Politics 2017

[Gromnir]

 

and he can't do anything significant w/o more political clout.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

He's announcing his Supreme Court nominee next week, how's that for significant?

 

To your broader point, Republicans have to realize either they hang together, or they'll hang apart. So far they seem to be getting the message, even little Marco says he'll vote for Tillerson.

 

Edit: None of these are significant either: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/donald-trump-executive-orders-kills-tpp-announces-federal-hiring-freeze-restores-mexico-city-policy/

 

Or the pipelines he just approved.

 

actual, no. virtual everything trump has done so far is not significant.  heck, media must need explain why tpp matters to folks and again, the abortion stuff is not a mainstream issue even if it is vital important to a small number o' people.  and yeah, trump will eventual announce appointments.  right now he don't have the clout to force through any genuine controversial picks, so likely he goes moderate.  

 

and no, the republicans don't need hang together with trump.  is the reason why so many republicans did not back trump during the election.  sure, trump fail will damage the party, but republicans is more concerned 'bout being reelected.  if a Congressman believes he/she can be reelected by standing 'gainst a floundering and failing trump, they will do so.  worked for more than a couple in 2016. 

 

will be interesting to see how trump tries to generate positive support in the near future.  he needs a sea change.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, like these threads were full of polls and analysis that Trump can't possibly win. Also this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/24/rasmussen-president-trumps-approval-index-booms-since-inauguration/

 

Not that I set any store by daily poll fluctuations. Also Republicans in the Senate and the Republican base don't want a moderate justice, and it'll be a strict constructionist, so shows how much you know.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[HoonDing]

Don't link to Prietpraat.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Okay, like Hurl pointed out:

Wait, according to gfted1's link, there is already a ban on using the US funds for abortion, and it has been in place since 1973.

Also, family planning/reproductive health is NOT an abortion budget, in the same way planned parenthood isn't an abortion clinic. Most of it goes to STI prevention. For example, in the case of Planned Parenthood:

 

 

 

Gfted1's link even says so about the FP/RH fund:

 

 

Family Planning (FP): The ability of individuals and couples to anticipate and attain their desired number of children and the spacing and timing of births.²

Reproductive Health (RH): The state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive processes, functions, and system at all stages of life.³

 

 

And in their case it also includes education for the poor populace, which is a whole extra animal, as well as antenatal and postnatal care for children and mothers. The reason why that goes to foreign places is because the places in question are third world countries where STI's have epidemic proportions and overpopulation and ignorance about these subjects creates chaos, like the "rape a virgin to be cured of aids" myth that some people believe in some African countries.

 

This is called BASIC developmental aid, and it's much more effective than holding a fundraiser and dumping some cash in a governments lap. Of the developmental aid funds that you should question, this probably isn't one of them.

 

Not everyone believes Planned Parenthood's claims: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/watch-planned-parenthoods-pre-natal-care-deception/

[Gromnir]

Yes, like these threads were full of polls and analysis that Trump can't possibly win. Also this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/24/rasmussen-president-trumps-approval-index-booms-since-inauguration/

 

Not that I set any store by daily poll fluctuations. Also Republicans in the Senate and the Republican base don't want a moderate justice, and it'll be a strict constructionist, so shows how much you know.

*chuckle*

 

you sound like vol criticizing polls.  the polls were indeed wrong as they failed to gauge how few democrats would actual vote.  polls measuring trump popularity don't need to account for such.

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510256862/trump-polls-tweet-favorability-popular

 

oh, and more fabulist nonsense from trump

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511420960/trump-still-insists-millions-voted-illegally-theres-no-evidence-of-that

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511341779/president-trump-to-cut-regulations-by-75-percent-how-real-is-that

 

even trump nominees is left baffled

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/24/511434627/budget-director-nominee-obama-inauguration-crowds-were-bigger-than-trumps

 

and trying to tell us what dozens of different Congressman want from a Court Justice is asinine.  we are talking 'bout individuals.  there is no party approved justice profile. and am suspecting you read "strict constructionist" somewheres w/o actual understanding.  very few judges self identify as following strict construction. even the judges the public misidentifies as conservative almost never identify as following strict construction.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps but keep repeating alternative facts and linking to breitbart.  is... amusing.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

helpful link regarding Justice shortlist:

 

https://empiricalscotus.com/2017/01/19/supreme-court-review-short-listers/

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Fine, call them what you want, but they're not moderates: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-set-to-make-supreme-court-choice-this-week-several-judges-on-short-list.html

[Gromnir]

Fine, call them what you want, but they're not moderates: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/24/trump-set-to-make-supreme-court-choice-this-week-several-judges-on-short-list.html

 

 

...

 

am trying to decide if fox is an improvement over breitbart.

 

*shrug*

 

read our link.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

Not everyone believes Planned Parenthood's claims: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/watch-planned-parenthoods-pre-natal-care-deception/

I did you the courtesy of reading that article despite my well-documented distrust of anything Breitbart says, so trust me when I say I'm making the effort to fact check this story.

