New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

[Travis]

It didn't run out of control. There weren't massive roundups of brown people.

There are ongoing roundups of brown people. ICE (an agency that needs to be disbanded and all its agents sent to prison) are rounding people up if they don't look white enough. I've seen story after story about it on social media.

So. Buy. Your. Own.

They can understand for every action they take, there is a reaction or consequence. Not everything is an entitlement in this world. I have no problem with people deciding to use birth control or seeking abortion services. If we teach people that they must be responsible for their own actions, I think that is a great way to live your life. All of it.

Do you disagree?

I do disagree. Rich kids get a pass. Heck Kavanaugh didn't even have to answer for raping women when he was a teenager because he came from a privileged background. But a teenage girl that lives in a falling down trailer. Taught to be careful but now out a party with a boy who keeps hounding her ends up giving in and is now pregnant. The boy just disappears, as is the way, and she could get an abortion, continue on to college and get a good job then have a child when she's ready to take care of it. OR we go with your plan, she is forced to drop out of school, get a job at Walmart that doesn't even pay enough for rent and her kid ends up fed through Federal subsidies in government subsidized housing.



Talk about being spiteful. Just because you don't want to pay for her abortion her life is ruined, her child's life is likely ruined and instead of a highly productive, educated worker you have someone shackled to slave wage jobs with a child that ends up having to be raised within those constraints.


But.....if you hate poor people your plan is awesome. Cruel... but effective. Keeps them poor, makes more poor people and continues America's tradition of keeping wealth mobility low.


For all those reasons I've long made advocating for subsidized abortions one of my most important political positions.

 

[River]

It depends on whether removing them is going to make their lives better or worse.

What is your evidence for the highlighted part? Let's clear up this up, OK? There are orphanages that need to know.

On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

If there was a drug that cost 5 cents a day that would keep people from overeating to the point of dangerous obesity, would you be against Medicaid funding it?

It's nowhere near always optional. And teaching people a lesson is way less important to me than not creating unwanted children.

Pity you never had a chance to provide evidence to back up your claims.

That's why they were removed. Lets not conflate. Do you think foster care is worse than a situation than leaving children in homes where people cannot care for them or refuse to? (there is a reason why they are picked up...)

In cases where its "not optional" equates rape. I've made my opinions clear there.

If there is a pill that is 5 cents a day that helps old men stay erect would you be willing to pay it? (my answer is likely the same as yours) I'm not much for socialism, or hand out type of societies. Earn what you have. Everyone is capable of it. Those that aren't able can qualify for government assistance. Those that are lazy should do without. I'm not willing to pay someone elses bill that is perfectly capable of doing it themselves if they put in the effort.

If you think my stance is wrong, suggest a better way.

 

[River]

There are ongoing roundups of brown people. ICE (an agency that needs to be disbanded and all its agents sent to prison) are rounding people up if they don't look white enough. I've seen story after story about it on social media.







I do disagree. Rich kids get a pass. Heck Kavanaugh didn't even have to answer for raping women when he was a teenager because he came from a privileged background. But a teenage girl that lives in a falling down trailer. Taught to be careful but now out a party with a boy who keeps hounding her ends up giving in and is now pregnant. The boy just disappears, as is the way, and she could get an abortion, continue on to college and get a good job then have a child when she's ready to take care of it. OR we go with your plan, she is forced to drop out of school, get a job at Walmart that doesn't even pay enough for rent and her kid ends up fed through Federal subsidies in government subsidized housing.



Talk about being spiteful. Just because you don't want to pay for her abortion her life is ruined, her child's life is likely ruined and instead of a highly productive, educated worker you have someone shackled to slave wage jobs with a child that ends up having to be raised within those constraints.


But.....if you hate poor people your plan is awesome. Cruel... but effective. Keeps them poor, makes more poor people and continues America's tradition of keeping wealth mobility low.


For all those reasons I've long made advocating for subsidized abortions one of my most important political positions.

This kind of diatribe IMHO should be prosecuted for libel.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are ongoing roundups of brown people. ICE (an agency that needs to be disbanded and all its agents sent to prison) are rounding people up if they don't look white enough. I've seen story after story about it on social media.

I think I found your problem.

I do disagree. Rich kids get a pass. Heck Kavanaugh didn't even have to answer for raping women when he was a teenager because he came from a privileged background.

