|
raditts posted:I can't think of much that would be worse than trump, but if we're imagining optimal alternate universes here, I feel like we could aim higher. "You hate gays and blacks and want to nuke north korea....but you'll vote for us? Welcome aboard!" Yeah gently caress that big tent bullshit. It isn't needed to win and it results in, at best, more of the same while we just wait for the inexorable tide of public opinion to glacially change things that could be done in a fraction of the time if we had something resembling a progressive party, or even one that wasn't just center-right-flirting-with-right like the democrats.
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
oohhboy posted:Why do a lot of people reflexly think this is bad? "My fellow Americans...I know the Chinese invading Washington State is worrying, but we're waiting on opinion polls to tell us if we need to fight back. There are a lot of Asian-American voters who might feel that retaliation is too extreme."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
raditts posted:I can't think of much that would be worse than trump, but if we're imagining optimal alternate universes here, I feel like we could aim higher. Resurrected Teddy Roosevelt for president.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
I am pretty sure the big tent thing is gone for the time being. The centre has failed and the left is out for blood. Unless you're a Republican there is no way you are going to miss the message of what the electorate wants and needs. Obama flaw that he refused to acknowledge was trying to work with the republicans is worse than wasted effort. The Cheshire Cat posted:Resurrected Teddy Roosevelt for president. What about Eisenhower for lols? The man has an R next to his name.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I am pretty sure the big tent thing is gone for the time being. I assure you it is most definitely not.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Why do a lot of people reflexly think this is bad? Mostly misogyny
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:What about Eisenhower for lols? The man has an R next to his name. Or Lincoln, the original Republican president.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:I am pretty sure the big tent thing is gone for the time being. The centre has failed and the left is out for blood. Nancy Pelosi has said recently "we're capitalists" and "you can be a Democrat and pro-life" so uh, try again. The left in this country is absolutely out for blood. They just aren't largely supported by the Democratic party!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Is this a running message or a one off gaff? If she has switched her tune and has been consistent in her messaging away from that position, I don't see the point for crucifying her over it. Anything is better than the GOP death cult.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
You guys do know when people talk about the good Bush they mean HW, not his idiot son
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Is this a running message or a one off gaff? If she has switched her tune and has been consistent in her messaging away from that position, I don't see the point for crucifying her over it. The stuff Die Sexmonster mentioned has all been since the election. She has also said that public option / single payer healthcare reform will explicitly not be part of the DNC platform.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Nancy Pelosi has said recently "we're capitalists" and "you can be a Democrat and pro-life" so uh, try again. You do realize the Democrats are a coalition and they need people to get elected in areas that aren't ready for "full communist now" if they give no leeway to people in red states then they are never going to get in power again.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You do realize the Democrats are a coalition and they need people to get elected in areas that aren't ready for "full communist now" if they give no leeway to people in red states then they are never going to get in power again. There's some space between full communism and having loving principles. Women's health is definitely one of them I consider important.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
My opinion of Pelosi is complicated. I kind of see her as what Hillary Clinton wished she was, a mostly competent, seasoned party elder and political survivor who has obligations to political elites, who nonetheless broke ground by successfully becoming the first woman to hold a major national office, along with winning a few crucial political victories. I'll give her credit for not dropping the ball when public opinion finally turned on Bush, by giving the Democrats their victory in 2006. (Yeah... a lot of other Democrats who might deserve credit, like Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean, have since killed a lot of the goodwill.) She probably deserves as much credit for the ACA as Obama. But yeah... she's also a creature of everything wrong with the old guard of the party. She didn't fight Obama's more controversial policies. A creature of Washington, she didn't see an alternative to big donors and stuff. Jon Stewart's interview with her was telling. She underestimated the populist backlash in 2016. I almost don't blame her for capitulating to the whole capitalism line; because of course it's way outside her political imagination. We haven't really got to see what Pelosi would have done if the Democratic Party faced a major upheaval... like what if a bunch of Berniecrats primaried out a bunch of old guard Dems, or if Bernie himself became POTUS. It's possible, as the party leader, she would have dashed leftward. Or it's possible she would have undermined a more progressive agenda.