User Tag List

Page 170 of 238 FirstFirst ... 70120160168169170171172180220 ... LastLast
Results 8,451 to 8,500 of 11851

Thread: U.S. Presidential Election 2016 (Sponsored by Betty Croker's Hamburger Helper)

  1. #8451
    Romulus Augustulus ItalAussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3,276
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's interesting to see how Trump functions (or fails to do so) when the opposition actually has a modicum of leverage.

    He has no idea how to deal with it. Also, if the Democrats had a marketing bone in their body, they'd have called the closedown "the Trump Tantrum" at every opportunity.

  2. #8452
    Senior Member mugbull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,228
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But wasn't the "agreement" they just reached that he'd reopen for 3 weeks, they'd do some faux posturing on the wall, and assuming that no further deal is reached, he'd invoke the emergency clause and get his money anyway? This seems like a way for him to get the wall he wants while appearing somewhat conciliatory

  3. #8453
    Won the Old Board Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Hull
    Posts
    27,075
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Using that emergency procedure seems like it would set the dumbest and most counter-productive precedent imaginable. Which I suppose means he will do it.

  4. #8454
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Looking forward to it. Can’t wait for the democrats to declare healthcare and climate change a national emergency.

  5. #8455
    Senior Member Queenslander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    5,560
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And gun violence.

  6. #8456
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And trans rights.

  7. #8457
    Romulus Augustulus ItalAussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3,276
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Democrats should hire a company to do a proper financial analysis of "The Wall", and spell out exactly what it would cost, both initially and in ongoing costs.

    Bring up some numbers, to show how ludicrous the amount will be.

  8. #8458
    Senior Member niko_cee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    17,940
    Mentioned
    45 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not really sure people are swayable on the issue, and I'm doubly not sure the way to try would be financial analysis or economic forecasting, for various reasons, some of them legit.

  9. #8459
    I used to be funny.
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    21,253
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Even with the finances, there's a counter the Republicans can do about immigration, potential impact on crime and job creation.

  10. #8460
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Detailed numbers won't convince anyone of anything.

  11. #8461
    Won the Old Board Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Hull
    Posts
    27,075
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't know why you wouldn't just build it as a Democrat. He gets his wall, or lame steel barrier, and then what... You have neutralised his main thing and next electoral attack line forever at relatively little cost. What does he campaign on now? Meanwhile, you make yourselves at least look like you care about border security.

  12. #8462
    I used to be funny.
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    21,253
    Mentioned
    41 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    And if the moan brigade still continue after the wall's up, turn it into a tourist attraction and make bank off that.

  13. #8463
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    I don't know why you wouldn't just build it as a Democrat. He gets his wall, or lame steel barrier, and then what... You have neutralised his main thing and next electoral attack line forever at relatively little cost. What does he campaign on now? Meanwhile, you make yourselves at least look like you care about border security.
    Because he had literally one issue. An issue that less than 20% of the country agree with and you'd have conceded it. Everything else he's done is GOP by numbers.

    Trump doesn't deal in policy, he deals in optics. This whole thing is due to his TV shows calling him a pussy.

  14. #8464
    Senior Member mugbull's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,228
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don’t think the wall is as “groundbreakingly illiberal” an idea as a lot of people do, nor is it actually that expensive, all things considered...but my fucking god, I want to see him try and fail over and over again to make it happen

  15. #8465
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Wall is, like every single thing in this country, just a political symbol. No one cares about its cost, or its effectiveness, or its morality, or whatever.

  16. #8466
    ram it up your shitpipe Giggles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Kildare
    Posts
    30,456
    Mentioned
    138 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    The Wall is, like every single thing in this country, just a political symbol. No one cares about its cost, or its effectiveness, or its morality, or whatever.
    America's Brexit. If you can keep out even one brown forrin then everything else is worth it.

  17. #8467
    Bookie Sir Andy Mahowry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    40,770
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As if the wall will even keep the Mexicans out.

