Politics Honest, Fess up?

[Further]

What political topics are you unsure about? What topics do you think the representatives that you support are wrong about?

A couple issues that confuse me.

Abortion. I have always supported the woman's right to choose, but in all honesty I am not sure that I agree with that. At least, I am not sure I agree with that in all situations. When its a few cells, sure, when its a live baby, no. So somewhere between a few cells and a baby is a blurry line that I worry about.

In education I am not sure what is better, to pool all our funds (taxes) towards a standard educational system or do we allow subsidies (taxes) for charter schools which may take money out of the pot or permit schools that teach asinine curriculum. But if we permit the charter schools many kids that learn differently may find the better avenue and some of those charter schools will turn out much more competent than the public system.


So, those are just a couple. What are yours?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

What to do about our homeless population.

 

[Minstrel]

When to go to war.

 

[riverman]

Nuclear escalation is up at the top of my list...that and sabre rattling at shaky regimes

 

[riverman]

Infrastructure...upgrades across the board...power grid, water management, transportation, well planned public transportation systems...a supportive environment for young people starting out to actually save towards their goals and not just survive....wages matching cost of living

 

[barfo]

Whether impeachment or the 25th amendment is the better solution.

barfo

 

[Further]

Infrastructure...upgrades across the board...power grid, water management, transportation, well planned public transportation systems...a supportive environment for young people starting out to actually save towards their goals and not just survive....wages matching cost of living

What I was trying to ask was what points of views that are traditionally held by "people like you" are you not sure about or think are wrong. So for example, if you are a Dem, where do you think most Democrats are wrong. or even more interesting, where do you think the other side might be right?

 

[riverman]

What I was trying to ask was what points of views that are traditionally held by "people like you" are you not sure about or think are wrong. So for example, if you are a Dem, where do you think most Democrats are wrong. or even more interesting, where do you think the other side might be right?

I'm not a Dem...I'm independent....but I think the Dems got glam crazed and ignored a lot of working class demographics over the years...sort of became the Lakers of politics....entitled...the Republican Party needs to be blown up and reinvented with the middle class as a priority...both need to stop trying to prop up dictators for profit. I had hopes Trump would have the balls to recognize Tzi Ying Wen as president of Taiwan and tell China to fuck off but he back tracked on that one....I think Obama dropped the ball in Syria when he could've ended it...I think the Dems were idiots to run Hillary and the candidates for office were pretty weak across the board..I think all candidates should get equal debate time and exposure...even the Jill Steins and Gary Johnsons....it's not a fair playing field

 

[riverman]

If you're looking for laws here...I'm pro gay marriage and pro choice....never understood why that makes one a "liberal".....I think liberal and conservative are misleading terms anyway

 

[Cippy91]

I think dems and republicans both have some very shitty things about them as well as good things. I think this party system is terrible and only divides people. I think people need to start thinking for themselves instead of thinking along with the party they affiliate with

 

[Further]

I'm not a Dem...I'm independent....but

I wasn't trying insinuate that you were a Dem, I was just using that as an example. That's you I put "people like you" in quotes. So, I am also not a Dem although I do usually vote for them. I am more the old school liberal, let others be and make sure we design a society that looks after everyone, and not just those at the top. But, most people who I talk to who share the bulk of my views all tend to have other very specific views on just about every topic across the board. I think it's interesting to see where people split from their friends or where they distrust the common thought patterns within their own sphere. We are individuals, I don't see how it's possible that so many are in camp X on healthcare and from that we can guess where they are on taxes, abortion, gun rights, and every other topic even though those topics are unconnected.

 

[riverman]

I believe nat'l healthcare or affordable healthcare is necessary...when an airborne SARS type virus hits...your insurance won't protect you from everybody else breathing in the Moda Center at a game that doesn't have medical care...or your kids in the classroom...or coworkers, etc....Taiwan's nat'l healthcare saved my life a couple of times in times of need....I never take that for granted.

 

[SportsAndWhine]

Capitalism. I'm really unsure about that.

 

[stampedehero]

What to do about our homeless population.

Provide thousand dollar grants to issue to each homeless person where they can choose where to live and how to get there. Although many are wasted, there may be a few that can operate and want to get out of the hole. I would rather see our own misguided and unfortunate people get money rather than Palestinian security forces. Of course, where they end up is another note of controversy, especially when the population in Venice Beach explodes.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Im a progressive cuck but i cant stand welfare fraud. And tax refunds for people who barely work never made sense to me. We need to incentivize upward mobility.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Im a progressive cuck but i cant stand welfare fraud. And tax refunds for people who barely work never made sense to me. We need to incentivize upward mobility.

People who barely work might be the smartest of us.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm a "conservative", but I'm probably a lot more liberal than most of my counterparts when it comes to gun control and drug legalization.