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:You do realize the Democrats are a coalition and they need people to get elected in areas that aren't ready for "full communist now" if they give no leeway to people in red states then they are never going to get in power again. So tell me, how has cozying up to Republican "values" worked out for Democrats in the past? What leads you to believe the result will be different in the future?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
raditts posted:So tell me, how has cozying up to Republican "values" worked out for Democrats in the past? What leads you to believe the result will be different in the future? It's worked well, there are several Democratic Congresspeople who only manage to skate by in red states by being more centrist, I'm not saying it's an ideal situation but if you ever want to control the house/senate again and have a small chance at some progress it's the only way.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
raditts posted:So tell me, how has cozying up to Republican "values" worked out for Democrats in the past? What leads you to believe the result will be different in the future? Neoliberalism seemed to work pretty well for Bill Clinton and Obama.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's worked well, there are several Democratic Congresspeople who only manage to skate by in red states by being more centrist, I'm not saying it's an ideal situation but if you ever want to control the house/senate again and have a small chance at some progress it's the only way. That's interesting, because the Republican majority in the house / senate seems to say otherwise, as it did in 2014 when a bunch of democrats running for Congress decided going "I'm not like Obama, I'm like you guys, honest!!" was a good idea for some reason, not figuring that conservatives would just vote for a Republican rather than a Democrat pretending to be a Republican.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Why do a lot of people reflexly think this is bad? To be fair, when "President Trump" is the status quo then pretty much anything else is a better option, such as a flaming bag of dogshit. "President Pelosi" also has the bonus of loving enraging all the cuckservatives, which is pretty much my goal as a goon so that's pretty great. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Nancy Pelosi has said recently "we're capitalists" and "you can be a Democrat and pro-life" so uh, try again. I know a bunch of democrats in Massachusetts who are pro-life, and they are liberal in everything else.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I know a bunch of democrats in Massachusetts who are pro-life, and they are liberal in everything else. Yeah, I have a friend who's in this boat. It works out that her "pro-life" stance is dramatically more measured (increase funding for sex education, increase availability of contraceptives, etc.) than the stock Republican's "pro-life" stance ("KEEP YOUR BABY, GOD SAYS SO, MURDERER").
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I almost don't blame her for capitulating to the whole capitalism line; because of course it's way outside her political imagination. This kind of thinking is killing our politics, we can't have too much change because the Very Serious People think it's too much. gently caress Nancy Pelosi and every other old guard Dem. How come I never hear a Dem say "let's fix Social Security forever by eliminating the tax cap?" because Very Serious People know that's too radical a solution, despite being a perfect one. Literally everyone in my generation thinks we're not going to have access to SS, but we could, easily. God, it's all so frustrating. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 16:01 on May 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
xeria posted:Yeah, I have a friend who's in this boat. It works out that her "pro-life" stance is dramatically more measured (increase funding for sex education, increase availability of contraceptives, etc.) than the stock Republican's "pro-life" stance ("KEEP YOUR BABY, GOD SAYS SO, MURDERER"). To be fair, almost anybody who's 'pro choice' is also 'pro life.' I don't think you'll find any non-insane people who are specifically 'pro abortion.' Your average Republican, however, isn't 'pro life,' but specifically 'anti-abortion.'
