President Trump- The Implications

[heironymouspasparagus]

You used to stand up to Mary Failin.  What happened to that person?



On another note, look who's the voice of reason now:

George W. Bush on immigrants: 'We ought to say thank you and welcome them'

Bush has used illegals in his ranch for decades - it's only common decency that he thank them and say thanks for their low paid efforts...

[erfalf]

You used to stand up to Mary Failin.  What happened to that person?



On another note, look who's the voice of reason now:

George W. Bush on immigrants: 'We ought to say thank you and welcome them'

I'm starting to see an interesting mental leap that must be taken when it comes to abortion and imigration.

On one hand, I should support abortion because it helps with poverty by I presume reducing the population that needs assistance or whatever.

On the other hand, I should support a relatively free flow of immigration, while ignoring the poor among us already (that supposedly need access to abortions so their aren't more of them).

Is this what humanity looks like?

[rebound]

I'm starting to see an interesting mental leap that must be taken when it comes to abortion and imigration.

On one hand, I should support abortion because it helps with poverty by I presume reducing the population that needs assistance or whatever.

On the other hand, I should support a relatively free flow of immigration, while ignoring the poor among us already (that supposedly need access to abortions so their aren't more of them).

Is this what humanity looks like?

Who's making that equivocation?   Also, I don't think anyone is saying anyone else should support abortion.  Rather, we should acknowledge and accept a woman's right to choose.   Any logic attempt at correlating the abortion and immigration topics would be seriously misguided.

Also, the single topic of whether restricting immigration would have any real effect on the overall poor/homeless problems in the US is far too broad  to discuss here.  The cascading economic factors, etc, make it a very convoluted discussion.  (I'm sure that won't keep some people from weighing in on it, but other than "it's complicated", there's not much that we on this forum can say.)

[erfalf]

Who's making that equivocation?   Also, I don't think anyone is saying anyone else should support abortion.  Rather, we should acknowledge and accept a woman's right to choose.   Any logic attempt at correlating the abortion and immigration topics would be seriously misguided.

Also, the single topic of whether restricting immigration would have any real effect on the overall poor/homeless problems in the US is far too broad  to discuss here.  The cascading economic factors, etc, make it a very convoluted discussion.  (I'm sure that won't keep some people from weighing in on it, but other than "it's complicated", there's not much that we on this forum can say.)

It's misguided to hold both opinions in my estimation. And I think you honestly are being quite patronizing by saying it's just some mild misunderstanding between those that are for and against abortion. I can't recall all of the numerous times I was told how hateful pro-lifers are in regards to poor people. "Oh you only care about them before their born" I think is how it goes, or at least that's the one I get the most. You have to acknowledge that line of thought is extraordinarily prevalent.

And yes, I will agree that linking immigration policies and poverty is a difficult thing to do. Most just respected analyst literally throw up their hands and say it is too complicated. And it is. But if we continue to adopt a rather broad standard of entry into this country, I can promise you they won't self select and we will only get computer scientist or better.

Now I will grant that being poor in the US, is decidedly more appealing than being poor in a lot of places that they come from.

[rebound]

It's misguided to hold both opinions in my estimation. And I think you honestly are being quite patronizing by saying it's just some mild misunderstanding between those that are for and against abortion. I can't recall all of the numerous times I was told how hateful pro-lifers are in regards to poor people. "Oh you only care about them before their born" I think is how it goes, or at least that's the one I get the most. You have to acknowledge that line of thought is extraordinarily prevalent.

And yes, I will agree that linking immigration policies and poverty is a difficult thing to do. Most just respected analyst literally throw up their hands and say it is too complicated. And it is. But if we continue to adopt a rather broad standard of entry into this country, I can promise you they won't self select and we will only get computer scientist or better.

Now I will grant that being poor in the US, is decidedly more appealing than being poor in a lot of places that they come from.

Alright, I get your original post now.  And I definitely do not mean to be patronizing on the subject, and that definitely was not my intent.   I think though that you are "conflating two separate lines of thought, and turning the argument around", or something like that. 

Let's hold aside the immigration aspect, as the "abortion/poor" topic is not specific to immigrants, but to "the poor" in general. (Yes, some immigrants are poor and there is overlap, but that is tangential to the main point.)   

The abortion aspect is primarily religious/moral.  There are exceptions, but in general an actively religious person and/or or a morally conservative person will tend towards being against abortion.

The "helping the poor" aspect has moral overtones, but is primarily a financial or small-govt argument.  It simply costs a lot of money, etc...

With the increasing conflux of both religious/moral and economic conservatism in the GOP in recent years (basically Reagan era onward), these two aspects have caused a paradox, whereby the intent/direction of one aspect influences the second.   Basically, restricting and/or outlawing abortion will result in a higher number of children being born, many times (a majority?  don't know...) into poor households, which puts a further burden on the mother and/or family and exacerbates an already stressed situation.

So there is some validity to the "Oh you only care about them before their born" complaint.

And, again, this is a very broad topic and most likely requires a much more nuanced answer than what we here (or our representatives in congress) seem capable of right now.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It's misguided to hold both opinions in my estimation. And I think you honestly are being quite patronizing by saying it's just some mild misunderstanding between those that are for and against abortion. I can't recall all of the numerous times I was told how hateful pro-lifers are in regards to poor people. "Oh you only care about them before their born" I think is how it goes, or at least that's the one I get the most. You have to acknowledge that line of thought is extraordinarily prevalent.

And yes, I will agree that linking immigration policies and poverty is a difficult thing to do. Most just respected analyst literally throw up their hands and say it is too complicated. And it is. But if we continue to adopt a rather broad standard of entry into this country, I can promise you they won't self select and we will only get computer scientist or better.

Now I will grant that being poor in the US, is decidedly more appealing than being poor in a lot of places that they come from.