 

Do you know their credited source? As you can see in the article, Breitbart got their numbers from Live Action, an anti-abortion lobby run by a James O'Keefe protegé by the name of Lila Rose who claims Planned Parenthood:

 

- is involved in sex-trafficking

- performs sex-selective abortion to kill male fetuses

- literally trades in used baby parts

- somehow gets away with all this and all people working at planned parenthood clinics are in on it and all the government inspections of them as health care institutions somehow missed it or were done by corrupt agencies

 

Lila Rose claims to have proof due to Live Action amateur "sting operations" they performed but refuses to share any demonstrable evidence other than "dude, we totally saw this". It's so ridiculous that the entire organisation is fairly widely regarded as a hoax. Now obviously Planned Parenthood's numbers aren't unbiased either, but that pretty much leaves it as your statement: "Not everyone believes," and no offense, I honestly have a much easier time believing Planned Parenthood's numbers as a government funded organisation than what looks to be a fundamentalist bible-belt hoax site.

 

EDIT: Either way, it's fairy inconsequential to my point about the FP/RH developmental aid funds since they don't allow or offer abortion services in the first place. The closest they come is offering post-abortion care, which is doubly important since if they're not allowed to offer the service then people will find themselves a clothes hanger or a stairwell and do more serious damage in the meanwhile. FP/RH services:

 

 

 

FP/RH encompasses a wide range of services that have been shown to be effective in decreasing the risk of unintended pregnancies, maternal and child mortality, and other complications. These include birth spacing; contraception; sexuality education, information and counseling; post-abortion care; screening/testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); repair of obstetric fistula; antenatal and postnatal care; genital human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to prevent cervical cancer and genital warts; and research into new methods such as microbicides.¹⁹

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Gromnir

I did, I don't see the point. Sounds like they looked at some very technical decisions, and concluded what? I know the original list was compiled with the help of the Heritage foundation, so if there are any moderates there, they snuck in in disguise, which certainly did happen in the past.

 

So far as I can see, you're going to claim that anything Trump does is insignificant by definition, even though just the changes to EPA's insane global warming policy will produce hundreds of billions of additional economic growth. To say nothing of illegal immigration, foreign policy, etc.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Not everyone believes Planned Parenthood's claims: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/watch-planned-parenthoods-pre-natal-care-deception/

I did you the courtesy of reading that article despite my well-documented distrust of anything Breitbart says, so trust me when I say I'm making the effort to fact check this story.

 

Do you know their credited source? As you can see in the article, Breitbart got their numbers from Live Action, an anti-abortion lobby run by a James O'Keefe protegé by the name of Lila Rose who claims Planned Parenthood:

 

- is involved in sex-trafficking

- performs sex-selective abortion to kill male fetuses

- literally trades in used baby parts

- somehow gets away with all this and all people working at planned parenthood clinics are in on it and all the government inspections of them as health care institutions somehow missed it or were done by corrupt agencies

 

Lila Rose claims to have proof due to Live Action amateur "sting operations" they performed but refuses to share any demonstrable evidence other than "dude, we totally saw this". It's so ridiculous that the entire organisation is fairly widely regarded as a hoax. Now obviously Planned Parenthood's numbers aren't unbiased either, but that pretty much leaves it as your statement: "Not everyone believes," and no offense, I honestly have a much easier time believing Planned Parenthood's numbers as a government funded organisation than what looks to be a fundamentalist bible-belt hoax site.

 

What about the video they provided? Trading in baby parts is on video. Sex trafficking is on video. What other proof do you require? Edit: http://liveaction.org/what-we-do/investigations/child-sex-trafficking-cover-up/ Edited January 24, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Gromnir]

@Gromnir

I did, I don't see the point. Sounds like they looked at some very technical decisions, and concluded what? I know the original list was compiled with the help of the Heritage foundation, so if there are any moderates there, they snuck in in disguise, which certainly did happen in the past.

 

So far as I can see, you're going to claim that anything Trump does is insignificant by definition, even though just the changes to EPA's insane global warming policy will produce hundreds of billions of additional economic growth. To say nothing of illegal immigration, foreign policy, etc.

you actual haven't identified the specific changes you believe is significant beyond linking to breitbart.  personal, Gromnir is very interested in the pipeline move, but shady tried to keep a pipeline thread alive on this board and it were an uphill battle.  abortion has always been a limited issue. the pro-life movement were started by white catholic women, which don't exactly make up a huge voting block. etc. but yeah, by definition, almost anything trump does domestic and solo will necessarily be less significant... which is how our system is 'posed to work.  the President ain't s'posed to be able to make major changes w/o Congress. you learned this in high school, no?

