Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 606

CatBus said:

Elected officials count the votes (the job of the Majority Whip) before they’re cast. Bills are assured passage before they go to the floor. There are only two reasons bills ever fail on the floor like this:

1. The majority whip really screwed up, and somebody’s going to pay
2. This is a vote only for show, so that people can make pre-written speeches to reprint on their campaign materials during the next election, to rally their base

Take a wild guess which one this was.

So weird when politicians do those, you know, political things.

Thank goodness it’s just limited to Republicans or the country would really be in trouble.

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

I admit that was pretty snarky, but I can’t help but get irritated. So often, people mischaracterize those who are pro-life, whether willfully or in stupidity, and I find it very frustrating. Your comment would appear neutral in isolation, but you have a lengthy post history identifying when Republicans are “at it again,” pointing out the political maneuvers they pull. Admittedly, your analyses are interesting, but they never appear to be neutral. You always seem to point out these tricks when they serve an interest on the Right.

You’ve always been rather reasonable, so forgive my rudeness. I don’t mean to insult you. It’s just a topic that I feel passionate about and I don’t care for oversimplification of my perspective. You are collateral damage from my general irritation. Sorry.

CatBus said:

Hey, I get it, and it’s all good. I’d rather be your collateral damage than a lot of other people. And no, I’m not hitting on you.

You’re not? Well, now you’ve insulted me.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

That’s probably true of more pro-lifers than you think.

And maybe not true of more pro-lifers than you think. (especially the female pro-lifers)

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

That’s probably true of more pro-lifers than you think.

That’s exactly how to have constructive dialogue with the opposite side.

It’s probably true that more pro-choicers just want to kill babies than you think.

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

On the right side of history - those that support the following:

-Women gaining the right to vote
-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want
-Gay people gaining the right to marry
-Republicans gaining the right to force my wife and I to carry our 21-week-fetus with several abnormalities (including missing organs that, you know, will allow our daughter to, you know, LIVE) to term

So yeah, fuck him.

Oh and by the way, pulled out of that article - a poll from 2017 showing that in fact he’s on the wrong side of history.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

On the right side of history? Fuck you Graham.

I mean, he couldn’t possibly believe he was actually doing the right thing, could he? We all know that pro-life folks really just want to keep women in the kitchen.

On the right side of history - those that support the following:

-Women gaining the right to vote

Oh, you mean like basically how the Republican Party did this.

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democratic Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

-Gay people gaining the right to marry

You are correct that Republicans have been more opposed than Democrats. However, to paint Democrats as always favoring is dishonest. In 1996, Bill Clinton passed the Defense of Marriage Act. In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced that they supported traditional marriage and opposed gay marriage.

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/02/10/axelrod-says-obama-lied-about-opposing-gay-marriage-its-another-convenient-evolution/?utm_term=.364c75e092a8

Of course, you may argue that it was purely political and that they only did so to secure political support. But support from whom? From the Democrat constituents. For instance, in 2008 when they both ran for president, only 50% of Democrats supported gay marriage.

-Republicans gaining the right to force my wife and I

Actually, “Republicans gaining the right to force my wife and me…”

Sorry, but I feel a little levity could lighten this serious conversation. No offense is intended 😃

to carry our 21-week-fetus with several abnormalities (including missing organs that, you know, will allow our daughter to, you know, LIVE) to term

So, I suppose that instead of having the conversation that abortion should not be allowed except in certain circumstances, let’s just make it allowable in as many circumstances as possible. Instead of attempting to minimize it except when a child has no prospect for life, or for rape, or for incest, or for the mother’s health, let’s just make it universally available for all including those who are using it as their backup birth control. Oh, and many Republicans actually would support legislation that would have allowed abortion in your case.

From yhwx’s article:

It would make nearly all abortions after 20 weeks illegal… [emphasis added]

I did look it up, and this particular bill does not include your circumstances. However, though I could not find any polling data, I know that a number of conservatives and pro-lifers actually would back you up. Unfortunately, we have to neatly divide ourselves into the heuristically simplistic pro-life and pro-choice camps, and we have to assume that the opposing side is universally taking the most extreme views on the subject just so that we can have a black-and-white argument and paint our opponents as vile and unethical.

I will drop a link to a page in this thread where I jumped in to argument against abortion. I hope that my views are laid even clearer there.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Politics-2-Electric-Boogaloo/id/53003/page/52#1039247

And here is the thread I started several years ago, which would also be enlightening.

http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/The-thread-where-we-make-enemies-out-of-friends-aka-the-abortion-debate-thread/id/13620/page/1

So yeah, f*** him.

Yep. There couldn’t be any good to his motivation, even if we disagree. He falls into the pro-life group, and we know that every one of those is interested in nothing except limiting my choices in my particular circumstances. Screw him and his ilk.

Sure.

JEDIT: I kinda stopped reading after your first two points because it misses the point of what I was saying. I don’t care who gave those people those rights. This isn’t a party issue, this is a “fuck the guy who said he’s on the right side of history” issue.

I didn’t say “fuck you _ender” or even “fuck the Republican party” by the way. Although they did vote to say “fuck you Frink and Ms. Frink” so I think the second one would have been fair if I had said it.

TV’s Frink said:

Oh and by the way, pulled out of that article - a poll from 2017 showing that in fact he’s on the wrong side of history.

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

And this proves…?

Public opinions are known to fluctuate. Perhaps, one day they will drop. Even Republicans used to be evenly split, and now they find themselves far more pro-life.

I don’t care how popular something is nationwide. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and I will fight for the life of an unborn child till my dying breath. It has nothing to do with denying women their rights. It has everything to do with granting a child his/her rights.

TV’s Frink said:

Sure.

JEDIT: I kinda stopped reading after your first two points…

I don’t know what the rest of your post said because you’re so wrong that there is no point.

While this is not actually true, it is aggravating when someone says something like it.

I do hope that one day, our country will support unborn life in most circumstances. Who cares what the prevailing opinion of today is?

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Democrat Party

You can do better.

I’d like to know what you are taking issue with other than pointing out that things are not black-and-white. Especially when that is taken out of context, I don’t know what your are upset with. I am not accusing all Democrats of anything, just like I am trying to point out that one cannot accuse Republicans or conservatives or pro-lifers of being one-size-fits-all.

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It is worth noting the Democrat party pretty much fell apart in the late 60s. And LBJ’s motives in the Civil Rights department are debatable.

I know I said I’d never post in this thread again, but someone mentioned the 60s and I feel like I can contribute.

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

By the way, did you actually read the rest of that sentence you quoted?

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Everyone who voted for that bill wants to take away our (my wife’s and I’s) choice to terminate our pregnancy because it’s past a magic number of weeks and who gives a damn what the actual circumstances are. So yeah, I don’t care what your opinion of that is, not one bit.

A constructive dialogue would be possible if people were willing to talk and listen to each other. The 20 week point is when fetuses may be able to feel pain. I think circumstances do make a difference. Sadly, this all becomes a moot point. Inflicting pain and killing a life just because it is inconvenient/unwanted is what troubles me. Whatever policy views one has, I don’t know how one can’t be troubled by that.

Of course that troubles me. But the Republican Party tries to make all abortions illegal after 20 weeks, and that’s bullshit.