 

[crandc]

As regards abortion, women have late abortions not because they sit around contemplating their navels for 8 1/2 months and then decide they have a little headache or don't fit into their prom dress. Women have later abortions due to medical emergencies, severe fetal abnormalities that don't show up until well into pregnancy, or because restrictive laws make them jump through so many hoops that the procedure gets delayed. And sometimes rape victims are so traumatized they just can't wrap their heads around the fact that the rape got them pregnant until they are past the point where it can be denied or ignored, so they end up with later abortions. Women are neither stupid nor masochistic; given the option of a 6 week abortion or a 7 month abortion, if they plan to terminate they pick 6 weeks. I would urge you to read the testimony of women who have had late abortions, many of whom discovered their much wanted pregnancies had gone horribly wrong.

OK - to the question, I never fully agree with anyone for whom I vote. I go by my core issues.

Issues I am uncertain about; I honestly don't know what to do about the chronic homeless. A good number of people end up homeless due to an illness or job loss; given assistance, they can and want to get their lives together. But yes, there are some who are just so out there. I don't like the idea of forced incarceration in mental institutions, but when someone is so far gone they take a shit in the middle of the sidewalk with people walking around them, what do you do? I truly do not know. And neither, apparently, do a lot of people in power.

Where I part with many of my lefty peers is GMO. I think they have the wrong end of the stick. The problem is not that they are unhealthy; they are just as healthy as non-GMO food. And many GMO foods can grow where they would not otherwise. My issue loss of genetic diversity as agriculture increasingly becomes monoculture, so a disease or pest can really wipe out everything, and concentration of agriculture in the hands of a tiny number of huge companies, not GMO per se.

 

[jonnyboy]

I think there needs to be a cutoff date for abortions based on science. Early term abortions don't bug me really like @Further said, when it's a clump of cells. But when that clump of cells has eyes, nose, hair and fingernails and is yawning and sneezing in the womb, I am NOT cool with shoving a coat hanger through its forehead. It seems totally ridiculous to me that people just can't understand that there is a baby in there. It's like out of sight out of mind, just because you can't see it it must be a pile of goo, then the second before it is born it materializes into a baby. If you wouldn't kill a freshly born baby you shouldn't be down to kill a mid to late term "fetus". It's a fucking baby, quit yelling "womens right to choose" to hide the scientific fact that a developed human is being exterminated.

 

[crandc]

So, jonnyboy, you know better than the woman? You know better than her doctor? Her family? The clergyperson she prayed with? You are going to force a woman who learns the fetus has no brain, or no joints, or no heart valves, that she must go through pregnancy and labor with attendant risk to give birth to a child who either will not live or will live in total pain and dysfunction? You will force a woman to give birth to a Tay-Sachs child who will die in agony before age 2? If you are not carrying the pregnancy it is not your fucking business. You don't now what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[dviss1]

What to do about our homeless population.

If you don't see this as a symptom of a greater problem, I got nothin for you. I had to damn near cuss out my cousin the other day.

 

[dviss1]

A few things on abortion:

Pro Life was a term that was coopted by the Anti abortion crowd. Pro Lifers started as an anti death penalty group. Most Pro Lifers are: Pro gun, Pro capital punishment, Pro war, and Anti-healthcare for all.

It's one thing to say you are pro choice. Me? I'm PRO PRIVACY.

An abortion is a constitutionally protected right and a legal medical procedure. If you don't know about my Viagra, I don't get to know about your abortion because that information is PRIVATE.

BTW, isn't ED God intended?

Bottom line don't put bureaucrats in between patients and doctors.

Now, don't GET me to quote why people shouldn't be using the bible to justify their stance against abortion.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If you don't see this as a symptom of a greater problem, I got nothin for you. I had to damn near cuss out my cousin the other day.

I see it as a symptom. You and I don't agree on the cause.

 

[dviss1]

I see it as a symptom. You and I don't agree on the cause.

We don't agree that greed is the cause of poverty?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

We don't agree that greed is the cause of poverty?

Oh, yeah. Well there are different levels of greed from both sides and regular citizens. There's blame all around.

My solutions would be extremely harsh and painful for a lot of lazy Americans.

 

[e_blazer]

Just because of my own ignorance on the topic, I looked up what the legalities relating to late term abortion are. Okay, it's from Wikipedia, so take it as you will:

"
The United States Supreme Court decisions on abortion, including Roe v. Wade, allow states to impose more restrictions on post-viability abortions than during the earlier stages of pregnancy.

