Trump will win again

[dragulagu]

A question that's been plaguing me for a long while is if there is any reason why not much of the voting goes to any other parties. It's always either democrats or republicans.
Also correct me if i'm wrong here, but doesn't your vote always go to the representative party in a specific state who then will put a vote for a presidential candidate; so you don't actually vote for a president yourself? The whole system doesn't make much sense to me. The Belgian system doesn't either but that's another story (hello coalitions).

This should be the link I think to all parties, btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
Legal Marijuana Now Party

 

[Stu]

depending on who you talk to there: A] are are really only two parties in the US, the one in power and the one out. B] is only one party in the US and it is divided into two complicit factions. C] there is no party in the US just a bunch of meat puppet controlled by our lizard overlords.

 

[acd]

People should really vote in 2020 because women's rights hang in the balance with the next SCOTUS pick. So if you are a woman or a man who values women's rights to bodily autonomy, privacy and I think eventually, even life in some cases ya need to vote. Because they will not stop trying to pass these bills just to get them before a right-wing Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest

A pregnant 11-year-old rape victim in Ohio would no longer be allowed to have an abortion under new state law

The end game

 

[Pin]

People should really vote in 2020 because women's rights hang in the balance with the next SCOTUS pick. So if you are a woman or a man who values women's rights to bodily autonomy, privacy and I think eventually, even life in some cases ya need to vote. Because they will not stop trying to pass these bills just to get them before a right-wing Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

As personally opposed as I am to abortion, I concede that this abortion-ban will not solve the primary reasons why women tend to pursue abortion in the first place. Mothers need additional avenues for transitioning into and out of the workforce.

For starters, paid maternity-leave and universal healthcare.

 

[Wyote]

As personally opposed as I am to abortion, I concede that this abortion-ban will not solve the primary reasons why women tend to pursue abortion in the first place. Mothers need additional avenues for transitioning into and out of the workforce.

For starters, paid maternity-leave and universal healthcare.

Political Pundit Pin leveled up

 

[Deleted member 16771]

As personally opposed as I am to abortion, I concede that this abortion-ban will not solve the primary reasons why women tend to pursue abortion in the first place. Mothers need additional avenues for transitioning into and out of the workforce.

For starters, paid maternity-leave and universal healthcare.

Political Pundit Pin leveled up

Next Boss: Andrew Neil

 

[acd]

As personally opposed as I am to abortion, I concede that this abortion-ban will not solve the primary reasons why women tend to pursue abortion in the first place. Mothers need additional avenues for transitioning into and out of the workforce.

For starters, paid maternity-leave and universal healthcare.

Those things would help. And abortion rates have continued to decline as contraception is made more available.

If the US offered universal healthcare and paid leave would you support a ban or repeal of Roe v. Wade? What do you think in the case of rape, incest or medical reasons? Should an 11 year old rape victim be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? A woman with a chronic health issue or mental health diagnosis that would cause a very difficult and traumatic pregnancy? If the fetus is found to have a condition that would end it's life at birth or soon after?

I'm obviously pro-choice but I don't celebrate and encourage abortions. I do think that in a society where men and women are equal it is essential that women maintain the ability to choose to reproduce or not. It is a private personal choice that should remain private and personal. If we can remove a woman's right to privacy (medical) and body autonomy then women are not equal.

 

[Pin]

Those things would help. And abortion rates have continued to decline as contraception is made more available.

If the US offered universal healthcare and paid leave would you support a ban or repeal of Roe v. Wade?

Yes, because the right to life naturally supercedes all others.

What do you think in the case of rape, incest or medical reasons? Should an 11 year old rape victim be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? A woman with a chronic health issue or mental health diagnosis that would cause a very difficult and traumatic pregnancy? If the fetus is found to have a condition that would end it's life at birth or soon after?

No to each.

I consider each of these instances direct threats, if not indirect threats, to the mother's life.

I'm obviously pro-choice but I don't celebrate and encourage abortions. I do think that in a society where men and women are equal it is essential that women maintain the ability to choose to reproduce or not. It is a private personal choice that should remain private and personal. If we can remove a woman's right to privacy (medical) and body autonomy then women are not equal.

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think that easily accessible abortion addresses the underlying issue, that issue being the oppression of women.

For women's equality to be ensured, women must not be coerced or compelled into choosing an abortion or pregnancy according to the economic or social conditions of their society.

 

[acd]

Yes, because the right to life naturally supercedes all others.

No to each.

I consider each of these instances direct threats, if not indirect threats, to the mother's life.

How do you determine whose right to life supersedes whose?

I respectfully disagree.

I don't think that easily accessible abortion addresses the underlying issue, that issue being the oppression of women.

For women's equality to be ensured, women must not be coerced or compelled into choosing an abortion or pregnancy according to the economic or social conditions of their society.

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that women are incapable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term due to societal or economic issues ( that only those elected can fix through legislation?) That until conditions are just right-- a woman cannot make an informed choice? That is the oppression? Not the denying of choice or of women's ability to make a choice?

 

[Pin]

How do you determine whose right to life supersedes whose?

Good question.

I presume that the mother's life is of primary importance throughout a medical procedure because she is the patient.

That until conditions are just right-- a woman cannot make an informed choice? That is the oppression? Not the denying of choice or of women's ability to make a choice?

Yes.