  18. #8468
    Won the Old Board Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Hull
    Posts
    27,075
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If the case against a wall is that it won't actually work he should just ask for the money to be spent on more active border policing.

  19. #8469
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    The Wall is, like every single thing in this country, just a political symbol. No one cares about its cost, or its effectiveness, or its morality, or whatever.
    Basic reality of US politics in a world with highly competitive parties (which is relatively new). No incentive to compromise if you think the next election allows you to win and set the agenda. It is extraordinarily difficult to pass any major legislation in the US setup. The president’s top declared priorities are what will be resisted at all costs. Obama got the ACA but it cost him everything else legislatively, including 1,000 local seats nationwide. Trump got neither of his top two legislative priorities. What does pass? Taxes (which wasn’t a declared presidential goal), criminal justice reform, defense, and several bills on opioids.

    Bipartisanship occurs either when one party is discredited or marginalized by an exogenous shock like World Wars, Civil War, or a Great Depression. Then they compromise to get whatever because November won’t solve it. Or they compromise on non-declared targets, or get temporary / one off victories that set up your eventual defeat.

  20. #8470
    Romulus Augustulus ItalAussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    3,276
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    Detailed numbers won't convince anyone of anything.
    I'm not actually expecting it to. But what it does mean is that it should force Trump to ask for slightly more money, making it easier to knock him back. Currently, the best Republican argument is that 5.7 billion is basically nothing in the big scheme of things. If the Democrats come out and say "we took it seriously, costed it properly, and came up with 150 billion", then next time Trump might have to put in, say, 30 billion so as not to look utterly stupid. But it's easier to treat 30 billion as an outrageous cost than it is five.

    It's 100% political gamesmanship, but I reckon they could land it.

  21. #8471
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ItalAussie View Post
    I'm not actually expecting it to. But what it does mean is that it should force Trump to ask for slightly more money, making it easier to knock him back. Currently, the best Republican argument is that 5.7 billion is basically nothing in the big scheme of things. If the Democrats come out and say "we took it seriously, costed it properly, and came up with 150 billion", then next time Trump might have to put in, say, 30 billion so as not to look utterly stupid. But it's easier to treat 30 billion as an outrageous cost than it is five.

    It's 100% political gamesmanship, but I reckon they could land it.
    I love how you're trying to approach 2019 in American Politics with the idea of 'out logicing' a party that believes the best protection against guns is more guns, abortion is murder, healthcare is a privilege not a right and that climate change isn't real but god is.

    That's just the party, the actual base thinks everyone with a (D) next to their name is a satan-worshipping paedophile ordering 'cheese pizza' at Comet Ping Pong. And that's the normal ones who don't think QAnon is real.

    You've completely lost sight of what's going on. The Democrats have asked what the 5.7 billion he asked for is for and no-one can say, it's just a number they made up. Now you want to put together an actual shopping list for them and expect them not to take hostages until they get literally everything you listed out?

    Have you not been following the news for like... 12 years?

  22. #8472
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    How do ya'll feel about this bit in New York that apparently says you can abort a baby up until it's born?

  23. #8473
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally I think that's a fucking madness.

  24. #8474
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Let's have a link? Because I'm going to go ahead and say they don't allow you to choose to kill the baby upon pumping it out.

  25. #8475
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Many states in the US do allow late-term abortion, which I agree is 'fucking madness.' Therein lies the beauty of the whole federal shtick.

  26. #8476
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    To be honest any story I've tried to find off a quick google seems slanted one way or the other, I would suggest googling "New York reproductive health act" and coming to your own conclusion.

    From what I understand, it basically makes it so a pregnancy can be terminated basically up until birth, but maybe I don't understand it myself who knows.

    In interest of fairness, my position on abortion has always been something around "I sure fucking hate that and wish all babies could be born and at least given a chance with or without their biological parents" but I also don't really think the government should be the one who makes that choice. But I also really really hate the idea of an abortion.

