Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 156

On August 16 2019 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: bragging about grabbing women by the pussy is bragging about committing sexual assault and far more egregious than anything Hillary has ever been accused of

you mean apart from being a sociopath war criminal?

I think he has actually grabbed women by the pussy without being invited to do so. Lotta stories about him being very sexually aggressive. To me it's like a 50 year old ugly fat guy bragging about how easy it is to get laid in Thailand.

HOWEVER, I don't think the trump sideshow is interesting. Guy is a baffoon, no democrats care about clintons, and as an actual leftist, I most certainly do not, in my mind the Clintons are right of center neoliberals that have far more in common with Trump policy wise than with me policy wise.

As for your abortion question, there's definitely a religious component to it (most opposition to abortion is founded on religious grounds - not saying that all people opposed to abortion are religious - but people who are have adopted a religious reasoning for why they are opposed), and leftists have been the group most opposed to religious influence over society. (This is true today as well).

But your idea that the left is about protecting the vulnerable above personal freedom, that's not what leftists are about. They think personal freedom cannot be achieved without a much greater degree of egalitarianism.. A feudalistic society has no personal freedom, unless you're born into nobility. A fascist society has no personal freedom, unless you're born into or have achieved whatever sufficiently high status position gives you personal freedom. The communist utopia has as a fairly explicit goal to maximize personal freedom for everyone. (Obviously this has virtually no relation to the countries that have described themselves as communist/socialist, those countries have at best (cuba, early venezuela) been occupied with ending extreme poverty and providing education for all, and at worst they've been oppressive, horribly mismanaged abhorrent dictatorships.) Part of the leftist critique of the right wing and of capitalism is precisely that workers are exploited, that people are 'forced into wage slavery', wanting to give workers ownership of the means of production is exactly meant to end this negative cycle of oppression so the workers can be liberated - thus free to pursue more meaningful activities.

Then leftist guys aren't generally saying 'abortion is awesome', they're saying 'this needs to be a choice entirely up to the mother of the child. Me as a man, I cannot force a woman to undergo a pregnancy, nor can I force her to terminate it. It should always be a decision decided by the pregnant woman'. Again, the ability of yourself to decide whether you want to commit your life to motherhood or not is essential to women being free.

I mean I agree that leftists are more guilty than the right wing (at least in norway and probably the rest of the west by extension) of making seemingly stupid regulations that make your actions less unhindered which gives the impression that you have less freedom. But those regulations (sometimes they are misguided, sometimes they're wrong, often they successfully operate according to intention) are supposed to regulate external factors of your actions that might negatively influence the freedom of other people. Pollution is one such example, it's easy to make money from harvesting natural resources but doing so often creates external problems, so there has to be regulation. (Can't just dump toxic substances into nature etc, hinders freedom of mining companies for sure, but does so to protect a more vulnerable group (nature) and the freedom of people and animals who live in and use that nature... )

On August 16 2019 07:54 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On August 16 2019 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: bragging about grabbing women by the pussy is bragging about committing sexual assault and far more egregious than anything Hillary has ever been accused of you mean apart from being a sociopath war criminal?

I mean in the context of sexual abuse. I think Trump's sexual abuse is not on the top 50 list of reasons why he's a terrible president. It might be pretty far up on the list of why he's a terrible human, but it doesn't really matter from a political point of view. I mean I want my president to be a role model and I think Hillary is a better one than Trump, but it's a very low bar.

Her husband had a sexual affair with an intern, the intern was literally the first person on Earth to go under the internet harassment and was on suicide watch for years. She decided to stick with her husband, which literally means she s fine with all of that. Maybe she didn't have a direct sexual abuse kind of thing, but she sure as hell isn't condemning such actions.

The idea that the right cares more about human individual freedom than the left is a sick joke imo. It's totally the opposite and yeah the big example, of wage slavery, that was viewed as such a massive attack on individual freedom by adam smith and karl marx (in his theories of alienation, 1844 manuscripts). Anyone who supports corporate power, perhaps the most oppressive institutions for individual freedom today, can't pretend they support individual human freedom.

Meaning politicians are equally bad regardless of where they fall on the spectrum or lobbyism would've banned long ago

not divorcing your husband for cheating does not mean you are fine with your husband cheating, it means you don't think it's sufficient to break up your family over it.. Believing your husband when he says my extramarital affairs were consensual also does not mean you are okay with him raping women, it means you believe someone you know and love over someone you don't know and hate. I don't like Hillary (critique of her being a warmongerer is spot on, and that's much more significant) , but the way people use Bill's affairs as a moral indictment against her is really disappointing.