Therefore, even if abortion were readily accessible women would not be made somehow less oppressed.

 

[Stu]

I just hope the GOP makes Abortion the central theme of their 2020 campaign.

 

[Skarekrow]

I just hope the GOP makes Abortion the central theme of their 2020 campaign.

No, no...how great the Trump tariffs are for the economy and consumer!

 

[Milktoast Bandit]

 

[Pin]

I just hope the GOP makes Abortion the central theme of their 2020 campaign.

I expect a campaign driven by emotional appeals to patriotism.

Not facts.

 

[AmeyT18]

I am an outsider but I do think Trump is foolish. He is literally asking nations to put trade deals in favor of US. That's not how Business or Diplomacy works. Trump is a catalyst for US Hell Day. And I do think US is war based economy

 

[wiredandwound]

All I got to say is: MAGA! 2020

 

[Ifur]

Possible that Trump wins, but still, the most shocking thing with "collusion" is the amount of stories proving manipulation by western countries that actively cooperates with the DoJ's law enforcement agencies.
While China and Russia that have their own agencies and whatnot that may be competing to a larger extent on the global law enforcement and intelligence stage are the only ones being targeted.

Cambridge Analytica? Not a problem, one can trust the Brits to have everyone else best interest in mind? There mer suscpisions concerning China and Russia is however sufficient, where both for and against politics, interests in the democratic systems works and it's integrity falls within "friends of this nation" as the constitution puts it, as perhaps especially the "enemies" of the US want it to stay stable, friends are more likely to see economic opportunities with no danger to themselves.

As always, Bernie is likely right about S.American needing to improve and get to higher standards. While the US has a growin problem with exreme weather perhaps fueled by being so built out with industrial areas, agriculture and lack of larger forests and grassland. Talks about competing with China on energy intensive high tech sectors that benefit from coal while being unsure about steel tarifs that are motivated by energy subsidies and other stimulations for value add industries like solar and things that use a lot of steel sounds very unrealistic and is a bit reactionary.

Might be better with less passion about specific proposals when essentially so much is going to need to happen around the presidents office in the coming years, as to be better dealt with in congress. It's not like the world is so boring that signing off on things while support a specific political agenda is fine.

In older news, the Paris Agreement has been signed, and everyone agreed on it, so why is it still a problem? It lacks specific things that are testable in court is actionable, and this is not more electric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

I live in the only country with enough stupid money.

 

[Ifur]

The amount that refuse to say they wont use nukes is shocking.
Would suspect they'd be against gassing(some just make you pass out and stop breathing) humanitarian disasters as an act of mercy on the other hand.
But saying that nukes are only for defense to prevent others from using nukes is a weak position, and first strike can't be ruled out?
Would prefer the message of it being so terrible, as not even wanting to respond, leaving it to allies to do so.

Some of these ethical and moral questions can become relevant if things gets worse with natural disasters, wars and refugee crisis involving millions with no realistic future filled with empty dreams and promises.

Easier to talk about something as unrealistic as nukes, and being against it's use should be required as to avoid posing questions and politics about illegal weapons and exceptions. Even child soldiers with machetes is less terrifying than gassing and nuking.

Some of the democrats in the debate looked shocked and terrified at some of the answers and positions.

 

[Ifur]

Crazier than Dr Strangelove:Or How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

Even North Korea signed into the Paris Agreement!

And it's already irrelevant, as protecting forestry and food production wont solve any problems while waiting on magical bullets from science and tecnology.
Consensus is that the targets aren't possible, and there is nothing about getting carbon down by planting trees like Ethiopia is doing, in fact, there are exceptions in the agreement for countries like Ethopia to invest in fossil and other things to grown the economy so they can contribute to the climate like the big boys with solar panels and electric cars.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/africa/ethiopia-plants-350-million-trees-intl-hnk/index.html

Ethiopia's goal for the whole season is even bigger than that; the national tree planting campaign aims to plant 4 billion trees during "the rainy season" -- between May and October -- according to a May tweet by Ahmed.

https://www.climatefocus.com/sites/default/files/20151223 Land Use and the Paris Agreement FIN.pdf

So to manage and maintain sinks and forests, and prevent deforestration.
No special incentives or benefits for literally creating forests.
Like for example, forcing other countries to support the efforts.

 

[Ifur]

So, does this mean you err more in favor of nuclear energy as a more effective solution to lower carbon emissions(as opposed to "going Green"?)

I'm in favour of a high carbon ecosystem, not in favour of a fossil economy that spend this energy to remove the economy from carbon dependence.
Have no problem with getting energy from biomass, I eat food every day for example, and trees grow and pull down carbon.

No interest in "lowering" carbon emissions, I'm interested in lowering fossil sources.

Nuclear and other things like solar and wind are fine as long as it's not the primary economic driver, as that would be impossible and create a fragile economy.

If you listened to everything said on climate change and crisis, there is the impression that carbon is a threat to our very being (we are carbon based life forms, and our ecosystem that regulates climate is also carbin based).

Now, something needs to change direction for balance, and it could be all the things better than fossil.
That is however not what is going on, and fossil is a problem and wood is more likely to replace coal.

Just laugh! And do cheer on Ethiopia, hope they keep it up and pants one tree for every person on the planet every year. We need a few trillion trees, even though 4 billion sounds like a lot.