Current Politics & History Only Thread

[Sgt. Dick]

TSA employee reported dead after apparent suicide at Orlando International Airport
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2019/02/02/police-investigating-incident-orlando-international-airport/2753522002/

This will somehow be Trump's fault. 

[haunted]

This isn't political but the media has been obsessed with the cross that washed up in FL. It's a sign, an omen, whatever. It's actually a memorial erected for a dude passed away lost at sea from my hometown. You heard it here before the media knows.

How about the State of the Union address? What do y'all think about banning 3rd term abortions?

I'll go ahead and point out that I've been directly involved in multiple abortions, and multiple miscarriages. I know many of y'all have too. The latter altered my opinion a bit. I'm pro choice and pro liberty, but abortion is a really weird issue. The logistics behind banning 3rd trimester abortions seem impossible, but damn is it fucked up. Why can't the Democrats admit that at least?

[quadz]

I'm pro choice and pro liberty, but abortion is a really weird issue. The logistics behind banning 3rd trimester abortions seem impossible, but damn is it fucked up. Why can't the Democrats admit that at least?

It seems there are entrenched ideological viewpoints pushing folks to opposite extremes. And neither extreme appears sane to me.

On the 'early' extreme, some folk won't conscience aborting even a three-day-old embryo (about 150 cells.)

On the 'late' extreme, some folk push a "my body, my choice" stance right up to the moment of birth.

The one position I believe to be compatible with neurological development over time, is that our concerns should generally scale with the capacity of an organism to have experiences.

There's no reason to believe a cluster of 150 cells can have experiences. (The brain of a fly has about 100,000 cells.^[1])

But at the other extreme, there's no reason to pretend the geographical location of a womb somehow acts as a shield from the 100% human rights that would be granted to a baby on the verge of being born, if it could only be teleported a dozen inches on a vector that places it geographically outside the womb. (How does the biology of a womb act as a magic rights-inhibiting enclosure?)

Once we accept that our concern for an organism should generally scale with its capacity to have experiences, we're still left with the marginal cases, where extenuating circumstances alter the moral or ethical baselines. An oft-cited example being where the health of the mother is in jeopardy; or for example when something has gone so horribly wrong during development that the only compassionate future for some malformed fetus would be either its destruction or its preservation in a jar of formaldehyde.

It's always going to be a hard problem. But the extremists on either end aren't helping.


_{[1] I think, civilizationally, we're at a point where it would be unseemly to pull off the fly's wings with the intent of causing it suffering; but we have no qualms with ending a pest with a quick swat.}

[Punk_FAS]

But at the other extreme, there's no reason to pretend the geographical location of a womb somehow acts as a shield from the 100% human rights that would be granted to a baby on the verge of being born, if it could only be teleported a dozen inches on a vector that places it geographically outside the womb. (How does the biology of a womb act as a magic rights-inhibiting enclosure?)

It's a rights tug-of-war. Whose rights supersedes the other's? Obviously pregnancy is a one-of-a-kind situation, with nothing exactly matching it, but where else does any human, regardless of age, have rights to sap any portion of the life of another human, without that other human's explicit consent? I believe a woman should be able to have a fetus removed from herself at any point in a pregnancy. If the fetus is not-viable at that time, and would die anyway outside the womb, I suppose there's no reason to object to its termination prior to removal, instead of allowing it to occur 'naturally' after an intact removal.

[quadz]

I believe a woman should be able to have a fetus removed from herself at any point in a pregnancy.

On a principle of individual bodily autonomy, I'm forced to agree.

(Nevertheless; I'd assert our concern for the separate organism should scale along with its capability for having experiences.)

Obviously pregnancy is a one-of-a-kind situation, with nothing exactly matching it

Possible quibble here: Pregnancy is the one thing we all have in common; dating back in an unbroken lineage millions of years.

[quadz]

Perhaps interesting breakdown of the proposed "Border wall bill":


https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1095917405925244929

Unrolled thread:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1095917405925244929.html

[Sgt. Dick]

It looks like a screwed up deal (if you are on Trump's side).  This whole situation is based on having ammo to use against Trump for 2020.

[Punk_FAS]

It looks like a screwed up deal (if you are on Trump's side).  This whole situation is based on having ammo to use against Trump for 2020.

I think the 'whole situation' is based on Trump making a poorly considered campaign promise when he ran in 2016 (to build the wall, and to have Mexico pay for it), effectively digging himself a hole, and him being completely and totally willing to bury everyone else in the process of trying to get out of that hole. He can't concede that the wall isn't the most efficient way (dollars wise) to address illegal immigration issues, he can't concede that it won't be worth the investment. He's going to do anything and everything in his considerable power to avoid a situation where someone can hold something against him in 2020, whether it harms the country in the process or not. He must maintain the appearance that he's never wavered on his intentions to build the wall, and that it's always been the best idea ever for the immigration 'emergency'.

[quadz]

I think the 'whole situation' is based on Trump making a poorly considered campaign promise when he ran in 2016 (to build the wall, and to have Mexico pay for it), effectively digging himself a hole

Anybody trying to hold Trump literally to the details, is the mirror-image of those now trying to pin down Ocasio-Cortez on the details of her trillion-dollar expansionist policies.

They're both about directions, not details.

[quadz]

They're both about directions, not details.

I suppose what I mean is: "A big, beautiful wall" is good visual persuasion. But if the ultimate goal is securing the border, it's really up to the engineers and experts to determine which structures work best on which terrain, and are most cost-effective; etc.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I always figured the "…and Mexico is going to pay for it!" for a laugh line during his campaign. I mean, it was pretty funny.

But in any case, I haven't yet heard a reasonable argument against improving border security.

Here's Chuck Schumer making Trump's case for him:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAyn89hFIo

[haunted]

Agree with everything above. 

[Sgt. Dick]

Thank you for posting the Schumer video, because that is exactly what I was talking about.

Schumer was all for what Trump has been saying, but now that it is Trump these ideas are racist & immoral.

It is about making Trump fail on a campaign promise and using that against him in 2020.

[Sgt. Dick]

Another reason for better border security - 6 illegal immigrants linked to Mexican cartel arrested in NC for drug trafficking operation
https://www.foxnews.com/us/6-illegal-immigrants-arrested-in-nc-for-drug-trafficking-operation-officials-say

[Sgt. Dick]

Here is another story where it would have been best to let the story develop before rushing to judgement.

Cory Booker 'withholding' judgment on Smollett case after calling it 'attempted modern-day lynching'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cory-booker-withholding-judgment-on-smollett-case-after-calling-it-attempted-modern-day-lynching

I am not sure what happened, but some of the initial story lines, seem to be falling apart.

[QwazyWabbit]

Here is another story where it would have been best to let the story develop before rushing to judgement.

Cory Booker 'withholding' judgment on Smollett case after calling it 'attempted modern-day lynching'
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cory-booker-withholding-judgment-on-smollett-case-after-calling-it-attempted-modern-day-lynching

I am not sure what happened, but some of the initial story lines, seem to be falling apart.

Smollett is openly gay. He alleged he was beaten up by two men and it was being investigated as a hate crime. Police are now saying it appears they were known to him and apparently one of them was actually once on the same show as Smollett. Implication is that the attack was staged or possibly just an argument between people that knew each other and not a hate crime.