Again, the Fake Fox News approach to twisting what is actually said - jump to extreme illogical nonsense - no one...at least no one with a brain...the issue has never been about being "for" abortion just to get rid of undesirables.  Well, except for Trump and his ilk, "eugenics" types.  


The untwisted, undistorted version of this question has always been about a woman's right to make her life choices with her doctor.  As much BS noise as is heard from the RWRE about "unwarranted government intrusion", it is sometimes a little surprising to hear just how much they feel they are entitled to intrude.  Maybe not so surprising given the levels of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty exhibited elsewhere by same.   (And yeah, I know...both sides indulge...and as always, it is a "mote in one's eye version the beam in the other's.)

[patric]

I think he cares as much about our military and law enforcement as it serves his purposes because that's how he's always rolled.  If he thinks he's being wrongly accused of something he doesn't seem to love law enforcement so much.  Last I checked the FBI is part of our law enforcement system, yes?  Other than the military protecting his global business interests, please explain how he demonstrates love for the military?  In my mind, GW Bush and his father are the last two Presidents who truly cared about the military.  Take a look at GW's record in trying to help vets and disabled vets and I think you will see that Trump lags far behind because he lacks the ability to truly care about anyone but The Donald.

Who really thought that Mister-little-hands-big-button's praising 1968 Chicago Police Riot-style thuggery was actually "supporting law enforcement?"

[guido911]

You used to stand up to Mary Failin.  What happened to that person?

I work hard at not being robotic with loyalty to a person because of political affiliation—which is a crap ton more than I can say about many in this place. It bores me to no end listening to them. I call out Trump when he does something I disagree with, and have also said positive things about Obama. Can you make the same claim? How about Swake, or his creepy remora, and the numerous others?

As for the governor herself, I am not into local/state politics right now. Too many idiots misbehaving for me to even care. What has she done recently?

[heironymouspasparagus]

The abortion aspect is primarily religious/moral.  There are exceptions, but in general an actively religious person and/or or a morally conservative person will tend towards being against abortion.

The "helping the poor" aspect has moral overtones, but is primarily a financial or small-govt argument.  It simply costs a lot of money, etc...

With the increasing conflux of both religious/moral and economic conservatism in the GOP in recent years (basically Reagan era onward), these two aspects have caused a paradox, whereby the intent/direction of one aspect influences the second.   Basically, restricting and/or outlawing abortion will result in a higher number of children being born, many times (a majority?  don't know...) into poor households, which puts a further burden on the mother and/or family and exacerbates an already stressed situation.

So there is some validity to the "Oh you only care about them before their born" complaint.

And, again, this is a very broad topic and most likely requires a much more nuanced answer than what we here (or our representatives in congress) seem capable of right now.

Ok, let's nuance some... the "johnny come lately" disapproval of all abortion by southern evangelists is DIRECTLY tied to the fact that their efforts to continue segregation were truly defeated by the 70's.  They needed a new 'cause' to keep the bureacracy going, so it wasn't until 1979 they finally decided to go for the abortion topic.  To keep Carter from re-election.  Abortion was a "Catholic Issue" and since the were still teaching that Catholics were Communists anyway, the Southern Baptists just weren't interested.   (SWMBO heard the Catholics are Communists manifesto her entire childhood and beyond, well into the 70's - from Southern Baptists.)  

So they changed from taking it as a personal thing - like between woman and her doctor - to being their next Big Cause.

In particular, it is interesting to see how Christianity Today treated the subject in 1968.  And how today, they backpedal hard to try to get their revisionist version to take the place of their original approach.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133


Excerpt - huge difference from today;

In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging "Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother." The convention, hardly a redoubt of liberal values, reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I call out Trump when he does something I disagree with, and have also said positive things about Obama.

Closest we have seen about Trump was when you said "if" he called them sh$thole countries, then that could be wrong.

Everything else he has done seems to be just fine....

[TeeDub]

I think even the most ardent Trump supporters wish that sometimes most times he would just keep his mouth shut....

But that just isn't the way he works, and regardless of what we want, he most likely is going to say it.

[Hoss]

Again, the Fake Fox News approach to twisting what is actually said - jump to extreme illogical nonsense - no one...at least no one with a brain...the issue has never been about being "for" abortion just to get rid of undesirables.  Well, except for Trump and his ilk, "eugenics" types.  


The untwisted, undistorted version of this question has always been about a woman's right to make her life choices with her doctor.  As much BS noise as is heard from the RWRE about "unwarranted government intrusion", it is sometimes a little surprising to hear just how much they feel they are entitled to intrude.  Maybe not so surprising given the levels of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty exhibited elsewhere by same.   (And yeah, I know...both sides indulge...and as always, it is a "mote in one's eye version the beam in the other's.)

While we're at it...let's not forget about Jeb and his handling of the Terry Schiavo case.  Disgusting.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Extremist left heads will explode....

Way past due!!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/recognizing-concealed-carry-permits-across-state-lines-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act/

[rebound]

Extremist left heads will explode....

Way past due!!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/recognizing-concealed-carry-permits-across-state-lines-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act/

This is one of those issues that the conservative states-rights crowd should be up in arms about, but somehow I don't think we'll hear a peep out of them.

*For the record,  an avid gun owner here.  But I do think the states should have the right to make their own laws on this.

   

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is one of those issues that the conservative states-rights crowd should be up in arms about, but somehow I don't think we'll hear a peep out of them.

*For the record,  an avid gun owner here.  But I do think the states should have the right to make their own laws on this.

   

I believe strongly in states rights, but also the Constitution that talks about states cannot abrogate or deny Federal rights.   Also could fall under interstate vs intrastate commerce considerations (gun sales).

Probably won't be the end of it, even if it is passed.  Will be many court challenges.