President Donald Trump: The Thread

[illinilaw08]

A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster.

 

B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women.

 

Dude. The Vox article didn't say anything about women dying in America. It's about Trump's gag order - preventing NGOs from talking about abortion period to access federal funding. NGOs provide aid to foreign countries. All empirical evidence shows that the gag order has led to increased female deaths IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

[StrangeSox]

A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster.

 

B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women.

 

I'll kindly suggest again that you bother to familiarize yourself with the very basic elements of the topic you're trying to "do you just parrot that lol" and dismiss out of hand before commenting on it. You still very clearly have zero idea what the issue at hand even is, yet you're continuing to try to comment on it, to dismiss what others have said even though you clearly do not understand what they are saying, and engage in reflexive woe-is-me defensiveness that you do any time anyone bothers to engage with you.

 

Because you can't be bothered to read the article you dismissed as biased and fear-mongering, I'll point out the major issue you haven't grasped yet: the executive order covers US FOREIGN AID. Nobody in this thread or in the Vox article was talking about people in America. Again, if you had bothered to read the article or familiarized yourself in any way with the topic at hand before wading in to make smug dismissals, you'd have known that and wouldn't look so foolish.

[Steve9347]

A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster.

The only thing personal about that post was the fact that it referenced your views and the items you're posting in here.

[Soxbadger]

A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster.

 

B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women.

 

Rabbit,

 

Cant you just admit the Vox article doesnt say what you thought it did?

 

First line of the article:

 

President Donald Trump reinstated an executive order Monday barring US foreign aid

 

This has nothing to do with the US at all.

 

 

[Steve9347]

B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women.

Talk about a 180! You were arguing against an article and the statistics therein that was not about women "dropping dead in America. Simply admit your ignorance. BTW, the very definition of ignorant is what you're displaying by talking endlessly about something you do not understand.

 

ig·no·rant

ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

 

Read the article. Then build an argument.

[illinilaw08]

1) It speaks of waiting and the benefits there of. It also speaks of the issues that need to be addressed for some.

2) just because it isn't happening doesn't mean it shouldn't be happening.

3) What makes it antiquated? What determines morality?

 

1) That article talks about men who make a personal choice to be abstinent and the impact that has on their relationships. It does not talk about the societal benefits of only teaching abstinence, nor does it talk about what impact abstinence only policies have on teen pregnancy or abortion - the whole point of this discussion.

 

2 and 3 run together. It's antiquated because it doesn't work as policy. When access to affordable contraception increases, teen pregnancy and abortions go down. Abstinence only education assumes that sex before marriage is immoral - a belief that comes from the Bible, but not one that reflects reality. People have sex outside of marriage. Without proper protection, STDs and unplanned pregnancies are real risks.

 

People can choose to be abstinent. I don't really care. But when it's policy to push abstinence, it's a bad policy that negatively impacts society as a whole.

[Steve9347]

Did you get that math issue solved on the increase of the deficit under President Obama fixed yet?

Oh yeah, thread closed before I could fix it. Simple fix:

 

National Debt

Rose 110% while GWB was in office

Rose 114% while BHO was in office

 

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo5.htm

[Soxbadger]

So by this math I can say see, Laguna Beach and then the entire country is prosperous? N=1 does not allow anyone to generalize about the whole country.

 

What about the math that its about "foreign aid" and last I checked neither Laguna Beach nor Flint are "foreign" so that Vox article and Trump's policy have NOTHING to do with the US.

 

Again, FOREIGN AID.

 

(edit)

 

You really should start to consider whether trashing your credibility is worth it. A simple "I didnt read the article and assumed it was about the US" would make this all go away.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Steve9347]

You really should start to consider whether trashing your credibility is worth it. A simple "I didnt read the article and assumed it was about the US" would make this all go away.

Yeah, this is so strange. People who admit when they make mistakes are viewed as strong.

[Quin]

3) What makes it antiquated? What determines morality?

 

Individuals. The GOP playing morality police is the most disgusting pillar upon which they're built.