I've done some stupid stuff throughout my life that I greatly regret doing, as have most people. Holding my wife accountable for that stupid shit is completely unfair.

I'm not holding her accountable for the deeds of her husband. I'm holding her accountable for not condemning his deeds while he was the most important person on the planet, those are two very different things and if you can't hold people in those positions accountable, then whats the point of even having them? (not that I'm pro-government anyway)

On August 16 2019 08:09 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think he has actually grabbed women by the pussy without being invited to do so. Lotta stories about him being very sexually aggressive. To me it's like a 50 year old ugly fat guy bragging about how easy it is to get laid in Thailand. HOWEVER, I don't think the trump sideshow is interesting. Guy is a baffoon, no democrats care about clintons, and as an actual leftist, I most certainly do not, in my mind the Clintons are right of center neoliberals that have far more in common with Trump policy wise than with me policy wise. As for your abortion question, there's definitely a religious component to it (most opposition to abortion is founded on religious grounds - not saying that all people opposed to abortion are religious - but people who are have adopted a religious reasoning for why they are opposed), and leftists have been the group most opposed to religious influence over society. (This is true today as well). But your idea that the left is about protecting the vulnerable above personal freedom, that's not what leftists are about. They think personal freedom cannot be achieved without a much greater degree of egalitarianism.. A feudalistic society has no personal freedom, unless you're born into nobility. A fascist society has no personal freedom, unless you're born into or have achieved whatever sufficiently high status position gives you personal freedom. The communist utopia has as a fairly explicit goal to maximize personal freedom for everyone. (Obviously this has virtually no relation to the countries that have described themselves as communist/socialist, those countries have at best (cuba, early venezuela) been occupied with ending extreme poverty and providing education for all, and at worst they've been oppressive, horribly mismanaged abhorrent dictatorships.) Part of the leftist critique of the right wing and of capitalism is precisely that workers are exploited, that people are 'forced into wage slavery', wanting to give workers ownership of the means of production is exactly meant to end this negative cycle of oppression so the workers can be liberated - thus free to pursue more meaningful activities. Then leftist guys aren't generally saying 'abortion is awesome', they're saying 'this needs to be a choice entirely up to the mother of the child. Me as a man, I cannot force a woman to undergo a pregnancy, nor can I force her to terminate it. It should always be a decision decided by the pregnant woman'. Again, the ability of yourself to decide whether you want to commit your life to motherhood or not is essential to women being free. I mean I agree that leftists are more guilty than the right wing (at least in norway and probably the rest of the west by extension) of making seemingly stupid regulations that make your actions less unhindered which gives the impression that you have less freedom. But those regulations (sometimes they are misguided, sometimes they're wrong, often they successfully operate according to intention) are supposed to regulate external factors of your actions that might negatively influence the freedom of other people. Pollution is one such example, it's easy to make money from harvesting natural resources but doing so often creates external problems, so there has to be regulation. (Can't just dump toxic substances into nature etc, hinders freedom of mining companies for sure, but does so to protect a more vulnerable group (nature) and the freedom of people and animals who live in and use that nature... )

It wouldn't surprise me if he did especially at the times he grew up but the "bragging about sexual assault" is just hyperbolic bullshit, and I specifically said democrats not leftists, and yeah the Clinton's are closer to Trump than a leftists, they are virtually identical policy wise and its crazy that half the country think the othe half are evil, sad.

I understand the leftist vision of freedom, and I'm also pro-choice which is exactly why I'm questioning that.

Then leftist guys aren't generally saying 'abortion is awesome', they're saying 'this needs to be a choice entirely up to the mother of the child. Me as a man, I cannot force a woman to undergo a pregnancy, nor can I force her to terminate it. It should always be a decision decided by the pregnant woman'. Again, the ability of yourself to decide whether you want to commit your life to motherhood or not is essential to women being free.

read what you said carefully, In a world without a church influencing the right this would be a 100% right-wing position, valuing direct freedom (right-wing version of freedom, not releasing from labor, poverty or hierarchies to pursue higher goals) above the protection of the vulnerable, the baby.

I think if society started from the ground again these left/right positions would support the opposite sides of the abortion debate, the hippy left preaching about protecting the vulnerable baby and the right would be like "evict that mutherfucker out of ma'belly"

You say baby when you mean fetus. It's a pretty big difference, one where I think your language has been influenced by the religion that surrounds you. Nobody is in favor of killing babies, they're in favor of allowing a mother to kill the fetus that depends on her body to sustain itself before it turns into a baby if the mother feels her life will be negatively influenced by having a baby.

Has anyone in your vicinity had an abortion Drone?