  27. #8477
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bruhnaldo View Post
    From what I understand, it basically makes it so a pregnancy can be terminated basically up until birth, but maybe I don't understand it myself who knows.
    Isn't that only in cases when delivering the baby would likely result in the death of the mother?

    If it's the one I'm looking at it was written in 2013 and is still in the senate health comittee, it hasn't even got scheduled date to be debated on the floor, let alone voted on. I think 8.5 month pregnant women desperate to clawhammer a foetus will have to go to term.

    edit: Had a read of the bill, yeah it's allowed when either the mother or the child were unlikely to survive delivery. Seems reasonable to me?


  28. #8478
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    EDIT:

    Massive version:

    Toggle Spoiler
    Last edited by Pepe; 28-01-2019 at 03:04 PM.

  29. #8479
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phonics View Post
    edit: Had a read of the bill, yeah it's allowed when either the mother or the child were unlikely to survive delivery. Seems reasonable to me?
    It does. Except the 'life or health' part. 'Health' is wide open to be exploited.

  30. #8480
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    It does. Except the 'life or health' part. 'Health' is wide open to be exploited.
    But take it out and "There's a 2% chance it'll go fine and a 98% chance you're in a coma for the rest of your life." means you're taking it to term.

  31. #8481
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I certainly could understand protecting the life of the mother tbf.

  32. #8482
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phonics View Post
    But take it out and "There's a 2% chance it'll go fine and a 98% chance you're in a coma for the rest of your life." means you're taking it to term.
    Of course. Laws always tend to fail on the edge cases. It could still be worded in a far more specific way than 'health,' even though I assume that most doctors would show good judgement in most cases.

  33. #8483
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    Of course. Laws always tend to fail on the edge cases. It could still be worded in a far more specific way than 'health,' even though I assume that most doctors would show good judgement in most cases.
    The bill that I quoted is 6 pages from 2013. I presume the one that leaves comittee on will be slightly more detailed.

  34. #8484
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Are non-medical late term abortions even a thing? Everything about abortion should at least feel messy. I’ll add people who quite literally can never be on the receiving end of a law being so sure they should get to decide how it is written or applied to the list of things that should make us all a bit less sure of things.

  35. #8485
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mikem View Post
    Are non-medical late term abortions even a thing?
    An extremely low percent of all abortions, iirc.

  36. #8486
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Having three kids I just find the whole concept of late term “abortion misuse” odd. Who is out there going through 6-8 months of pregnancy and then terminating on a lark? I’d imagine a near totality of the reasons, medical or otherwise, are serious and not undertaken lightly. A vague law that gives doctors and mothers the most leeway in cases that are almost certainly tragic is probably best.

  37. #8487
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As long as we apply the 'I'm sure they had good reasons' clause to every law, I'm cool with that.

  38. #8488
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The French way works for me:

    legal on demand up to 12 weeks after conception (14 weeks after the last menstrual period). Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.

  39. #8489
    Won the Old Board Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Hull
    Posts
    27,075
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    They will just interpret 'health' as widely as possible, up to and including stretch marks potentially making you a bit sad, which is essentially how our system works. Not that I am against that. But that is how it will work.

  40. #8490
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Exactly, at which point why have a law in the first place? Especially in a country where several states have no restrictions already.

  41. #8491
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    They will just interpret 'health' as widely as possible, up to and including stretch marks potentially making you a bit sad, which is essentially how our system works. Not that I am against that. But that is how it will work.
    Shut the fuck up you emotional husk. Who is carrying a baby for 6 months and then deciding to abort for stretch marks?

  42. #8492
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    4,594
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the point is more that people in this country claim just about any nonsensical reason to do anything and then tell you that you're being harsh/cold when you try to call them on it, rather than a real-deal application.

    Like when people get marijuana cards they just say shit like "I have a bit of anxiety I guess" and voila, they are free to purchase weed legally.

