Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

That's what he said.

Who the heck knows what he thinks.

 

Baron, let's do cars. You like cars.

A car as currently constructed has to have a gas pedal. It's essential. Can't run without one.

A car doesn't have to have a specific color. The engine can come in a variety of sizes. It can seat between two and eight people. Some run on electricity, others on gas, still others on both.

None of those factors are essential to the operation of the car.

So ... If you're shopping, do you choose based on a close inspection of each car's gas pedal? Or do you consider the "non-essential" components to be more important?

I don't really even know why we're talking about this anymore, but seeing Baron dig deeper is always fun.

 

Well, when test-driving the car, you sure as hell are going to use the gas pedal. And if the car doesn't move well in spite of you pressing the gas pedal, no matter how nice the color, how powerful the engine, or how many people it seats, you sure as hell are either going to 1. Move on to another car or 2. Insist upon the gas pedal getting fixed.

 

Well, if your argument is that the pig was bumfoozled by the shifty crafty Chris Matthews, that's pretty much evidence he shouldn't be allowed to walk around loose in public without a leash around his neck.

 

This abortion debate on here is cringe worthy. To answer the original question, the mere fact that Trump suggests that a woman be punished for an abortion if it were illegal isn't shocking or outrageous. But taken in the context that Trump has repeatedly marginalized women or has taken positions that specifically impact women make it outrageous. It comes off as wanting further degrade women as second class citizens even if that isn't what he literally said.

As for the broader implication that abortion should be outlawed, I say no it should not be. It is a heartbreaking practice that I would love see go away, but seeing as that isn't likely to happen I'd rather it be done by someone who knows what they are doing and have a legal obligation to keeping the woman alive and takes that obligation seriously. I am not so full of myself to believe that my world view is shared by everyone and I'd rather the practice be safe than one where the woman could die and the guy giving the abortion not face punishment.

As for pregnancies from rape, yes, abortion should be an option even if abortion is illegal. A woman's choice was denied whether by violence or other means and she is a victim. So after her rights as a human being to say no were taken away, she should be told again she cannot say no to what is happening her body again? That is not something I can in good conscience do.

If we did outlaw abortion, then what? Do we provide the woman with the means to raise the child? And what if the mother's life is in danger? Do you allow both to die or do you take steps necessary to preserve one life? Do we allow free birth control covered in health care regardless of which employeer provides that insurance (and that means churches too)? Do we teach teens how to use a condom or how to access the pill in school? Right now, the right calls a woman a whore for wanting birth control, insists teens be only taught abstinence and there is a huge stigma around welfare benefits and some want those to go away.

Legal abortions don't mean manditory abortion. Don't like it? Fine. Don't have an abortion. There are other options if you can't raise the kid.

 

Essential:

1. : of, relating to, or constituting essence : inherent
   
   
2. 2a : of the utmost importance : basic, indispensable, necessary <an essential requirement for admission to college>b : being a substance that is not synthesized by the body in a quantity sufficient for normal health and growth and that must be obtained from the diet <dietary protein provides the body with essential amino acids> — compare nonessential 2
   

Definition of ESSENTIAL

All this of which obscures my original point, in that people who use religion as the basis of their anti-abortion position, in which the religion teaches sex is supposed to be for procreation, to glorify the deity and to love the spouse, shouldn't be claiming their religion means that a woman who is raped or an incest victim means that they must carry the fetus to term. Since a rape doesn't involve any of those elements that the religion teaches about sex.

 

This is always such an intellectually dishonest argument. Yes, she is being told what to do with her body. But to leave out the fact that something is happening to someone else's body, as well, is kind of an important omission. You may reach the same conclusion. But it's not honest to argume that the woman's autonomy interest is the only interest at stake.

 

You're wrong. You've been wrong. You'll continue to be wrong.

Being wrong is essential to your being you.

And I'm done with this particular part of the conversation.

 

Your continued attempts NOT to understand what your opponents say or believe must be commended. It takes a special kind of commitment to remain so obtuse.

 

It's great there are journalists here who proudly proclaim their ignorance or lack or curiosity.

 

It is if you honestly believe there are no other interests. I'm sure there are those who sincerely believe there is nothing going on "in there" that merits consideration.

 

LOL.