Former President Trump Thread

Zappit · Jul 9, 2018

If the Republicans offered support for those babies yet to be born, I'd probably lean more pro-life (with the abortion option still legal) but at every turn, they cut, and cut, and cut programs and funding meant to help those children. I also keep hearing and reading the same line again and again from that crowd: If they couldn't afford kids, they should not have had them to begin with. These women are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. She's either a murderer or a slut in their eyes. There's no way for her to win, ever.

Meanwhile, if a guy is a total slut sleeping with dozens of women, he's a stud. He's manly. Good for him and whatnot. Not getting an STD is his Vietnam or some other stupid double-standard shit. If he gets a woman pregnant, it's her fault for "ruining his life".

Abortion is protected by the constitution. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade, it will be a disaster. You'll see dumpster babies in the news more frequently, hear stories of people dying in back-alley abortions, and the states will find themselves with an ever-increasing number of children in their custody.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

stienman said:
It's funny to see you say, "It's a minority, so we're going to set aside their problems until we solve my problems, and if my solution hurts them more - well it sucks* to be them!"

It's not because they're a minority. It wouldn't matter if they're in the majority. Because there is no major organization lobbying to stigmatize using formula to the point of killing babies. Breastfeeding groups readily acknowledge that formula is sometimes necessary. You won't find La Leche Leauge putting out campaigns telling people that they should let their babies starve before they switch to formula. You won't find them encouraging any sort of harassment of moms who have a medical reason to use formula.

It is completely ridiculous to compare the grossly unethical practices of formula companies to the stigma against mothers using formula (which doesn't exist in all areas, and certainly didn't exist a couple decades ago when the formula companies propganda machine was still in full swing making a lot of people think formula is better than breast milk)

As if this were a zero sum game, and we can't be compassionate and considerate as we attack seemingly larger problems.

SEEMINGLY? FUCK YOU. Fuck off, you pretentious hypocritical prick. You claim to be about life and you can't even acknowledge the deaths that have been caused by the greed of major corporations when they blatantly exploit the poor. FUCK YOU.

But again, I can't really speak towards the actual goings on, I'll have to take your word for it that it's better to reduce nutrition choice and stigmatize women further in countries full of people you don't know.

Nothing about the resolution from the WHO would have reduced nutrition choice. NOTHING. Breast feeding advocates are not some radical group that are out to stop formula at any cost. The ONLY reason that stigma exists at all is because of the backlash against the unethical practices of the formula companies. If they weren't still putting out their propaganda that goes against the consensus of the medical community, then there never would have been a movement to convince the world what medicine has repeatedly proven. When the formula companies stop their lies, then we can tone down the opposition to those lies. (Which, I will add, is only misinterpreted into stigma. No major group advocating breast feeding actually says that formula users should be stigmatized.)

Can we apply that same requirement to abortion? Or are you only interested in controlling diet, and not murder?

Once again FUCK YOU and you strawman arguments. I am in no way advocating what you claim I am. This is not about limiting access to formula. This is about the inappropriate marketing of formula. Unethical practices that have led to the deaths of children. So shut your fucking face you hypocritcal asshole. Your "pro-life" mask is showing it's cracks. If you really cared about children, you'd recognize the history of exploitation that has been, and the ongoing exploitation that continues to be, perpetrated by the formula companies.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

Bubble181 said:
Formula is also, still, literally a life saver for many and incredibly important for many others. Gating or restricting access probably isn't a good idea, yes?

This is a strawman. NOTHING about the WHO resolution would have gated or restricted access to formula.

blotsfan · Jul 9, 2018

I love how steinman constantly supports restricting womens' autonomy and health at a macro-level and it's all ok, but the second someone implies that he might do the same at a micro-level, that's a bridge too far.

LittleSin · Jul 9, 2018

Blots.

Do not.

blotsfan · Jul 9, 2018

Your concerns have been duly noted.

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2018

And now a comedic interlude to maybe get people to chill out a teensy bit maybe.

@Li3n · Jul 9, 2018

Bubble181 said:
And who gets to decide what constitutes a "good"reason? Old white men?

Obviously, i must be arguing for a 3rd party to force people into breastfeeding... MANDATORY SUCKLING QUOTAS FOR EVERYONE...

Bubble181 said:
I know women who don't breastfeed because of their career.

And that's a horrible thing to have to choose between, and exactly what i'm talking about.

