2020 Election - Catch-all Thread

58,490 Views | 1686 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Professor Turgeson Bear
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

GB4L - do you have a point? What are you trying to accomplish? Unless you are trying to establish that you are a tone-deaf, argumentative Steven Miller lite, it's not working. If that is your aim - kudos to a job well done.
Who is tone-deaf here? Probably the folks not grappling with the issues and arguments at hand. Scroll up. Re-read the desperate use of ideology and sophistry as both a shield and a prop.

My point is obvious, which is to demonstrate that you and many others are wrong, and profoundly so. And not because it doesn't meet some standard of a personally held ideological principle, but rather due to the factors like the logical framework of the issue and the consistency of its moral reasoning, as demonstrated regarding the "physical autonomy" sophistry (which has still not been acknowledged nor refuted. Nor has anybody postulated a position on when it is suitable for states to put restrictions on abortion within the framework of the precedent SCOTUS abortion case, and why?)

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

GBearAg8nstChoice, without using Google, name five African Americans, living or dead, who you greatly admire. One caveat: no athletes, actors, or musicians.

GB, apologies if this was too difficult a question. Sometimes it helps to know where someone is coming from. You're off the hook, man.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

I've heard every freakin' "pro-life" argument in the book from the "science" (finger prints on fetuses to heart beats) to the morality of it all.

None of this matter when it's still about a person's right to control their own body.
No, it's not. And that is why "hearing the other side" (whatever this means) is not cutting any ice with you. That platitude you are serving does not hold up, especially since it's extremely ambiguous. So ambiguous to render it practically meaningless. There are a plethora of limits to physical autonomy -- the most obvious limit is exerting one's body to physically harm another person. So the question is when is the unborn (if ever) a 'person' that warrants this same protection.

Process of elimination via moral reasoning and logical consistency is going to be more helpful on this issue than working backwards from an ideologically shielded premise that is logically fallacious, morally inconsistent and averse to facts.

I'll throw you a bone: what does it mean for a person to "control their own body" in the context of abortion?

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

B.A. Bearacus said:

GBearAg8nstChoice, without using Google, name five African Americans, living or dead, who you greatly admire. One caveat: no athletes, actors, or musicians.

GB, apologies if this was too difficult a question. Sometimes it helps to know where someone is coming from. You're off the hook, man.
It was an odd question, and I'm not your monkey. (I think it also presupposes my race/ethnicity)

But I'll extend an olive branch. The truth is, I don't know that I can name 5 Anglos I admire outside my immediate relations with friends, family, colleagues. It's hard to "admire" someone I don't know. I admire qualities in people I don't know, but I can't say I've ever said "I admire him/her" about somebody I don't know personally, or better yet intimately.

Hope that helps.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Unit2Sucks said:

GB4L - do you have a point? What are you trying to accomplish? Unless you are trying to establish that you are a tone-deaf, argumentative Steven Miller lite, it's not working. If that is your aim - kudos to a job well done.
Who is tone-deaf here? Probably the folks not grappling with the issues and arguments at hand. Scroll up. Re-read the desperate use of ideology and sophistry as both a shield and a prop.

My point is obvious, which is to demonstrate that you and many others are wrong, and profoundly so. And not because it doesn't meet some standard of a personally held ideological principle, but rather due to the factors like the logical framework of the issue and the consistency of its moral reasoning, as demonstrated regarding the "physical autonomy" sophistry (which has still not been acknowledged nor refuted. Nor has anybody postulated a position on when it is suitable for states to put restrictions on abortion within the framework of the precedent SCOTUS abortion case, and why?)




You haven't demonstrated anything about anyone but yourself. Using the word "sophistry" doesn't allow you to asset authority in the discussion. It's not even clear that you understand what anyone else is saying, let alone what you are.

What you have done is smash together a somewhat smorgasbord of smears without a coherent narrative. Now you've declared that for success we need to identify restrictions consistent with the framework of SCOTUS which is a new ask. The antecedent for this discussion is the supposition that the makeup of the Supreme Court will moot existing precedent.

No one here is defending abortion of healthy viable babies nor do we need to. Those types of abortions are incredibly expensive and not generally available to the public. There is no reason to believe they regularly occur in the US or need to be limited by law. Nonetheless, those abortions are the focus of hysterical RWNJs who use them as some sort of totem when what they really want to do is pass laws that are unallowable under existing SCOTUS precedent. I get why you would rather talk about things that don't matter but that doesn't mean we have to engage on your terms.