Ummm... the only person who ever claimed Kavanaugh raped anyone retracted that claim.

 

[acbytesla]

This seems like a delusional statement. (or wants children should be added also) If you cannot protect yourself, or afford kids why are you having sex? Simple action and consequence. Can't be more basic.

I don't know why you call it delusional. Teenagers ARE GOING TO HAVE SEX. To think they are not is what is delusional. Creating the happiest healthiest society possible, paying the very minor cost of providing birth control is sensible.

When I was attending the Unversity of Washington in the early 80s, I worked 30 hours a week and couldn't afford my tuition and rent let alone beer or going to beach week or parties like Justice Kavanaugh and his ilk. I lived on the meal that came with my shift at a restaurant,Top Ramen and little else.

But I did have a girlfriend and we had sex like rabbits. That was about the only thing that made those years bearable. And guess what, I paid little or nothing for birth control. I would go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and they provided condoms either free or at a fraction of the cost of a drug store. I never got a girl pregnant. And I've been a taxpaying citizen who helps the homeless and the elderly.

I also was friends with a girl who got pregnant who thought she would have to quit school and because of Planned Parenthood she got a low cost abortion. She is now a doctor of Oncology.

IMO, free birth control is money very well spent.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some people are taking Kavanaugh's confirmation badly.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'd be interested in knowing what evidence you have about the availability of better homes.

Per NPR: It's cheaper to adopt a black kid than a white kid.

That's not some handwringing liberal piece; it's just a fact.

I don't like abortion but it's absolutely false to pretend that better homes are universally available for the neediest infants (and older children).

But see, there are huge waiting lists (of upper middleclass white couples) who want to adopt babies. And, while they will pay more to get white babies, they will accept black babies, too.

Therefore, black women, as well as poor white women, should just go through with the pregnancy and have their babies, to help out those privileged white couples who are so desperate to adopt.

Sorry, no. Even if we grant the premise that "There are lots of homes waiting for those babies," regardless of the race, it is wrong to pressure women to have their babies for them. No one owes anything to these hoping-to-adopt parents. It's great that they are willing to adopt, and if women choose to give their babies up for adoption, good for them. However, expecting women to go through with having a baby just because there are couples who want to adopt is ultimately, a racist position, and wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

But see, there are huge waiting lists (of upper middleclass white couples) who want to adopt babies. And, while they will pay more to get white babies, they will accept black babies, too.

Therefore, black women, as well as poor white women, should just go through with the pregnancy and have their babies, to help out those privileged white couples who are so desperate to adopt.

Sorry, no. Even if we grant the premise that "There are lots of homes waiting for those babies," regardless of the race, it is wrong to pressure women to have their babies for them. No one owes anything to these hoping-to-adopt parents. It's great that they are willing to adopt, and if women choose to give their babies up for adoption, good for them. However, expecting women to go through with having a baby just because there are couples who want to adopt is ultimately, a racist position, and wrong.

I'm guessing that River is a man. Men don't really fathom what pregnancy does to a woman and how dangerous carrying and delivering a child is. That women sometimes die or suffer life long physical complications from the process.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This kind of diatribe IMHO should be prosecuted for libel.

Do you honestly not understand why that doesnt qualify as libel?

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't see the difference between thinking and knowing as a minor detail.

Of course not... this is your win!

Good job!

 

[The Big Dog]

Do you honestly not understand why that doesnt qualify as libel?

It does technically qualify as libel, but we here on this forum consider the source

 

[Minoosh]

That's why they were removed. Lets not conflate.

I'm not conflating anything, I'm just refusing to along with your unsupported premise that there are plenty of loving homes to take in all neglected children.

Do you think foster care is worse than a situation than leaving children in homes where people cannot care for them or refuse to? (there is a reason why they are picked up...)

The only possible answer is it depends. If you can pop them all into families that are dying to take them (ideally at no cost to the state), sure, "pick them up." (That sounds like you're talking about the pound btw).

If you're taking them from one sub-optimal environment and putting them in another (i.e., reality), you weigh the resources you have and see if their home lives can be improved. (Possibly by providing contraception.)

In cases where its "not optional" equates rape. I've made my opinions clear there.