Breastfeeding while working should not be stigmatised.

Plus, nowadays you can even pump breast milk etc.

Bubble181 said:
Formula is also, still, literally a life saver for many and incredibly important for many others. Gating or restricting access probably isn't a good idea, yes?

Then i guess it a good thing that no one was talking about banning formula, but about encouraging breastfeeding because it's so much better.

stienman said:
Can we apply that same requirement to abortion? Or are you only interested in controlling diet, and not murder?

Nah, we're totally into 10th month abortions over here... they're like getting a pedicure.

Just because i don't think we should force other human beings to allow their bodies to be used as incubators for 9 months doesn't mean i think abortions are great. I'm all for getting rid of them through better sexual education.

And of course, there's also the actual reason why they became legal because women kept turning up dead after botched abortions on the streets.

...

Oh, and lets not forget that the Bible actually has instructions on how to induce an abortion for adultery babies: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:20-22&version=NIV

Post automatically merged: Jul 9, 2018

stienman said:
I'm not sure what "act like we're upset" means. Every time Trump rubs two words together the entire left has a conniption fit that would make a two-year-old blush.

At this point, the world seemingly has gone numb from outrage, and it's hard to pick out the real outrage from the "act".

Yeah, that's not just something you do to make yourself feel better about all the shit Trump does...

And the real shame is that the more rligous conservatives played a big part in stopping the whole "kidnapping migrant kids" thing.

@Li3n · Jul 9, 2018

Well, this is an interesting read: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44688337

Of course, this time the idiot actually got elected (even if not by the majority).

HCGLNS · Jul 9, 2018

As fun as thus discussion has been, the posted article shows that after forty years of global medical consensus the USA reversed it's doctor and science backed position and chose the position of industry. Not what is best for children or society but what benefits a few select stockholders.

And when their initial attempts to kill the proposal failed the threatened trade sanctions against the nation's who put forth the bill until they all withdrew.

And quite shockingly the proposal was eventually passed when Russia of all countries became the sponsor and the USA sat on their hands when faced with defying the Kremlin.

TLDR: USA sold out medical science to corporate greed and then sold out to Russia. Leader of the World indeed.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

HCGLNS said:
And quite shockingly the proposal was eventually passed when Russia of all countries became the sponsor and the USA sat on their hands when faced with defying the Kremlin.

TLDR: USA sold out medical science to corporate greed and then sold out to Russia. Leader of the World indeed.

That's assuming that letting Russia look like the good guys wasn't the plan all along. They may have known they'd only get a few concessions on the matter as a whole (and they got exactly what they wanted, a removal of any censure for inappropriate marketing), so they made a deal to look like they were trying to kill the thing outright, only to let Russia come in and save it, being the apparent good guy.

drifter · Jul 9, 2018

figmentPez said:
That's assuming that letting Russia look like the good guys wasn't the plan all along. They may have known they'd only get a few concessions on the matter as a whole (and they got exactly what they wanted, a removal of any censure for inappropriate marketing), so they made a deal to look like they were trying to kill the thing outright, only to let Russia come in and save it, being the apparent good guy.

That’s such a transparent ploy, would anyone take it at face value? I think it’s more Russia taking advantage of the situation to display to the world the power they hold over US.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

drifter said:
That’s such a transparent ploy, would anyone take it at face value? I think it’s more Russia taking advantage of the situation to display to the world the power they hold over US.

You might be right, but in recent political history we've seen people swallow laughably transparent ploys over and over. So I really don't know what level of gullibility to expect from people these days.

HCGLNS · Jul 9, 2018

But why? This isn't a popular news item at all, the only people who are getting serious discussion are diplomats. It is already gone from the American news cycle. It's as if the US is showing the world that Russia is in control, but with no blowback at home because cheeto is picking a supreme court nominee today and stabbing NATO in the back on twitter.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

HCGLNS said:
But why? This isn't a popular news item at all, the only people who are getting serious discussion are diplomats. It is already gone from the American news cycle. It's as if the US is showing the world that Russia is in control, but with no blowback at home because cheeto is picking a supreme court nominee today and stabbing NATO in the back on twitter.

Because they can. Controlling public opinion is a long war of attrition. It fits in with the "fake news" strategy. Shout down any dissenting opinions, while building up a store of little victories you can call on when you need to show your virtue. "Is it really that bad that Russia is taking an interest in American politics? Look at how much good they're doing in the world now. They're not your grandfather's Russia."