 

foreign policy? what changes has he made... other than possible accidental escalating tensions with China?  trump can bring 'bout major foreign policy changes, but so far all he has done is left folks scratching their heads 'cause he don't seem to know what he is doing.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-first-days-inside-trumps-white-house-fury-tumult-and-a-reboot/2017/01/23/7ceef1b0-e191-11e6-ba11-63c4b4fb5a63_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trumpturmoil-0902pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.789568723267

 

uh, pretty much every appellate court decision is gonna be technical.  is the reason we have judges.  appointments of Justices will be significant and will require senate approval. will be interesting to see if trump chooses pryor as he has been rumored to top trump's list while also being the most problematic.  again, given historic low approval for an incoming President, will be interesting to see what trump does.  nevertheless, trump hasn't actual nominated anybody, so you trying to give trump points for his Schrödinger Justice is as ridiculous as your crowd size defenses. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

Uh, no it's not. There's a heavily edited video of a sting to send a fake pimp and prostitute in to score free abortions at an alleged (but unknown) clinic and a heavily edited video of a sting showing an alleged (but unknown) Planned Parenthood staff member advising abortion first, as well as an ambiguous and heavily edited video of a Planned Parenthood doctor naming figures and tissues. It's snippets of conversations that out of context could possibly, maybe, if you're being especially uncharitable on purpose, could maybe interpret as possibly being about those things, maybe. I ain't seein' no fetal bits caught on film.

 

The first two have full-length 30 minute versions that disprove the conclusions made by Live Action (for example, the staff advised about ten different things before advising abortion that were just edited out) available at *shiver* HuffPost (yeah I know, about as reliable as Breitbart is but they had the full footage and the footage is important, not the article):

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/live-action-planned-parenthood-videos_n_1563241.html

 

And as for the latter, there's a very detailed Snopes post for that footage that essentially comes to the conclusion of "Mixed on account of we don't even know what they're talking about because it's edited in ways that nearly every quote lacks context and it's not logically possible to determine what is being referred to".

 

http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-parts-sale/

 

So as far as I can tell, hoaxes. This coupled with what I said about how they would somehow get away with all this and all staff at Planned Parenthood centers somehow being okay with it... this conspiracy sounds about as likely to me as faking the moonlanding. And let's not even get in to the fact that they make money of their monetized YouTube videos.

Edited January 24, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[Hurlshort]

 

Not everyone believes Planned Parenthood's claims: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/watch-planned-parenthoods-pre-natal-care-deception/

 

 

Thanks for those alternative facts.

[Malcador]

Lively chat with walls today.

[HoonDing]

"- performs sex-selective abortion to kill male fetuses"

 

only in China

[Gromnir]

 

 

Not everyone believes Planned Parenthood's claims: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/watch-planned-parenthoods-pre-natal-care-deception/

 

 

Thanks for those alternative facts.

 

am kinda exhausted by the alternative facts people. am knowing you think little o' the crowd size stuff, but if the stormtrumpers refuse to even admit how trump lied 'bout crowd size given side-by-side photos, then what chance do you got o' finding common ground for a reasonable discussion?  is increasing pointless as the alternative facts folks will simple quote breitbart or trump or spicer as being sources.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Keyrock]

Okay, so it's not just abortions.  Again, those countries should be responsible for funding those clinics themselves. 

 

Also, new page, new Ivanka picture:

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Keyrock

[Hurlshort]

Okay, so it's not just abortions.  Again, those countries should be responsible for funding those clinics themselves. 

 

In a perfect world, sure. But as much as I like the Libertarian idea of minding my own business, I'm not sure that cutting off all international aid is in the best interests of the future.

[Malcador]

Idea that aid is influence is elusive, I guess.

[Blarghagh]

No. Not 'not just abortions', no abortions at all.

 

Either way, how about those countries without functional governments? Third world countries that can't afford anything? Countries at war? How do you feel on developmental aid in general?

[Keyrock]

Either way, how about those countries without functional governments? Third world countries that can't afford anything? Countries at war? How do you feel on developmental aid in general?

In short, tough ****.

 

I might feel differently if the economy was great, we were all prospering, and everything was peachy.  Instead, we have a crumbling infrastructure and we're drowning in debt.  I think American money is better spent on America.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Keyrock

[Blarghagh]

'kay.

[Malcador]

In short, tough ****.

 

I might feel differently if the economy was great, we were all prospering, and everything was peachy.  Instead, we have a crumbling infrastructure and we're drowning in debt.  I think American money is better spent on America.

Well, by that mark no one would give any aid, I think. Might be interesting to see how that goes, but yeah, the US isn't really giving that totally for charity - those nations may look to China if not the US, for example. Might be interesting reading - https://www.usaid.gov/results-and-data/budget-spending/congressional-budget-justification

 

I kind of feel sorry for Senators/Congressmen and others who have to read these mammoth reports

[redneckdevil]

So basically these centers set up around the world wouldn't lose a cent that's being sent to them.....if they stopped doing abortions.

With the chart showing abortions at one of the very least things that are done, it doesn't really effect as many people if u just stopped doing that service right?

Do abortions for the very few. u lose ALL funding.

Don't do abortions on the few, u don't lose any money.

 

Tough times, I really don't see this as such a big deal.