And with that I am done talking about this particular topic.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:


If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.
We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.
6 weeks after conception. My wife and I have 2 kids and good healthcare. I don't think we knew she was pregnant at 6 weeks either time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill-signed_n_5c9953eae4b0f7bfa1b576c5
What does Georgia have to do with the office of the president?


Roe vs. Wade. Supreme Court. Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court. What's happening in Georgia is partly because of Republican Presidents.
An old white dude
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was a bit neutral about abortion, but with late term abortions now legalized, there is a whole lot lot less ambiguity about the baby's right to life. I'm not sure how taking the life of an 8 1/2 month baby in his mother's womb doesn't qualify as infanticide.

And about the "woman's right to her body": does a pregnant woman have the right to get severely intoxicated, knowing that this might result in a serious handicap to her child? Given that's she's carrying a new life, there are greater responsibilities involved...
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:


If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.
We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.
6 weeks after conception. My wife and I have 2 kids and good healthcare. I don't think we knew she was pregnant at 6 weeks either time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill-signed_n_5c9953eae4b0f7bfa1b576c5
What does Georgia have to do with the office of the president?


Roe vs. Wade. Supreme Court. Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court. What's happening in Georgia is partly because of Republican Presidents.
What's happening in Georgia is happening because of Georgia.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Another Bear said:

I've heard every freakin' "pro-life" argument in the book from the "science" (finger prints on fetuses to heart beats) to the morality of it all.

None of this matter when it's still about a person's right to control their own body.
No, it's not. And that is why "hearing the other side" (whatever this means) is not cutting any ice with you. That platitude you are serving does not hold up, especially since it's extremely ambiguous. So ambiguous to render it practically meaningless. There are a plethora of limits to physical autonomy -- the most obvious limit is exerting one's body to physically harm another person. So the question is when is the unborn (if ever) a 'person' that warrants this same protection.

Process of elimination via moral reasoning and logical consistency is going to be more helpful on this issue than working backwards from an ideologically shielded premise that is logically fallacious, morally inconsistent and averse to facts.

I'll throw you a bone: what does it mean for a person to "control their own body" in the context of abortion?
The pro-choice position is logically consistent: if you don't believe an unborn fetus is a "person," then you don't respect its rights relative to those of the pregnant woman carrying it. If you're fully pro-choice, then you're in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion no matter what.

Of course, not everyone is 100% pro-choice. There is always a spectrum of political beliefs and personal morals. That's why even in "liberal" states you sometimes have laws allowing abortions only up to a certain part of the term. That's not evidence of left-wing hypocrisy or illogic, that's just evidence of messy compromise in a democracy.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

I was a bit neutral about abortion, but with late term abortions now legalized, there is a whole lot lot less ambiguity about the baby's right to life. I'm not sure how taking the life of an 8 1/2 month baby in his mother's womb doesn't qualify as infanticide.



The propaganda of the right is very effective.

What you are describing only happens rarely and when there are severe health issues. These matters are best left to families and doctors and not big government.
An old white dude
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:


And with that I am done talking about this particular topic.
Of course you're done. The mealy mouthed premise you asserted - bodily autonomy - was destroyed. You did not acknowledge nor refute it, then ironically obfuscating with accusations of an 'incoherent narrative'.

The narrative was simple and well laid out: once you expose the usual tropes that implicitly support this vague notion of abortion rights, it inherently falls to the question that it's about: at what point during gestation does the unborn warrant protection.

If you know anything about fetal development, and what an actual abortion entails at each stage of gestation, and you can no longer employ the fallacy of "bodily autonomy", then it becomes not just reasonable but justified in restricting abortions beyond the 20-27 weeks that most states have in place.

Mississippi and Georgia going to 6 weeks (I expect SCOTUS to strike it down) is near impossible to defend. Mostly, You barely know you're pregnant by 6 weeks. Presumably if she's knocked up right after her period, she would be alerted in about 4 weeks of a missed period, and would investigate further to confirm pregnancy or not. That's cutting it really close.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Cal88 said:

I was a bit neutral about abortion, but with late term abortions now legalized, there is a whole lot lot less ambiguity about the baby's right to life. I'm not sure how taking the life of an 8 1/2 month baby in his mother's womb doesn't qualify as infanticide.
.
What you are describing only happens rarely and when there are severe health issues.
About 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester (post 28 weeks). And 7 states do not restrict abortions. But you appear remarkably ambivalent about this reality. Ya know, of viable unborn babies being killed cuz mommy is poor and stressed.