As of December 2014, forty-two states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade or enjoined by court order.[25] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, "both previability and postviability",[26] as it had done in banning intact dilation and extraction with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[27]

The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman's life is at risk; four allow them when the woman's life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[25] Note that just because a portion of a state's law is found to be unconstitutional does not mean that the entire law will be deemed unconstitutional: "nvalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief," meaning the court could declare that only those parts of the law that are violative of the Constitution are invalid (declaratory relief), or that the court can prohibit the state from enforcing those portions of the law (injunctive relief).[28]

Eighteen states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks' gestation (usually 22 weeks from the last menstrual period).[25] The U.S. Supreme Court held in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services that a statute may create "a presumption of viability" after a certain number of weeks, in which case the physician must be given an opportunity to rebut the presumption by performing tests.[29] Because this provision is not explicitly written into these state laws, as it was in the Missouri law examined in Webster, pro-choice organizations believe that such a state law is unconstitutional, but only "to the extent that it prohibits pre-viability abortions".[30]

Ten states (although Florida's enforcement of such laws are under permanent injunction) require a second physician's approval before a late-term abortion can be performed.[25] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of "confirmation by two other physicians" (rather than one other physician) because "acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient's needs and unduly infringes on the physician's right to practice".[31] Pro-choice organizations, such as the Guttmacher Institute, posit that some of these state laws are unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[25]

Thirteen states have laws that require a second physician to be present during late-term abortion procedures in order to treat a fetus if born alive.[25] The Court has held that a doctor's right to practice is not infringed by requiring a second physician to be present at abortions performed after viability in order to assist in the case of a living fetus.[32]"

 

[dviss1]

Im a progressive cuck but i cant stand welfare fraud. And tax refunds for people who barely work never made sense to me. We need to incentivize upward mobility.

But look though... That 1% sliver of Food & Agriculture is where you're looking for fraud. There's lower hanging fruit B. CORPORATE welfare is where we need to trim the fat.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I should add that I don't mean the homeless are necessarily lazy. I have too much work on a Friday to get into it and nobody cares what I think anyway. If they do care they just get mad. Later

 

[dviss1]

Oh, yeah. Well there are different levels of greed from both sides and regular citizens. There's blame all around.

My solutions would be extremely harsh and painful for a lot of lazy Americans.

This assumption is bad for us all. Homeless people aren't all "lazy Americans". The VAST MAJORITY of them are mentally ill who were strewn to the wayside by Ronald Reagan.

LOTS of them are Vietnam Veterans...

Were they being lazy when the Hutt had "bone spurs"?

 

[Further]

As regards abortion, women have late abortions not because they sit around contemplating their navels for 8 1/2 months and then decide they have a little headache or don't fit into their prom dress. Women have later abortions due to medical emergencies, severe fetal abnormalities that don't show up until well into pregnancy, or because restrictive laws make them jump through so many hoops that the procedure gets delayed. And sometimes rape victims are so traumatized they just can't wrap their heads around the fact that the rape got them pregnant until they are past the point where it can be denied or ignored, so they end up with later abortions. Women are neither stupid nor masochistic; given the option of a 6 week abortion or a 7 month abortion, if they plan to terminate they pick 6 weeks. I would urge you to read the testimony of women who have had late abortions, many of whom discovered their much wanted pregnancies had gone horribly wrong.

OK - to the question, I never fully agree with anyone for whom I vote. I go by my core issues.

Issues I am uncertain about; I honestly don't know what to do about the chronic homeless. A good number of people end up homeless due to an illness or job loss; given assistance, they can and want to get their lives together. But yes, there are some who are just so out there. I don't like the idea of forced incarceration in mental institutions, but when someone is so far gone they take a shit in the middle of the sidewalk with people walking around them, what do you do? I truly do not know. And neither, apparently, do a lot of people in power.

Where I part with many of my lefty peers is GMO. I think they have the wrong end of the stick. The problem is not that they are unhealthy; they are just as healthy as non-GMO food. And many GMO foods can grow where they would not otherwise. My issue loss of genetic diversity as agriculture increasingly becomes monoculture, so a disease or pest can really wipe out everything, and concentration of agriculture in the hands of a tiny number of huge companies, not GMO per se.

A truly excellent post. Thanks.

I understand that most later term abortions historically have been due to health concerns (either for the fetus or the mother) but that doesn't account for all. And those are the ones that bother me. And it's not saying "We know better than women", it's saying the life of the newborn overrides the decisions of the Individual which just happens to be a woman. Now please don't get me wrong, I am pro choice, but this is the problem that I have. I do think that a woman, her loved ones, doctors, clergy are all closer to the situation then the government is and I think overall it's better the decision be left out of the governments prevue. My problem is more theory. I hear pro-choice activists talk about the woman's right to choose, but that comes across as callus without admitting that as time goes on there is a life at stake besides the mother.

And scientifically I don't know where to draw the line. One possible choice is at conception, but to me that's ridiculous. Another option is at the point that the baby could possibly live outside the womb, around 5 months.

Overall, I am just uncomfortable with this as a subject. I feel compassion for the women, what they go through, what they will go through. I also feel for the potential baby. It leaves me without answers. However, without a more definitive scientific guideline that makes sense to me, I would acquiesce to the Woman as the one who knows best her situation.