local reporter who has been following this for years noted she has never seen so many Rs about-face on a position, especially an abortion position, like they have since this made the news.  Lake, who was once quoted as stating that 160 year-old law was a good thing, has said she disagrees with this as well (she tryin' so hard to look moderate 🤣 ).

[Skywalkre]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:15 PM, lucklucky said:

 

🤣 Libs of Tik Tok claiming others aren't impartial or biased and leaving out context when they go and do the same.  Fucking hypocrites...

I actually recognize some of the clips in that piece.  They go back to the protests of '20 (that's what most are referring to) and the riots that broke out then were absolutely condemned by D leadership (especially Biden, on several occasions... I linked as much in the threads here on TN back then).  Just another biased non-story pushing a narrative and getting trumpeted around like it's gospel.  🙄

ETA - But here's some actual news about political violence that should be worrying.  This poll showed that 28% of Rs responded that violence may be necessary to get the country back on track.  That compared to 18% for Independents and 12% for Ds.  When you couple that to the large % of Rs who believe that the election in '20 was stolen and Biden is not a legitimate POTUS... that should be worrying.

Edited April 11 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

Does Allowing Russia to invade Ukraine manifest as GOOD for European Security?

This strawman needs to die.  Biden did no such thing. 

Edited April 11 by Skywalkre

[seahawk]

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

My biggest problems with Trump are his personality; he's a shameless liar, narcissist, vindictive. And his tendency to undermine US alliances - either because it's his business practice of 50 years to go into negotiations with maximum demands and aggro level, or because at his heart he's an isolationist and really wants to get out of it all. Unfortunately that makes war more likely where I live, whether Germany and our neighbors actually do something about our defense spending or not (and we do, but it takes time). Also, his rather dubious positions on nuclear non-proliferation like his suggestion that South Korea and Japan should get their own nukes, with very little thought about the consequences of such a change in policy.

The rest - tolerable or "not so bad, actually".

Biden is pretty terrible, except when it comes to security in Europe; yeah, I'm kinda selfish here, but in my defense, I have skin in the game.

That is strong endorsement of Trump, for any US voter, because the US internal politics and security interests should concentrate on what is good for Americans and not Europeans or other foreigners.