Yeah, my wife had one (after like 6 weeks or something. it was basically just a small lump of blood according to her, I didn't go look myself). We're both really happy about that decision.

On August 17 2019 14:19 Santafairy wrote: Has anyone in your vicinity had an abortion Drone?

go on

On August 17 2019 13:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: You say baby when you mean fetus. It's a pretty big difference, one where I think your language has been influenced by the religion that surrounds you. Nobody is in favor of killing babies, they're in favor of allowing a mother to kill the fetus that depends on her body to sustain itself before it turns into a baby if the mother feels her life will be negatively influenced by having a baby.

Again, im pro-choice, you dont need to preach to the choir.

Its the other way around, its you the one who is focusing in language because it helps carry yout beliefs because the medical term helps dehumanize it.

If a mother says "I love the baby in my belly" you wouldn't correct her and tell her its a fetus and not a baby would you? why? because baby is a perfeclty fine term for unborn children too, and fetus is also a fine term in a medical field.


Both sides strawman and use shitty arguments:
- "Its a fetus, not a baby"
- "you just want to kill babies"
- "you just hate women"
- "my body, my choice"
- "you wouldn'nt have liked it if your mother aborted you"

All these are mindless strawman arguments that fail to recognize the complexity of the dispute, its a moral dilemma like the trolley problem and the worst thing we can do in such a difficult dilemma is oversimplify it and create dishonest arguments and that is the bullshit that is repeated by both sides non-stop.

Unsolvable dispute - perfect thing to use in politics

I can already see how this will look like 1000 years from now - "Is it morally right to upload your brain to a robot"

Dilemmas are an easy thing to handle - leave people to handle them personally and don't make choices for them unless they can have really hard scientific evidence that should allow only a single action... which is not the case.

Obviously, if you create an imaginary problem, you can also expand on its importance and people will buy that shit. I'm honestly unsure of how people in the US are not tired of having the same old fucking topics discussed every 5 years. Anyone else bringing the same things up as problem every 5 years would be fired from their job

I honestly don't think early term abortions are a complex issue at all. Mom should be allowed to do it for whatever reason imo, even 'he said he didnt like condoms and I hoped I wouldn't get pregnant' (especially that actually cuz that person wouldn't be a suitable mom ). It becomes gradually more and more complex the more developed and more baby-like the fetus gets, and I think the turning point is basically 'can the fetus survive outside the womb', at that point you need a very good medical reason (serious health complication of either if birth is followed through with). But I just don't see any issues with first trimester abortions.

hilarious Andrew Schulz about Trump grabbing pussy

On August 18 2019 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: I honestly don't think early term abortions are a complex issue at all. Mom should be allowed to do it for whatever reason imo, even 'he said he didnt like condoms and I hoped I wouldn't get pregnant' (especially that actually cuz that person wouldn't be a suitable mom ). It becomes gradually more and more complex the more developed and more baby-like the fetus gets, and I think the turning point is basically 'can the fetus survive outside the womb', at that point you need a very good medical reason (serious health complication of either if birth is followed through with). But I just don't see any issues with first trimester abortions.

I agree, as the embryo grows more and more complex the less morally jusitifable it is to kill it, which is exactly why I think those dogmatics apprachs of "its a human life at conception" and "its not a baby its a fetus" to be absolutely useless, its already extremely difficult to move anybody an inch in this subject both sides need to talk honestly about it.



But this got sidetracked it wasn't about pro or anti abortion, it was about the right and left having beliefs that are opposite to their core system, right wing being Ayrn Randesque "pursuit of individualism generates the best conditions for everyone" should in theory support things like gary marriage or abortions, but the theory is that religion hijacked it? but it doesn't explain why the left then don't protect the vulnerable above the mother's personal interests, and I'm obvioulsy not saying that every left-wing person should be prolife, I'm just saying that its in genera a belief that goes in tune with the core yet radical leftists often are even strident and distateful about it, saying they love abortions and evicting uterus squatters which sure can be attributed as frustrated reactionaries but I think it goes past that.

I think its all related to the Y axis in the political compass that is so often forgotten, forcing others to live under your values like isn't right wing or left wing its just authoritarian, being against gay marriage isn't rightwing, it's just authoritarian, forcing others to use your pronouns isn't leftwing, it's just authoritarian.

The mother is considered the vulnerable party here, the fetus isn't considered a person in need of protection, because it's not yet a person.. People who think the fetus is a person deserving protection do so based on religious grounds (or at least the argument they have accepted was originally made on religious grounds).

And yea Ayn Rand was a pretty staunch atheist I think, I'm not sure which current american party would disgust her more tbh..:D