[StrangeSox]

My initial point was the hypocrisy of you putting every source posted by people you don't agree with in question and then posting a link from Vox. I know what the issue is. I just haven't heard it from the lens of you, Steve and badger. I'll admit, the past couple days I read that that Trump was to make it so NGOs couldn't promote abortion and receive US funding. It seems he's making it so they can't perform abortions. While this is a humanitarian issue that complicates things, I typically don't believe in foreign aid for a country who has an insurmountable debt and problems at home already. It's not as if Trump barred the NGO's from operating, he just barred one of the 170 countries supporting International Planned Parented (for instance) from funding the organization.

 

Everyone coming at me in this thread is making it black and white. It's not that simple. Perhaps I should've the Vox article (can't believe I just typed that) before commenting but even so, it's not as if they're some authoritative source. In the future I'll just refrain from commenting on their stuff.

 

But to the issue, this policy that Trump chose has been in effect for nearly half of the last thirty plus years. It's gone back and forth depending the party of the president. Even so, the American people are against the gov't using tax dollars to fund abortion abroad.

 

From Marist Poll's study released yesterday:"Americans overwhelmingly oppose the use of tax dollars to support abortion in other countries (83 percent). More than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) also oppose the use of tax dollars to fund abortions in the United States. This includes almost nine in 10 Trump supporters (87 percent) and even nearly four in 10 Clinton supporters (39 percent)."

 

lol just put on your big boy pants and admit that you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about while trying to smug it up.

 

edit: and no you had no clue what the issue is because you were talking about women in the US when the issue is about FOREIGN AID, jesus just admit that you f***ed up

 

edit2: and yes perhaps you should read an article before trying to portray it in any way? I dunno seems like a smart idea to me but whatever floats your boat.

Edited January 24, 2017 by StrangeSox

[pettie4sox]

the buster is going to get realllllllll good the next four years.

[StrangeSox]

You're not even interested in talking about the issue. You just need to point out who's wrong. I admitted to things I shouldn't have I don't owe you anything.

 

Your first post was trash that was trying to insult me based on your own ignorance.

 

Why exactly are thousands of women dropping dead with less access to abortion? Do you believe that or are you just parroting Vox.com lol. Did thousands of women die in the 1800's because of lack of access to abortion? To be clear, I am totally for women's abortion rights and border on encouraging it. In essence, don't have kids you can't provide a good life to. That being said, this article is just fear-mongering from a bad source.

 

It continued downhill with the smug condescension after that.

 

Don't pretend that you just want to "talk about the issue" and that your ignorant posts were anyone's fault but your own.

 

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Rabbit,

 

No problem. People can disagree on foreign aid and whether it is worth it.

[illinilaw08]

You're not even interested in talking about the issue. You just need to point out who's wrong. I admitted to things I shouldn't have I don't owe you anything.

 

Rabbit, the Vox article used supporting facts from some pretty reputable sources (as noted earlier in this thread) to show that this policy will cost lives overseas. Note that the US will not stop funding NGOs, it does not stop foreign aid (as you discussed in an earlier post) - it just will stop funding NGOs that even talk about abortion. Historically that has the effect, as a policy, of costing lives. It's not a fiscally responsible policy because they aren't stopping foreign aid period. They are diverting foreign aid away from one specific area.

 

The issue then that should be discussed is whether this is an irresponsible policy from the Trump administration that has a negative impact on the world. All research and historical evidence seems to point to it having a demonstrably negative effect on the world.

 

You have not addressed that point other than to scoff at Vox (without discussing the source of the information in the Vox article). But if you are willing to debate that issue - instead of making an unrelated tangent on foreign aid generally - I think you will find the board happy to discuss that.

 

ETA: my apology to Rabbit - I misread his earlier post - he cited to unpopular position on providing foreign aid for abortions. So let's talk about that. My take - this policy will cost lives overseas. Thus, it's a bad policy.

Edited January 24, 2017 by illinilaw08

[Brian]

the buster is going to get realllllllll good the next four years.

 

[brett05]

1) That article talks about men who make a personal choice to be abstinent and the impact that has on their relationships. It does not talk about the societal benefits of only teaching abstinence, nor does it talk about what impact abstinence only policies have on teen pregnancy or abortion - the whole point of this discussion.

