The General US Politics Thread

Shots fired into ICE offices in San Antonio.

>Goddamn it, this is only going to make shit worse.

We haven't killed John Brown yet.

This didn't make sense without context. John Brown was an abolitionist who got executed for trying to free some slaves in 1859. On the day of his execution he wrote, "I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done."

In essence, shit can get worse, but it's not past the breaking point.

Edited by Soban on Aug 14th 2019 at 1:36:43 PM

Report says this happened at 3am. Was it random neighborhood violence being sold as politically motivated?

A lone anarchist trying to firebomb an internment camp didn't lead to anything, I doubt this will.

> This didn't make sense without context. John Brown was an abolitionist who got executed for trying to free some slaves in 1859.

Aka John Brown's raid,I remember from the history lessons he was an idiotic extremist who eventually was hanged for said raid

Someone with some sense, maybe?

John Hickenlooper Mulling Ending Presidential Bid to Run for Senate – Mr. Hickenlooper, who has remained near the bottom of the Democratic field, is in discussions to challenge Colorado’s Republican senator, Cory Gardner

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/us/politics/john-hickenlooper-2020-senate.html

If true, more power to you, Hickenlooper.

He was a violent maniac.

And an American hero, god bless him.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 14th 2019 at 11:12:46 AM

Revealed: Republican lawmaker aided group training young men for 'biblical warfare' – The group ‘Team Rugged’ offers ‘patriotic and biblical training’ that includes instruction on how to use knives and guns

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/13/matt-shea-biblical-war-washington-team-rugged

Also, someone less sensible:

O’Rourke plots return from 2020 sidelines
Persistent calls for the former Texas congressman to run for Senate have exasperated his supporters.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/beto-orourke-2020-democrats-senate-run-1461533

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 14th 2019 at 12:17:48 PM

Do it.

Dooooo eeeeeeeet.

Hickenlooper's problem from the beginning was that he let a Big Fish, Small Pond ego get to him. Coloradans love Hickenlooper and practically worship the ground he walks on, but there ain't nobody outside this state that knows or cares who this guy is. That's a problem for a Presidential run, when you're standing on a stage with people who already have national acclaim.

That is not a problem for winning a Senate seat, however. There, Hickenlooper's reputation among Coloradans actually gives him a chance to shine. If he can lock down that Senate seat, he can start building a national reputation from there and then, maybe in eight or twelve years if it goes well, think about a Presidential run.

There's a tool for every task and a task for every tool. Hickenlooper will never cut it as a presidential candidate, but if he can advance the cause closer to home, he should do so.

High fives, Tobias Drake.

Now please spread that story to all the other no-hopers. This obsession with the presidency above all else is really grating and really inconsiderate.

Let's just hope he doesn't rant about the evils of universal healthcare in his next venture. Personally, because of that, I'd rather have someone more progressive take the available Senate seat, since Colorado is practically a blue state now.

So, in a statement that utterly astounds me, Steve King defends getting rid of the rape and incest clause for anti-abortion laws because "would there be any population left if not for rape and incest?"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/steve-king-rape-incest-comments/index.html

I think he meant to amend "would there be any GOP population left" to that, but what do I know.

The entire text is ''"What if we went back through all the family trees and just pulled those people out that were products of rape and incest? Would there be any population of the world left if we did that?" he said in Urbandale, Iowa, according to video posted online by the Des Moines Register, which was first to report on the remarks Wednesday. "Considering all the wars and all the rape and pillage that has taken place ... I know I can't certify that I was not a part of a product of that," King said. "I'd like to think that every one of the lives of us are as precious as any other life," he added. ''

That doesn't really sound better in context. We used to drown people that we thought were witches, too; it doesn't mean we should keep doing that because the human race survived.

It's not indefensible, but that's not how you defend it.

It's entirely dumb logic that justifies current suffering by saying that people had been putting up with it for centuries, so why stop now?

Edited by Kayeka on Aug 14th 2019 at 9:20:57 PM

Because we should deprive women of agency in the present because they didn’t have it in the past.

Like, my grandma was sold into marriage at thirteen. So, all girls should be sold into marriage at thirteen...? Think of all the babies that wouldn’t be born?? What the heck kind of nonsense is this.

It's basically "every sperm is sacred" logic.

I'll bite, ~Soban, how should a statement like that be defended?

Edited by sgamer82 on Aug 14th 2019 at 1:23:59 PM

I think Soban was saying that removing the exemption could be defended, but that the statement made is not how one should try and defend removing the exemption.

What Silasw said. However, Abortion is a banned topic for a good reason on these forums so I'll leave it at that.

If you only care about the continued existence of a concepted fetus and not about the life or wellbeing of its mother, then there is a logic for removing the rape/incest exception. It's gross and horrible logic, but it's a logic.

See, that exception is there for the sake of protecting forcibly impregnated women from having to birthe their victimizer's child. But if your agenda is built around forcing women to carry children to term regardless of whether or not they want to, then what does it matter if the pregnancy is consensual or not? If you've accepted the premise that women are breeding stock who exist to manufacture men's children, then it naturally follows that rape and incest don't really matter.

Now, that doesn't mean that everyone who is pro-life sees women that way. Abortion is a complex issue. I'm talking about a specific subset that I like to call "anti-choice", men whose primary purpose for supporting the pro-life movement is to take away a woman's control over her own reproductive organs and restore male dominance.

From that perspective, what King's talking about is natural step-by-step social progression. First, you criminalize abortion but say "It's cool in extreme circumstances; don't get worked up about rape and shit, we all know that's bad." Then, once everyone's acclimated to the new status quo, you go after those extreme circumstances.

Anti-choicers are the worst part of the abortion debate because of shit like this.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Aug 14th 2019 at 1:48:12 PM

@Soban

Just to point out, the rape/incest exception is there to make sure that women who become pregnant as a result of those acts can get an abortion, they are not forced to. That's a crucial difference that seems to fall by the wayside when it comes to the abortion debate.