Quote:

These matters are best left to families and doctors and not big government.
Matters like ending viable unborn babies? How Libertarian of you.

Yes to big government for national health care. Big government intervening in prenatal care to protect a viable unborn baby? NOOOOOOO GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:


If you don't know the difference between Biden and Trump. Or even Biden and Mitt Romney I can't help you. But you were what, 5 years old, when Bush became President? He was a terrible President compared to Bill Clinton.
I do know the difference between Biden and Trump. That's a stupid thing to say. Biden and Romney? Not as big as you think.

As for being 5 years old when Bush became president, just LOL. I wish.
It's the difference between a woman's right to choose and not. The difference between global accords on climate change and not. The difference between higher or lower taxes on the wealthy and access to health care for millions. The difference between action on guns.
The difference is huge.
We've had over 20 years of Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade was passed and no sign of abortion going away. You think the Donald Trumps of the world really want abortion illegal?

How much did Obama raise taxes on the wealthy? How much did he do about guns?

The difference is not as big as people imagine.
6 weeks after conception. My wife and I have 2 kids and good healthcare. I don't think we knew she was pregnant at 6 weeks either time.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/georgia-heartbeat-abortion-bill-signed_n_5c9953eae4b0f7bfa1b576c5
What does Georgia have to do with the office of the president?


Roe vs. Wade. Supreme Court. Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court. What's happening in Georgia is partly because of Republican Presidents.
What's happening in Georgia is happening because of Georgia.


I'm pretty sure even the Pope would approve of abortions in Georgia, or anywhere else in the South for that matter.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Yogi Bear said:

dajo9 said:

Roe vs. Wade. Supreme Court. Presidential nominations to the Supreme Court. What's happening in Georgia is partly because of Republican Presidents.






What's happening in Georgia is happening because of Georgia.


I'm pretty sure even the Pope would approve of abortions in Georgia, or anywhere else in the South for that matter.
What we need is euthanasia for the brain dead adults. At least the babies have a chance to grow up and become smart.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Bear said:



What we need is euthanasia for the brain dead adults.
Your family would miss you dearly.
Yogi Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Yogi Bear said:



What we need is euthanasia for the brain dead adults.
Your family would miss you dearly.
Yours wouldn't
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

dajo9 said:

Cal88 said:

I was a bit neutral about abortion, but with late term abortions now legalized, there is a whole lot lot less ambiguity about the baby's right to life. I'm not sure how taking the life of an 8 1/2 month baby in his mother's womb doesn't qualify as infanticide.
.
What you are describing only happens rarely and when there are severe health issues.
About 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester (post 28 weeks). And 7 states do not restrict abortions. But you appear remarkably ambivalent about this reality. Ya know, of viable unborn babies being killed cuz mommy is poor and stressed.

Quote:

These matters are best left to families and doctors and not big government.
Matters like ending viable unborn babies? How Libertarian of you.

Yes to big government for national health care. Big government intervening in prenatal care to protect a viable unborn baby? NOOOOOOO GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE



Big government national health care actually improves the healthcare decision-making abilities of patients and doctors by removing big private insurance from the equation.
An old white dude
BearsWiin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

GBear4Life said:

dajo9 said:

Cal88 said:

I was a bit neutral about abortion, but with late term abortions now legalized, there is a whole lot lot less ambiguity about the baby's right to life. I'm not sure how taking the life of an 8 1/2 month baby in his mother's womb doesn't qualify as infanticide.
.
What you are describing only happens rarely and when there are severe health issues.
About 1% of abortions are 3rd trimester (post 28 weeks). And 7 states do not restrict abortions. But you appear remarkably ambivalent about this reality. Ya know, of viable unborn babies being killed cuz mommy is poor and stressed.

Quote:

These matters are best left to families and doctors and not big government.
Matters like ending viable unborn babies? How Libertarian of you.

Yes to big government for national health care. Big government intervening in prenatal care to protect a viable unborn baby? NOOOOOOO GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY HEALTH CARE



Big government national health care actually improves the healthcare decision-making abilities of patients and doctors by removing big private insurance from the equation.
They also fund family planning, education, and contraception so that unwanted pregnancies, and thus the need for abortions, are minimized
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?