HCGLNS · Jul 9, 2018

figmentPez said:
Because they can. Controlling public opinion is a long war of attrition. It fits in with the "fake news" strategy. Shout down any dissenting opinions, while building up a store of little victories you can call on when you need to show your virtue. "Is it really that bad that Russia is taking an interest in American politics? Look at how much good they're doing in the world now. They're not your grandfather's Russia."

Sorry but I feel that this statement is giving far to much credit to the intended audience for it to be credible.

To me, it's a blatant acquiescence of power for all the world to watch.

blotsfan · Jul 9, 2018

It's nice that our government is such a perfect mix of stupid, traitorous, and evil that you can't ever be sure of their reasons for doing awful things.

Dave · Jul 9, 2018

I think it's more likely that they did this specifically to obfuscate goings on in the US than any plan to make Russia look good. It's probably something they thought would get more attention to take eyes away from the Supreme Court pick or the Meuller investigation.

Ravenpoe · Jul 9, 2018

Let women breast feed if they want, or use formula if they want, or both, and make the information about the pros and cons of all and other resources needed to make an informed decision free and readily available, while blocking blatantly false or misleading information.

Is that so controversial?

Dave · Jul 9, 2018

Yes, but so is birth control because, you know, WOMEN STRANGE AND MAKE REPUBLICAN FEEL STRANGE!

Bubble181 · Jul 9, 2018

Dave said:
Yes, but so is birth control because, you know, WOMEN STRANGE AND MAKE REPUBLICAN FEEL STRANGE!

I have to point out - conservative men all over the world, not just republicans. The whole women covering their hair/face/body in many Muslim countries, female circumcision in some African and Asian countries, etc, all stem from "I might lose control because of you, so you have to change/hide because I doubt want to from men in power.

Dave · Jul 9, 2018

Bubble181 said:
I have to point out - conservative men all over the world, not just republicans. The whole women covering their hair/face/body in many Muslim countries, female circumcision in some African and Asian countries, etc, all stem from "I might lose control because of you, so you have to change/hide because I doubt want to from men in power.

I concede the point.

Gruebeard · Jul 9, 2018

Dave said:
I concede the point.

@Bubble181 wins the point! Wooo!

It's a victory of such incredible winningness, he's used up all the winning Belgium gets for the rest of the month . . .

Uh oh.

strawman · Jul 9, 2018

I forfeit, and I'm sorry to have caused such a strong reaction.

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2018

stienman said:
I forfeit, and I'm sorry to have caused such a strong reaction.

Frankly, I think a lot of the treatment you've gotten in this thread is uncalled for.

Just because someone opposes abortion doesn't mean they support everything else that "republicans" are accused of doing, including but not limited to socialized child support or instigating paternal abandonment.

And just because back alley abortion rates were higher when abortions were harder to get doesn't mean the only options for a woman are "unwanted babies or abortions." Frankly, I would think it kind of insulting to have insinuated that women simply have no way to be constantly, perpetually, unavoidably getting pregnant. Humans are not rutting animals, they can understand their choices and the consequences for them.

And frankly, it's great that Planned Parenthood does so much else besides abortions, but they do do abortions - and that's pretty much what defines them as a group, no matter how many mammograms they perform. If they don't want the hassle and stigma that entails, maybe they should spin off their other activities into a separate company entity. I mean, if Campbells sold soup, stew, boulliabase, and fully automatic assault rifles, I dare say the very same people criticizing you for calling Planned Parenthood an abortion clinic would be calling Campbells an illegal arms dealer.

Ravenpoe · Jul 9, 2018

GasBandit said:
Frankly, I think a lot of the treatment you've gotten in this thread is uncalled for.

Just because someone opposes abortion doesn't mean they support everything else that "republicans" are accused of doing, including but not limited to socialized child support or instigating paternal abandonment.

And just because back alley abortion rates were higher when abortions were harder to get doesn't mean the only options for a woman are "unwanted babies or abortions." Frankly, I would think it kind of insulting to have insinuated that women simply have no way to be constantly, perpetually, unavoidably getting pregnant. Humans are not rutting animals, they can understand their choices and the consequences for them.

