US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

CanserDYI

Yeah, No, Definitely.
Joined
Sep 23, 2020
Messages
4,030
Reaction score
5,577
Location
419
Everyone post their political compasses and we can laugh about who's a fascist and who isn't. orca-image-188027135.jpeg
 

Glades

Down in the Everglades
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
710
Reaction score
580
Location
Florida
haha that was fun
 

Attachments

  • 869420FF-63BE-4B24-B978-60B68FD90541.jpeg
    869420FF-63BE-4B24-B978-60B68FD90541.jpeg
    117.2 KB · Views: 11

Grindspine

likes pointy things
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,872
Reaction score
1,090
Location
Indiana
I believe equality of opportunity is fundamental to our western society.
I do not believe a woman has the right to murder her child, born or unborn. She however has a right to decide if she wants to get pregnant.
Just gotta say that 1) not all sexual activity that results in pregnancy is consensual. That was one of my major problems with Indiana politics. The GOP hardliners were arguing over exceptions for rape not being included in their bill.

2) Even with consensual sex, birth control can fail. Condoms typically have a 97% effective rate. Spermicides range also in the 90% area. Working in pathology, I have literally removed an IUD (intra-uterine device) from a placenta from a live birth. Obviously, the birth control failed, and the woman decided to keep the pregnancy. However, it was surprising considering that those are designed to prevent implantation.

3) Abstinence is not for everyone. I mean, the Southern Baptists Convention is currently being probed for sexual abuse allegations. Catholic priests have the unfortunate (but not entirely undeserved) reputation of predatory sexual acts. If abstinence does not work for religious leaders, how can anyone expect the common man (or woman) to be entirely abstinent.

Denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy that she did not want, even if she took precautions and tried to avoid getting pregnant, is relegating her to a second-class citizen. Some women do not want to have kids. Some do not want to have children before a certain point in life. Some already have children and do not want more.

I have difficulty taking it seriously when someone says that they respect women's rights, yet they value a ball of cells without a central nervous system above the choices of the woman who will be the host of that "potential human life". Valuing potential above that of reality is one of the downfalls of the extreme conservative movement.
 

Glades

Down in the Everglades
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
710
Reaction score
580
Location
Florida
Just gotta say that 1) not all sexual activity that results in pregnancy is consensual. That was one of my major problems with Indiana politics. The GOP hardliners were arguing over exceptions for rape not being included in their bill.

2) Even with consensual sex, birth control can fail. Condoms typically have a 97% effective rate. Spermicides range also in the 90% area. Working in pathology, I have literally removed an IUD (intra-uterine device) from a placenta from a live birth. Obviously, the birth control failed, and the woman decided to keep the pregnancy. However, it was surprising considering that those are designed to prevent implantation.

3) Abstinence is not for everyone. I mean, the Southern Baptists Convention is currently being probed for sexual abuse allegations. Catholic priests have the unfortunate (but not entirely undeserved) reputation of predatory sexual acts. If abstinence does not work for religious leaders, how can anyone expect the common man (or woman) to be entirely abstinent.

Denying a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy that she did not want, even if she took precautions and tried to avoid getting pregnant, is relegating her to a second-class citizen. Some women do not want to have kids. Some do not want to have children before a certain point in life. Some already have children and do not want more.

I have difficulty taking it seriously when someone says that they respect women's rights, yet they value a ball of cells without a central nervous system above the choices of the woman who will be the host of that "potential human life". Valuing potential above that of reality is one of the downfalls of the extreme conservative movement.
I really don’t wish to restart the entire abortion discussion all over again. But let me state I respect your opinion, even though I disagree. I saw these things with the utmost respect, and I am not “trolling” as some say.

A human has its own genetically unique DNA at conception (week 0), it starts to develop its central nervous system at week 3, a heart at week 3, arms legs ears and eyes at week 4. I saw and heard my daughter’s heartbeat at 5.5 weeks. This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.

There is states where a woman can walk Into a clinic during her 3rd trimester and request their baby be dismembered limb by limb. Simply because it is inconvenient. I am pretty libertarian in most aspects, and I think government involvement in most things should be limited to a minimum. But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,835
Reaction score
21,175
Location
Tokyo
I really don’t wish to restart the entire abortion discussion all over again. But let me state I respect your opinion, even though I disagree. I saw these things with the utmost respect, and I am not “trolling” as some say.