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:To be fair, almost anybody who's 'pro choice' is also 'pro life.' I don't think you'll find any non-insane people who are specifically 'pro abortion.' Yeah, being personally against abortion still counts as "pro choice" as long as you don't have a pathological need to push your personal beliefs onto other people and you acknowledge that other people's decisions on the matter are none of your god damned business. Because what you want to do with your own body is your choice.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
raditts posted:Yeah, being personally against abortion still counts as "pro choice" as long as you don't have a pathological need to push your personal beliefs onto other people and you acknowledge that other people's decisions on the matter are none of your god damned business. Exactly. I'm 'pro choice' in that it's the woman's choice, period. However, I'm also 'pro life' in that all other things being equal, it'd be nice if the baby managed to get born, and maybe given up for adoption or something. Also, far better than either of those would be proper sex education, availability of affordable and effective contraception, etc etc etc.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:it'd be nice if the baby managed to get born, and maybe given up for adoption or something. Why do people care? It's not your baby. You don't know the parents. Why do you give a gently caress? What difference does it make to you if one in six billion people you'll never meet dies? That's what always got me. It's not your kid. Step off.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Why do people care? If you were going to say the fetus wasn't a person, then sure, but you're saying it is a person and we shouldn't care if other people die as long as we don't know them?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Why do people care? Hence the initial statement of "it's her choice, period." Hence the statement that initial prevention of pregnancy via education and availability of contraception is also a drat fine idea. I'd never try to talk a woman out of an abortion. I'd ask if they'd thought about the alternatives, the same way I'd ask anybody about any potential life-changing decision, and if the relationship was the kind that allowed for such questions. Which is to say, out of concern for them. For random strangers, you're absolutely right. Not my concern, and if I were standing outside an abortion clinic to interact with strangers, it would be to help escort them in past protesters, no questions asked. That said, I'm allowed, in the abstract, to have opinions, dawg.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Why do people care? Florida Betty posted:If you were going to say the fetus wasn't a person, then sure, but you're saying it is a person and we shouldn't care if other people die as long as we don't know them? They only care that babbies are born, not what happens to them afterward. Republicans aren't scrambling to adopt all parentless/unwanted/abandoned/whatever babies, they just want to oppose voluntary pregnancy termination (as opposed to miscarriages, which are I guess God's abortions?) to make themselves feel morally superior. Meanwhile they promote anti-life policies like an obsessive pro-gun stance, as well as opposing environmental regulations and the previously discussed contraception and sex ed. Republicans are pro-birth, anti-abortion, anti-life.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Republicans are pro-birth, anti-abortion, anti-life. It's like the best page in the universe all over again! Against abortions, for killing babies
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Republicans have an inconsistent position because they've tied together two masters between the super-wealthy and the religious people. Elements of Catholicism especially preach this Cover The Earth mentality as if the world isn't overpopulated. But they also don't care about the human suffering the economic consequences of such a policy will bring about. This is a ripe audience for Republicans to pander to because "it's unfortunate people got hurt but at least I got my tax cuts" is the slogan for the past 40 years of GOP magic. Pro-life progressives who believe in contraception and free health care, treating addiction as a disease instead of a personal failing, etc, at least have a consistent moral platform to speak from.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Republicans have an inconsistent position because they've tied together two masters between the super-wealthy and the religious people. Elements of Catholicism especially preach this Cover The Earth mentality as if the world isn't overpopulated. But they also don't care about the human suffering the economic consequences of such a policy will bring about. The Catholic church cares very much about suffering and guilt. Their entire business model is pretty much built around it.  Republicans also revel in all that "When I was your age I had to walk 12 miles through the snow barefoot for a loaf of bread" suffering. It builds character! (Just as long as it's not happening to them right here right now.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:To be fair, almost anybody who's 'pro choice' is also 'pro life.' I don't think you'll find any non-insane people who are specifically 'pro abortion.' Carrying the baby to term for adoption isn't a great option for many people. You get to experience all the pains and inconveniences of pregnancy and childbirth (having to take time off work for birth and recovery, permanently scarring or injuring your body) without even getting a baby out of it. Contraception is a much better option than abortion because it's more convenient. But the abortion stigma should go away. Sivart13 fucked around with this message at 00:28 on May 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:They only care that Christian babbies are born, The pro-life movement doesn't give a drat about sanctity of life, only about making sure that their corner of the world stays overwhelmingly Christian. If they saw a Muslim woman who was getting an abortion, I'd bet real money they'd do nothing to stop her.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:I grew up 'pro-life' but have definitely switched over to 'pro-abortion'. Especially after having my own kid and experiencing firsthand how challenging pregnancy and delivery can be. If you're not ready to raise a child, you should have the option to shut it down. It should probably be the preferred option. That's not pro-abortion. Pro abortion would be "all women should get abortions," the way pro life really means "no woman should ever get an abortion."