Well, you've moved the bar a little. You've already said you're not against abortion on principle, so now we're talking about rational public policy.

If there is a pill that is 5 cents a day that helps old men stay erect would you be willing to pay it?

It depends on whether I'm screwing them.

But seriously, in general, yes. If in the anti-obesity case something costs $10 a year and drastically curtails heart disease and diabetes, why wouldn't I want it to be publicly funded? If sexy old men make society better for a nickel a day, why not?

I'm not much for socialism, or hand out type of societies. Earn what you have. Everyone is capable of it. Those that aren't able can qualify for government assistance. Those that are lazy should do without. I'm not willing to pay someone elses bill that is perfectly capable of doing it themselves if they put in the effort.

If you think my stance is wrong, suggest a better way.

I suggest having policy-makers look at cost-benefit data and find ways to help people in a bind without killing their incentive to do anything for themselves, while improving society as a whole.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In all fairness, I have heard some Democrats say the same thing about the Republicans. Its one of those be careful what you wish for, you just might got it parables.

It is where the Republicans have forced our government. When the Democrats get the House, and/or Senate, there will be gridlock because that's what the Republicans mainstreamed when Obama was elected.

I believe that if the Democrats take all the branches of government, it won't be an absolute power situation. This is because there are several large factions within the Democratic party that will have to compromise to get things done. With the Republican party, it is a cult lead by Trump that falls in line.

 

[Aridas]

With the Republican party, it is a cult lead by Trump that falls in line.

Not entirely. Remember why Obamacare wasn't repealed?

 

[Minoosh]

But see, there are huge waiting lists (of upper middleclass white couples) who want to adopt babies. And, while they will pay more to get white babies, they will accept black babies, too.

The sums spent on in vitro fertilization make it clear most couples would rather have children who are genetically related to them.

My mom adopted, adopted again, got pregnant and got pregnant again. I give her credit for adopting, but if she'd had the option to bear her own children sooner she might have chosen that.

Therefore, black women, as well as poor white women, should just go through with the pregnancy and have their babies, to help out those privileged white couples who are so desperate to adopt.

Sorry, no. Even if we grant the premise that "There are lots of homes waiting for those babies," regardless of the race, it is wrong to pressure women to have their babies for them. No one owes anything to these hoping-to-adopt parents. It's great that they are willing to adopt, and if women choose to give their babies up for adoption, good for them. However, expecting women to go through with having a baby just because there are couples who want to adopt is ultimately, a racist position, and wrong.

Thanks for making points I didn't make. Poor people are not breeding stock for people with money.

I can't fathom the mindset of people who would prefer unwanted children be born than to have any public funds go to contraception.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Not entirely. Remember why Obamacare wasn't repealed?

That was ages ago, in Trumpian time. Also, it barely failed getting repealed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can't fathom the mindset of people who would prefer unwanted children be born than to have any public funds go to contraception.

I can. They think women should only have sex to breed.

 

[smartcooky]

It depends on whether removing them is going to make their lives better or worse (and also on available state funding).

What is your evidence for the highlighted part? Let's clear up this up, OK? There are orphanages that need to know.

On average, children remain in state care for nearly two years and six percent of children in foster care have languished there for five or more years.

If there was a drug that cost 5 cents a day that would keep people from overeating to the point of dangerous obesity, would you be against Medicaid funding it?

It's nowhere near always optional. And teaching people a lesson is way less important to me than not creating unwanted children.

Pity you never had a chance to provide evidence to back up your claims.

“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members"
-Mohandas Karamchand "Matahma" Gandhi

The USA fails this measure on multiple levels

 

[smartcooky]

I can. They think women should only have sex to breed....

And to satisfy the urges of entitled, white, drunken frat-boys.

 

[acbytesla]

It is where the Republicans have forced our government. When the Democrats get the House, and/or Senate, there will be gridlock because that's what the Republicans mainstreamed when Obama was elected.

I believe that if the Democrats take all the branches of government, it won't be an absolute power situation. This is because there are several large factions within the Democratic party that will have to compromise to get things done. With the Republican party, it is a cult lead by Trump that falls in line.

For a while. But concentrated unquestioned power pretty much always leads to corruption. It is the nature of the beast.

If nothing else, the opposition tends to have a mitigating effect on the opposite side's worst impulses.