And frankly, it's great that Planned Parenthood does so much else besides abortions, but they do do abortions - and that's pretty much what defines them as a group, no matter how many mammograms they perform. If they don't want the hassle and stigma that entails, maybe they should spin off their other activities into a separate company entity. I mean, if Campbells sold soup, stew, boulliabase, and fully automatic assault rifles, I dare say the very same people criticizing you for calling Planned Parenthood an abortion clinic would be calling Campbells an illegal arms dealer.

Abortion wasn't actually a part of the discussion until it was implied that in order to be against companies misleading women to sell formula, you need to also be against abortion.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

GasBandit said:
And just because back alley abortion rates were higher when abortions were harder to get doesn't mean the only options for a woman are "unwanted babies or abortions." Frankly, I would think it kind of insulting to have insinuated that women simply have no way to be constantly, perpetually, unavoidably getting pregnant. Humans are not rutting animals, they can understand their choices and the consequences for them.

Are you promoting abstinence for anyone who doesn't want a child?

blotsfan · Jul 9, 2018

GasBandit said:
And just because back alley abortion rates were higher when abortions were harder to get doesn't mean the only options for a woman are "unwanted babies or abortions." Frankly, I would think it kind of insulting to have insinuated that women simply have no way to be constantly, perpetually, unavoidably getting pregnant. Humans are not rutting animals, they can understand their choices and the consequences for them.

Just because people understand the consequences doesn't mean they make the rational decision 100% of the time. Glad you're cool with punishing people for that though.

Dei · Jul 9, 2018

I don't really like abortion as birth control, but what I dislike more is the way the Republican party constantly tries to undermine safe sex practices by pretending that the only solution ever is not having sex.

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2018

figmentPez said:
Are you promoting abstinence for anyone who doesn't want a child?

I'm saying an argument can be made for being responsible for one's own actions, and that is not a monstrous thing, as some here seem to think.

blotsfan said:
Just because people understand the consequences doesn't mean they make the rational decision 100% of the time. Glad you're cool with punishing people for that though.

Oh, I am 100% cool with always holding people accountable for their bad decisions. If more people were, at all levels and situations (not just this topic), we'd not be in half the messes we are in now.

Dei said:
I don't really like abortion as birth control, but what I dislike more is the way the Republican party constantly tries to undermine safe sex practices by pretending that the only solution ever is not having sex.

I agree.

figmentPez · Jul 9, 2018

GasBandit said:
I'm saying an argument can be made for being responsible for one's own actions, and that is not a monstrous thing, as some here seem to think.

Way to dodge the question.

Dubyamn · Jul 9, 2018

GasBandit said:
I'm saying an argument can be made for being responsible for one's own actions, and that is not a monstrous thing, as some here seem to think.

This some kind of new libertarian position? Punishment babies? For the terrible crime of having sex?

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2018

figmentPez said:
Way to dodge the question.

I could just turn it right around. Are you saying people should not be held responsible for their actions? When I go hunting on a long weekend, as I have oft done in the past, if I "don't make a rational decision 100% of the time" and end up killing somebody, shouldn't I have to deal with the consequences of my actions?

So many people on this board (not saying you're one of them) find the "sex is for making babies" argument to be horrifying and archaic, but are quick to invoke the "automatic weapons have only one purpose and that is to kill as many people as possible" argument with no sense of irony whatsoever.

The fact of the matter is, sex DOES make babies, sometimes despite all precautions (but often in the absence of precaution). If someone believes that life begins at conception, then they believe abortion ends the life of a human being. You may not agree with it, but it is far from a niche opinion. 40% of Americans believe still, to this day, that abortion should be illegal in almost all circumstances. And (despite humorous posts to the contrary) it is not a position held to "deprive women of choice."

But maybe if you scream "FUCK YOU" at me in bolded caps a few times, you'll change more hearts and minds, right?

Dubyamn said:
This some kind of new libertarian position? Punishment babies? For the terrible crime of having sex?

No moreso than abortion is sentencing a baby to death for the terrible crime of his mother having sex.

blotsfan · Jul 9, 2018

fiScALlY CoNsERvAtIVe BuT sOciAlLy lIbERaL

GasBandit · Jul 9, 2018

blotsfan said:
fiScALlY CoNsERvAtIVe BuT sOciAlLy lIbERaL

I actually support legalized abortion.

But what I don't support is a your dogpiling Steinman for having civilly stated his opinion that you disagree with, however vehemently. I don't agree with him, but I'm not invoking invective and attempting to dehumanize him.