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:They only care that babbies are born, not what happens to them afterward. Republicans aren't scrambling to adopt all parentless/unwanted/abandoned/whatever babies, they just want to oppose voluntary pregnancy termination (as opposed to miscarriages, which are I guess God's abortions?) to make themselves feel morally superior. Every woman or two stupid teenagers saddled with a baby too early in their lives are 1-2 people far less likely to wind up in the middle class or higher, which are two less people likely to have even the smallest chance to change the status quo or challenge those in power.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > The TV IV > LWT: The Abortion Thread Can't wait for the next episode of LWT so we can talk about something on-topic! Azhais posted:It's like the best page in the universe all over again! Against abortions, for killing babies Lol Az.  Yup, gotta survive long enough to squeeze 'em out, then they don't care if you shoot them (especially if they're black and/or elementary schoolkids!) See you in WoT a little later?  Craptacular! posted:Republicans have an inconsistent position because they've tied together two masters between the super-wealthy and the religious people. Elements of Catholicism especially preach this Cover The Earth mentality as if the world isn't overpopulated. But they also don't care about the human suffering the economic consequences of such a policy will bring about. This is a ripe audience for Republicans to pander to because "it's unfortunate people got hurt but at least I got my tax cuts" is the slogan for the past 40 years of GOP magic. This is the best summary I've seen of these particular issues in terms of the differences between parties. Snowglobe of Doom posted:The Catholic church cares very much about suffering and guilt. Their entire business model is pretty much built around it. He was referring to the Republicans not caring about people's suffering, not the Catholics. Sivart13 posted:I grew up 'pro-life' but have definitely switched over to 'pro-abortion'. Especially after having my own kid and experiencing firsthand how challenging pregnancy and delivery can be. If you're not ready to raise a child, you should have the option to shut it down. It should probably be the preferred option. It sounds like you're being facetious in part, but promote contraception and education first, which is something that should be non-controversial and appeal to most of the political spectrum, without even getting to the abortion issue. Fake edit: I see you edited your own post to be more in line with what I was originally going to respond with, which I'll leave here for the hell of it. You're right about not forcing women to carry to term, particularly in cases of rape/incest. Obviously it's not the kid's fault but it really isn't anyone else's right to force a rape victim to have their rapist's kid. It's literally one person's decision, the victim, that's it. Compelling women to carry to term by abortion-restricting legislation is also increasing the size of government, something Republicans always claim to oppose.  Also there are the medically necessary abortions for ectopic pregnancies and the like, which are actually opposed by some (like the Catholic hospitals which John covered not too long ago.) That's without even getting into the point that one of the complications of pregnancy/delivery is the mother's death, although that's more common in underdeveloped parts of the world. You can't claim to be "pro-life" if you advocate a position that knowingly results in the mother's death as opposed to allowing a procedure that will in all likelihood prevent it; in essence anti-abortion, by it's proponents' own definition, would result in the deaths of TWO people rather than just the non-viable embryo/fetus. Paper Kaiju posted:The pro-life movement doesn't give a drat about sanctity of life, only about making sure that their corner of the world stays overwhelmingly Christian. If they saw a Muslim woman who was getting an abortion, I'd bet real money they'd do nothing to stop her. I mean I don't disagree with the sentiment but from what I've perceived, the anti-aborters still hold that position regardless of the ethnicity/religion/whatever of the mother/child. I wouldn't say the anti-abortion stance is exclusively tied to Christianity (isn't "pro-life" also reflected in Islam/Judaism/Buddhism, etc.?) What I have seen is the American Christian/Republican/"Pro-Life" hypocrisy, not in terms of the aforementioned "don't care what happens to people after their born" or "more legislation when it pleases them = smaller government paradox" but in that some of them try to secretly have abortions for themselves when convenient while publicly advocating otherwise, for example this guy. It reminds me of the hypocrisy of the Palin family, with their typical Republican anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-premarital sex stances, and the fact that Bristol keeps raw-dogging it, out of wedlock, and pumping out kids while being an "abstinence advocate."  BIG HEADLINE posted:Every woman or two stupid teenagers saddled with a baby too early in their lives are 1-2 people far less likely to wind up in the middle class or higher, which are two less people likely to have even the smallest chance to change the status quo or challenge those in power. Hey destruya! That's a good point, and the poverty issues are yet another layer on top of the whole abortion thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
So uh, are they ever gonna do that TSA segment in full? Because it seems like they really should.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:So uh, are they ever gonna do that TSA segment in full?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
Will the show be new this Sunday? I really want to see John Oliver talk about the UK election, which is turning out to be way closer than anyone anticipated just a few weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 20:15
|
|