Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
They only admitted it because they were in hot water anyway and had seemingly lost any chance of power within the party they'd bent the rules for. Not exactly an example of a moral mole, but we have to take what we can get.
I'm really disappointed that these leaks aren't being reported on ANY of the major news outlets.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.I don't care why they admitted to it so long as they did. Now that one state has admitted to this it should cast doubt on any state that has implemented or intends to implement such measures.
It kind of bothers me that it took so long though. We could have spent the last three weeks saying President Romney while they sat on their asses.
I'm loathe to say it, but there's truth to this. I just can't stomach the though of allowing a crime simply because the law of averages makes it the more palatable solution. Another reason why this topic is such a lose-lose-and lose more proposition all the way around.
Re: voter suppression - My view is tainted by the fact that these revelations come from ousted GO Pers. But there mere fact that they even discussed it with that aim....makes me sick, as the Republican party has of late.
Dear God, Fighteer might be right that the only viable option is to vote Democrat. Or perhaps we need to see the Greens step up.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:41:06 AM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorWeirdly, you're not allowing the crime by making abortion legal, you're preventing it. More people have abortions if they're illegal than if they're safe and regulated and presented as an option. Abortion rates have gone up in countries that criminalized abortion. As have preventable deaths of mothers because even in cases where the mother's life is at risk doctors feel like their hands are tied.
It just kills far more people than it helps. Criminalizing abortion is tantamount to condoning widespread preventable death of woman and unborn children. It's just immoral.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI'm pretty sure the Greens are pro abortion because they also have a largely feminist stance. *shrug*
As regards voter suppression: Well, we already knew it was happening. It wasn't exactly a hard thing to figure out with them making draconian ID laws so close to a presidential election or trying to cut down early voting in general. Now that some GO Pers are being ousted for whatever reason, I'm not surprised they're admitting to it. Great way to politick themselves into a better position later.
What, pointing out a very real fact and in doing so why we're for something?
edited 26th Nov '12 11:46:38 AM by AceofSpades
![]()
Honestly, I wouldnt have many objections myself to more stringent abortion laws if the choice to take contraceptives was paid in full by the state. After all, studies do show that when contraceptives and family planning are adequately funded, abortion rates plummet because you never need to abort a life if you never get pregnant on accident.
You know. Thereby defusing the entire argument, because nobody would really care what moment life starts at if life was only likely to start for people actually seeking children.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:53:37 AM by Midgetsnowman
![]()
![]()
Not to mention that the vast majority of abortions are done for medical reasons, not because they don't want the kid. A blanket ban on abortion would also mean that mothers with ectopic pregnancies would die and take the child with them, for example.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:48:16 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian![]()
![]()
Yeah, we knew it was happening. Judging by the editorial section in my newspaper there are lots of people that needed more convincing. Another thing I've mentioned is that this should make it easier to defeat similar efforts in other states.
That's only if you don't allow abortions in cases of rape, incest, and death of the mother. There are Republicans that do favor allowing it in those circumstances but many others are opposed to them.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:50:36 AM by Kostya
![]()
![]()
Yep, and then you leave it legal as a medical procedure so that it's doctors making the choice as to if the pregnancy is harmful to the mother rather than bureaucrats and you don't end up with cases where both mother and child die when there was a chance to save the mother.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:50:25 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAnd we need to stop quibbling about which contraception methods physiologically occur before or after fertilization. This argument over the distinction between a pair of gametes and a day-old zygote is a little crazy. That slippery slope leads back to the "masturbation is mass murder" argument. Or its corollary, menstruation.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:52:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Try every single man ever in all of history.
Anyway, those excommunicated GOP members admitting that the Florida gambit was about voter suppression don't surprise me at all, nor does the GOP proper calling them liars. What I hope happens is that a full investigation takes place and some people go to fucking jail.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:56:14 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Wow look at the abortion debate I thought we didn't want to have :P. Again, if we hit 550 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere with no sequestration or efficiency plans because we spent a decade in gridlock over abortion, I'm going to be a little pissed. I know it sounds a bit privileged coming from the guy whose position is currently supported by law, but don't drag the whole process down over your pet issue. Please.
As for the voter fraud thing, raise your hands if you're surprised! *sits on hands*
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
![]()
Probably that Incest is a huge taboo to christian culture (and most US culture), and the widely held (but inaccurate) ideal that an incest baby will be a birth defect riddled dunce..
nevermind it takes multiple generations of inbreeding for any serious chance of incest related birth defects.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:57:24 AM by Midgetsnowman
Raven: I'm thinking it has to do with birth defects and if two people find out they're related after conception. I support it because I feel forcing a child to live knowing they're the product of incest is as cruel as if the child was a product of rape.
It's not a certainty but it's a lot more likely.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:58:28 AM by Kostya
@Raven Wilder: My guess would be that incest, like rape, is a special kind of evil that is assumed to be against the girl's will. I think it's also exclusively for statutory incest — that is, sex between a male family member and an underage girl. There's also the genetic risk involved (which is why incest is taboo in the first place), but I doubt many of the moral anti-abortion crusaders care about or even understand genetic risk.
edited 26th Nov '12 11:58:23 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"which'd make hundreds of men everywhere (including a lot of the moral guardians) mass murderers.
Hey, most of the hardline fanatics have a big downer on masturbation, too. Their stance is logically consistent - it's their premises that are the problem.
As for incest, you have to be very closely-related for the birth defects to start being a serious risk, but if you are that close, it's not the sort of thing you want to leak into the genepool. And that's before you start getting into the complex ways in which family ties affect the balance of power.
edited 26th Nov '12 12:00:51 PM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?I think the idea of allowing in the case of incest is that it quite often also involves rape (crime of opportunity), particularly in the case of parent/child incest. And then there's the memetastic idea we've got now that one simple generation of incest will somehow produce awful mutants, even though that's not actually scientifically true.
@Kostya: which can be silly, because if you say, find out the person you're having a baby with is a third cousin or further, theres no genetic difference from someone not related to you at all.
And even with closer relations, it takes generations upon generations of constant inbreeding to start damaging genetic variance.
I know it's illogical but that doesn't change the fact that it's quite possible that the kid will be tormented for this at school. The parents might also be uncomfortable having to raise them.
Is it third cousin? I heard after a few cousins it doesn't matter in the slightest because the bloodline has been diluted enough but I wasn't sure how far that had to be.
edited 26th Nov '12 12:03:37 PM by Kostya

...
So they actually admitted to it? Good, maybe now we can get more people in other states to admit to this.