 

2 and 3 run together. It's antiquated because it doesn't work as policy. When access to affordable contraception increases, teen pregnancy and abortions go down. Abstinence only education assumes that sex before marriage is immoral - a belief that comes from the Bible, but not one that reflects reality. People have sex outside of marriage. Without proper protection, STDs and unplanned pregnancies are real risks.

 

People can choose to be abstinent. I don't really care. But when it's policy to push abstinence, it's a bad policy that negatively impacts society as a whole.

We have to just disagree then.

[brett05]

Oh yeah, thread closed before I could fix it. Simple fix:

 

National Debt

Rose 110% while GWB was in office

Rose 114% while BHO was in office

 

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports...debt_histo5.htm

At least you almost admitted your fault.

[brett05]

Individuals. The GOP playing morality police is the most disgusting pillar upon which they're built.

So these individuals decide we no longer need a world with Quinarvy in it, that's be perfectly moral.

[Reddy]

A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster.

 

raBBit criticizing someone for getting personal. THAT's good stuff right there.

[southsider2k5]

I am just going to get in here for long enough to say that not only are multiple people violating the terms of the filibuster, but there are also personal attacks which are a violation of the sites rules. Suspensions can and will be given out if this keeps up. I know a lot of people aren't happy right now, but that is not an excuse to break the rules that we all know exist here.

[Quin]

So these individuals decide we no longer need a world with Quinarvy in it, that's be perfectly moral.

 

I'm trying to debate if you just threatened me or not. Tread carefully here.

[brett05]

I'm trying to debate if you just threatened me or not. Tread carefully here.

If you feel threatened I am sorry. I was really just trying to show you an example that shows the flaw in your argument on where morality comes from.

 

Please accept my apology. If I need to be banned, I totally understand and will not protest.

[StrangeSox]

Federal Workers Told To Halt External Communication In First Week Under Trump?

 

WASHINGTON ― Multiple federal agencies have told their employees to cease communications with members of Congress and the press, sources have told The Huffington Post.

 

The freeze has startled aides on the Hill and people at those agencies, who worry that it could abruptly upend current operations and stifle work and discussions that routinely take place between branches of government.

 

Officials at sub-agencies of the Department of Health and Human Services, for example, have been told not to send “any correspondence to public officials” according to a memo shared with HuffPost. Instead, they have been asked to refer questions to agency leadership until the leadership has had time to meet with incoming White House staff about the new administration’s policies and objectives, according to a congressional official who was also informed of the communications freeze.

 

A similar directive has been issued to staffers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's research arm, BuzzFeed News reported Tuesday. The Agricultural Research Service employs 2,000 scientists and postdoctoral researchers. "Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents," wrote Sharon Drumm, chief of staff for the research service, in a department-wide email that BuzzFeed obtained. The list of prohibited external communication included news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds and social media content.

 

As for the communications freeze, sources on Capitol Hill said they are worried about the timing of the directive. Lawmakers routinely help constituents to interface with federal agencies, especially those that fall under the HHS umbrella. If officials who deal with Medicare and Medicaid policies aren’t allowed to talk to members of Congress, one Hill aide noted, it will be impossible to address constituent concerns with those programs.

 

Additionally, this year’s Affordable Care Act enrollment continues until Jan. 31 and runs largely through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which falls under HHS. If constituents have questions about coverage options, the aide noted, the communications freeze may make it impossible to address those issues.

 

It may also impede current scientific research that depends on federal funding, advocates worry.

 

“Any effort to stop a scientific agency from responding to congressional, federal, state and local inquiries has a chilling effect,” said Ben Corb, director of public affairs at the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. “We steadfastly believe peer-reviewed science should remain free of politicization, and we support the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and all federally funded scientific agencies in their efforts to continue on their missions without political interference.”

Edited January 24, 2017 by StrangeSox

[Quin]

It's definitely not bannable and I don't feel threatened.

 

Now, would a Nazi find it morally OK to kill me? Yes.

 

This all boils down to where the morals of individuals and then society come from. Applying blanket Christian morality to the entire United States would be the equivalent of Sharia Law.

 

When I say individuals come up with morals, I should clarify: society tends to decide what is morally correct, some through the Bible and others not. Most in society would say pre-marital sex is fine in today's society.