"...and submitted for your consideration is one Donald J. tRump, President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth."

"Trump was bemoaning the legal protections afforded migrants and espousing the need for a border wall when he asked rhetorically, "How do you stop these people?"

"Shoot them!" someone shouted from the Panama City Beach crowd, according to multiple news media reports.

The remark drew a chuckle from the president, who then shook his head, pointed in the audience member's direction and said, "Only in the Panhandle you can get away with that statement." USA Today

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dang
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/10/beto-orourke-2020-president-campaign-profile-failing-up-226866


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Also...
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
'A hate-for-profit racket': Warren refuses Fox town hall invite

Quote:

The Massachusetts senator sets herself apart from Bernie Sanders and other Democrats who've played ball with the network.


Elizabeth Warren, if nothing, is very smart...or she reads international news because the Aussies have realized Rupert Murdoch has pedaled hate for profit and anti-democracy media for quite some time.

Citizen Murdoch's critical grip on democracy

Are World's Democracies finally turning on Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox 'Cancer on Politics?'

Frankly the U.S. should deport Murdoch or pass legislation that FOREIGNERS can not own U.S. media.
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

'A hate-for-profit racket': Warren refuses Fox town hall invite

Quote:

The Massachusetts senator sets herself apart from Bernie Sanders and other Democrats who've played ball with the network.


Elizabeth Warren, if nothing, is very smart...or she reads international news because the Aussies have realized Rupert Murdoch has pedaled hate for profit and anti-democracy media for quite some time.

Citizen Murdoch's critical grip on democracy

Are World's Democracies finally turning on Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox 'Cancer on Politics?'

Frankly the U.S. should deport Murdoch or pass legislation that FOREIGNERS can not own U.S. media.
The flip side, is how are you supposed to be build a national consensus and lead the entire nation if you don't at least engage with the other side. Leaving 40% of Americans in their own echo chamber doesn't seem to be the most prudent strategy. Engage that 40% and show them you are not the devil incarnate, explain your reasons and values informing your policies. You may not convince them, but you may make them more understanding.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Another Bear said:

'A hate-for-profit racket': Warren refuses Fox town hall invite

Quote:

The Massachusetts senator sets herself apart from Bernie Sanders and other Democrats who've played ball with the network.


Elizabeth Warren, if nothing, is very smart...or she reads international news because the Aussies have realized Rupert Murdoch has pedaled hate for profit and anti-democracy media for quite some time.

Citizen Murdoch's critical grip on democracy

Are World's Democracies finally turning on Rupert Murdoch's News Corp/Fox 'Cancer on Politics?'

Frankly the U.S. should deport Murdoch or pass legislation that FOREIGNERS can not own U.S. media.
The flip side, is how are you supposed to be build a national consensus and lead the entire nation if you don't at least engage with the other side. Leaving 40% of Americans in their own echo chamber doesn't seem to be the most prudent strategy. Engage that 40% and show them you are not the devil incarnate, explain your reasons and values informing your policies. You may not convince them, but you may make them more understanding.

40%?
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Reference to Trump's base, the majority of whom get their news from Fox. Democrats can't leave them alone and think they'll go away, at some point they need to engage them. It won't win them any political battles any time soon, but you can't let the fear and hate mongering just fester, that is a recipe for disaster.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My queen.

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's a really long election.


B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pack your bags, Kelly09 and GB4L, I'm buying each of you one of these bad boys.


Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Pack your bags, Kelly09 and GB4L, I'm buying each of you one of these bad boys.





Here's some send-off music for the lads. It's gonna be one hell of an adventure!

Now can I get a YEE HAW in here y'all?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


How else are these guys:

Going to convince these guys:


That economic policies that only help these guys:


Are in the best interest of these guys:
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Come on BA, Trump is uniting the country. This might be hard to believe, but before he became president, rural red staters had a distrust of city slickers. Trump's good faith representation of their interests will surely lead to a long-term improvement of relations between the rural and urban populations.

srsly though, it's really hard to feel sorry for rural red staters who fell for a NYC real estate "mogul" with no history of public service (and plenty of history of the exact opposite) because he claimed to put their interests before himself.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

My queen.
false idol
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BI leftists: we care about saving lives

States seek to save more lives by placing more restrictions on aborting the unborn

BI leftists: women-hating bigotry!

 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.