A human has its own genetically unique DNA at conception (week 0), it starts to develop its central nervous system at week 3, a heart at week 3, arms legs ears and eyes at week 4. I saw and heard my daughter’s heartbeat at 5.5 weeks. This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.

I'm pretty sure a minimum requirement for being a "human being" is having a functioning brain (not even starting until week six).
 

narad

Progressive metal and politics
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
12,835
Reaction score
21,175
Location
Tokyo
Not to derail the conversation of what makes a human, but when I started grad school in late 2000s there was a rising machine learning star and professor at a good uni. He was newly married and wife was pregnant with twins, but something happened and they were born extremely premature, and were in the incubator beds to keep them developing, but both had severe brain damage. They knew at that point that those kids were never going to be self sufficient in any sense. During an argument with his wife about how to take care of them, he jumped out the window of his high-rise apartment.

By Glades's pov, both of those kids are human beings. But they wouldn't exist in the world without a huge amount of scientific intervention to keep them alive and developing. They're not going to really live -- from what I heard at the time, they were never even really going to be aware of just about anything. Yet, we expect the parents to have no choice but to take on this burden, which basically would ruin their lives. It's crazy. No one wins except for random Christians like, "They have souls!"
 

mmr007

(anti)Social Influencer
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
3,514
Location
SoCal
This “ball of cells” you speak of is a human being that deserves a life.

But the murder of innocent babies, who are given no chance at life, who are deprived of the most basic and fundamental right there is, is heinous. We should all, as citizens stand together against murder of the innocent, and expect our government to provide for their protection and safety.
Kindly requote yourself the next time 30 kids are slaughtered at a preschool and you and your fellow 2A folks argue the right to bear all weapons is more important than the balls of cells with names, faces and families who are now just pools of blood.
 

Glades

Down in the Everglades
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
710
Reaction score
580
Location
Florida
On other news, Liz Cheney loses the Wyoming primary to Trump-backed Harriet Hageman. Wonder how long it takes her to land a seat on “The View”.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,319
Reaction score
13,785
Location
The Electric City, NY
So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?

This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).
 

Glades

Down in the Everglades
Joined
Sep 8, 2016
Messages
710
Reaction score
580
Location
Florida
So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?

This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).
It created 87,000 new jobs.
 

mmr007

(anti)Social Influencer
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
1,750
Reaction score
3,514
Location
SoCal
87,000 armed security personnel to guard all the FBI agents and their families getting threatened all across the country? Or is it something else?
 

philkilla

Baritone Maniac
Contributor
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
427
Location
Clarksville, TN
So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?

This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).

You mean with all the sick awesome tax credits if you spend thousands of dollars towards new windows, solar panels, electric vehicles and electric vehicle chargers?
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,319
Reaction score
13,785
Location
The Electric City, NY
You mean with all the sick awesome tax credits if you spend thousands of dollars towards new windows, solar panels, electric vehicles and electric vehicle chargers?

I mean, if there's substance to that, I wouldn't hate it but the fine print matters.

In NYS (with help of the utility company) they had programs subsidizing smart thermostats (got them down between $20 and $30) and that did substantially lower my energy usage between setting zones and better schedules for the furnace. Better for me, better for the environment, and the cost was spread out.

So far I'm skeptical of subsidized electric vehicle programs. Battery production and raw material harvesting is incredibly toxic, and the amount of energy used producing the new "zero emission" car is more than the carbon output you're likely putting out from your existing car over the rest of it's life; especially if you take into account the fossil fuels that are generating the power you're using to recharge.

And that's before you get into the money part of it. $5000 to $7000 off a $45,000 car is zero help to most people, just convenient discount for the people who can afford the car already anyway. And even worse of it's all wrapped in tax incentives. The average person doesn't get $5000 to $7000 back in their taxes total, I'd be very skeptical you don't end up getting only a portion of that back or off your tax bill, anyway.