  43. #8493
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    523
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, we really need to expend the power of the federal government because it is highly likely that people are going to get pregnant once every couple of years and decide to abort in the seventh month. Is this a one time crime or a repeated offense?

    We need to step in and discourage that shit. Maybe mandatory minimums to stop people getting stretch mark abortions and the like because it is so common. Federal sentencing guidelines cause that always works out so well.

    Not every crime need be prosecuted.

  44. #8494
    Won the Old Board Lewis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Hull
    Posts
    27,075
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phonics View Post
    Shut the fuck up you emotional husk. Who is carrying a baby for 6 months and then deciding to abort for stretch marks?
    More than likely nobody.

  45. #8495
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mikem View Post
    Yes, we really need to expend the power of the federal government because it is highly likely that people are going to get pregnant once every couple of years and decide to abort in the seventh month. Is this a one time crime or a repeated offense?

    We need to step in and discourage that shit. Maybe mandatory minimums to stop people getting stretch mark abortions and the like because it is so common. Federal sentencing guidelines cause that always works out so well.

    Not every crime need be prosecuted.
    Right now the "power of the federal government" is being spent on a law that claims to set limits but, in the way that it is written, doesn't*. Maybe that "power" must have been "spent" somewhere else, instead of creating a non-law.

    *Based on that thing phonics posted. I have no idea, nor do I care, what is actually going on with that particular bill.

  46. #8496
    Senior Member randomlegend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,308
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis View Post
    They will just interpret 'health' as widely as possible, up to and including stretch marks potentially making you a bit sad, which is essentially how our system works. Not that I am against that. But that is how it will work.
    Our system works on the basis that carrying a baby is inherently riskier than not carrying a baby, and therefore an abortion can always be justified on the health grounds (I forget the exact wording) option on the form.

  47. #8497
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bruhnaldo View Post
    I think the point is more that people in this country claim just about any nonsensical reason to do anything and then tell you that you're being harsh/cold when you try to call them on it, rather than a real-deal application.

    Like when people get marijuana cards they just say shit like "I have a bit of anxiety I guess" and voila, they are free to purchase weed legally.
    The point is that, if you are going to write a law, do it properly. Creating a law that is basically a giant loophole makes no sense.

    We can also apply the very contemporary INEQUALITY paradigm to it. A poor woman will go to a doctor, he will say your health is not really in danger, and she will be screwed. Lewis's rich woman will worry about her stretch marks, will be told no, will get a lawyer, and get her abortion. because shit law-writing

  48. #8498
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randomlegend View Post
    Our system works on the basis that carrying a baby is inherently riskier than not carrying a baby, and therefore an abortion can always be justified on the health grounds (I forget the exact wording) option on the form.
    Example of a shit law right there.

  49. #8499
    Custom User Title phonics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    18,151
    Mentioned
    118 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    Right now the "power of the federal government" is being spent on a law that claims to set limits but, in the way that it is written, doesn't*. Maybe that "power" must have been "spent" somewhere else, instead of creating a non-law.

    *Based on that thing phonics posted. I have no idea, nor do I care, what is actually going on with that particular bill.
    Well the power of the federal government isn't being spent on it because it's in the New York state senate and I will say again, has been in committee since 2013 and has not left it.

    @bruhnaldo, can I ask where you saw this story or how you came to be aware of it? Just people chatting irl or was it online?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe View Post
    Example of a shit law right there.
    Or a law that's suitably broad to allow the individuals involved with specialist knowledge of that specific case the ability to navigate it to the best of their ability or should we have set of rigid laws and have every decision decided by a judge who is an expert in law not in medicine?

    I understand the need for specific laws in regulatory/financial/safety cases etc. but what does everyone involved in the case of abortion have to gain? To the best of my knowledge, there aren't people out there just really passionate about pushing unborn fetuses out of desperate women.

  50. #8500
    Senior Member Pepe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    11,319
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Twitter I bet.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •