POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I think that simplifying things as "good/bad" creates a false reality. better to describe things in terms of cause and effect. there is a silver lining to anything and a negative to anything, even if only opportunity cost.

 

There is a division in this country, and to pretend that there isn't is just being willfully ignorant.

There is one group that believes that the best way to help people is through government. There is another group that believes that the best way to help people is through private means, either individually or groups.

One group (the government group) is prevented at every opportunity from fully executing their vision, because the other group (private group) believes it won't work, and so they are taking a preventive step, and standing in the way.

The private group has, as government, actively taken away abilities of the individual, and provided no government means for the individual to obtain those abilities, while actively standing in the way of the government group from implementing government means to distribute those abilities.

That is the division, and it exists.

 

I am not saying there is no division, I am saying leaking stuff like this at this time is a calculated move to keep us focused on division

 

Maybe. And a counter point to calculated moves is that focusing on that division may be exactly the thing we need to lead us to face it.

 

Imo, the division is more between those on both sides which think their way is the only way, and the other way or opinion is wrong and dumb. And they feed the frenzy by riling up the extremes, which are more vocal and visual than those who just want to compromise, get along and move forward for betterment of the country.

 

I mean, opinions can absolutely be wrong and invalid and we shouldn’t feed the idea that they can’t be. And, by god, some opinions are so dumb and wrong that the people that espouse them should absolutely be shamed for voicing them, particularly when they can and often are harmful.

It’s just that now the dumb opinions and fringe morons get all the clicks and views because there is no accountability for those that put profit over societal well-being.

 

There is one side that has had their way, completely, that then also doesn't let the other side have their way. And the only compromise becomes the one that that side allows.

True compromise would be a good thing. But we can't get that, because the private side doesn't let the government side try the government thing.

 

Kinda sums up my point float. You blame one side for division, which isn't the case. It never is.

 

Many on the left think the Federal minimum wage should be 15 dollars an hour. Many on the right think it should never go up, and shouldn't exist at all anyway. What should the reasonable compromise be?

Another: some think people should be able to terminate their pregnancies if they do not wish to have a child, some don't think people who terminate pregnancies are murdering. What is the compromise?

 

A. I dont know. If companies can afford $15, pay it. If companies can't afford it and will go out of business, what's the point. And to say many on the right disagree, is to say many non dems don't work minimum wage jobs, which is incorrect. Every republican man I know with kids, has them working minimum wage jobs to earn some money and learn work ethic.
B. I am of the opinion that there are precautions to take if you dont want to get pregnant, and could have planned for them accordingly, and abortion due to "not wanting it" is murder of a human being. Lazy excuse.. If others disagree, so be it. If rape, incest, etc is involved, it's a different deal, imo.

 

So, this looks a lot like no compromise on either issue. Something about non dems work minimum wage jobs (no shit), and republican men's children working minimum wage jobs as some sort of pedagogic task... implicitly suggests you think "dems just want more money" and "minimum wage jobs are just for kids"... So two deflections and no potential compromise offered.

And as far as B, it is straight up a "I think you are wrong, so no compromise. But I am okay with murder of children in some circumstances." You've illustrated fl0at's point. I wasn't so sure it was so cut and dried as he put it, but maybe it is.

 

I agree if the position is, "it's murder" the reason the child came into existence is irrelevant. I think the vast majority of people can agree that at some point its too late to terminate, the question then becomes defining where the line is. I personally am good with defining the line at viability outside the womb, knowing full well over time that line will move left. But I can't figure out the abortion is murder except if its rape or incest crowd. Its a self contradicting stance.

 

that's what I'm saying, and yet you hear that a lot.

 

I guess there may be more nuance there than is presented in a brief exchange though, so maybe ssmiff can elaborate if so. I would think it would not be relevant how conceived, if we are in a "this is murder" situation. Though there could be some point of not murder/murder rather than a blanket "murder if ever."

 

Yes, it is the case. Can we have universal health care? No. Why? Because one side blocks it, and only one side.

 

It's responsibility for your own actions vs. responsibility for someone else's actions. A lot of people think that you should be responsible for your actions. Most people don't think you should be held responsible for someone else's actions, so they have trouble saying that a woman who was the victim of rape should have to carry the pregnancy to term. It's not her fault that she was raped, so why should she be responsible for the outcome?

But I agree that murder is murder, so the logic doesn't really make sense. They should be saying something like "No abortion, but government/charity should help with adoption and what not. Either way, rape cases are a pretty small percentage of abortions.

I agree with you that there's a line somewhere, but I don't know that we (people in general) will ever agree on where that line is.

 

It looks like whatever your mind is already made up to look like, and we all know you won't change. Your first part is defensive, assumptive and dumb .
You asked my opinion on B and I answered. Yes, imo, when a crime is committed I believe a woman should be able to abort, and do not believe laziness or lack of planning on one's part should lead to a bailout. Again, the difference is if you disagree, fine by me, but yet you can't stand when someone has a different opinion and result to insults and labeling.

 

It's a stance different than yours. Try to deal with it. A crime was committed, so its not self contradicting. I would rather it not be allowed at all past the early stages, but if a woman is truly a victim, she should be able to choose. Imo.
Again, a few of you seem to have a lot of trouble dealing with opinions that differ from yours and need to learn to accept and deal with them better

 

How can you claim that abortion because you don't want a kid is murder but abortion because you were raped isn't? Say both abortions take place on the exact same day of the pregnancy. How can one be murder but the other can't?

Either the baby/fetus is a human capable of being murdered on that specific day, or it isn't. The acts that led up to the pregnancy have no bearing, whatsoever, on the humanity of the fetus/baby.

 

I have a hard time saying a woman who is a victim of rape or incest shouldnt have a choice, that's why.