So again, I'd have to see the fine print on this. Also, if this bill is a little bribery to gain votes (they all do it, ask Trump about his socialist $1200 checks), people looking to spend $45,000 on a new electric car are probably already voting for you even without this bill.
 

spudmunkey

SS.org Regular
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
7,189
Reaction score
11,853
Location
Near San Francisco
Previous EV tax credits were refunds on taxes. The new law applies it to the point of sale for the car at the dealer.

Keeping an existing car running is of course better than buying a new EV...(it'd be interesting to see programs than help with keeping cars running, like Medicare for cars...) but if you're buying a new car anyway, now there's more incentive. And the only EV that's dust-to-dust worse than the similar gas vehicle is the EV Hummer. Especially as newer battery tech continues to come out with less and less of the harmful stuff being mined. At least half of all Teslas being made right now use batteries without cobalt, for example..but cobalt will still continue to be mined because it's necessary for the refining of diesel fuel.
 

Mathemagician

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
5,232
Reaction score
4,931
This is where the popularity contest comes into play friend.


Please, point something out that I'm wrong about.

The current administration is a living breathing caricature of itself; that opinion alone is enough to stir the ire of some members here, and according to you I am still WRONG no matter what.


The current administration has passed multiple bills aimed at improving things for Americans not the least of which is new infrastructure spending. One of the best and most boring-ly good uses of tax dollars. As a whole this admin has been boring, and that was during a pandemic followed by ongoing supply chain constraints and Russia invading a “soon to be” EU nation.

I don’t own Biden merch, but people are agreeing on budgets to things that need to be completed.

Well put. I can't say I disagree with any of that.

But what I think @philkilla was referring to is that the vast majority of the posters here more or less align politically (anti-trump, pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc). It is not easy posting a dissenting opinion on this board. I know I have been personally insulted. I didn't get insulted for insulting somebody (which I never have), but for stating my opinion. I know I am 2 inches away from getting banned, just for dissenting to some things said here. Either though control or through creating a toxicity for those who disagree, you foster an environment where those who disagree leave and all you have left is like-minded individuals. That is the echo chamber.

Anti-authoritarian, pro-choice (no one is pro abortion, just pro options for healthcare), and smarter gun regulations. I don’t think we should take away peoples right to hunt or shoot for sport. Biathlon is an Olympic sport ffs. But something’s need to get done to prevent more desperate POS from attacking schools and public events.

Again, I consider my views boring. They’re mostly just “make things better for more people”.

Your right to religion stops at another person’s body. I don’t know how this is hard to understand for others. Mis-quoting scientific papers and opining your feelings as facts won’t change that.


Not to derail the conversation of what makes a human, but when I started grad school in late 2000s there was a rising machine learning star and professor at a good uni. He was newly married and wife was pregnant with twins, but something happened and they were born extremely premature, and were in the incubator beds to keep them developing, but both had severe brain damage. They knew at that point that those kids were never going to be self sufficient in any sense. During an argument with his wife about how to take care of them, he jumped out the window of his high-rise apartment.

By Glades's pov, both of those kids are human beings. But they wouldn't exist in the world without a huge amount of scientific intervention to keep them alive and developing. They're not going to really live -- from what I heard at the time, they were never even really going to be aware of just about anything. Yet, we expect the parents to have no choice but to take on this burden, which basically would ruin their lives. It's crazy. No one wins except for random Christians like, "They have souls!"

The Christian’s are worried about their own souls. And they think they won’t get into heaven if they don’t force their beliefs on everyone else. It’s self-serving.
 

StevenC

Javier Strat 7 2024
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
7,672
Reaction score
9,250
Location
Northern Ireland
So, any synopsis on what's in the new Biden bill?

This feels like the second or third "biggest bill that does stuff in our history" that he's signed that had no direct impact on average Americans. I'm surrounded by tons of moderate Dems and "anyone but a Republican" Biden apologists that constantly applaud the optics of passing bills ("winning") even if the average person has no idea what's in it or sees their life change for the better by election day. Which feels like a very 21st Century DNC type strategy (AKA a bad one).


It's pretty good except for the Manchin bits, which might not be so bad and definitely don't outweigh the good.
 


Top