Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,577 Responses
- shapesalad4
Big picture analysis, see where we are in the cycle, prepare yourself:
- very smart manrenderedred
- Q&A session following: https://www.youtube.…renderedred
- a+colin_s
- His talks are good, super fun guy.PhanLo
- i don't know the guy, thought id give it a shot. skipped in a bit for a minute and the adjective/desc salad made me realize no way i could take him seriously********
- i cant stand the preacher style talking. the super assertive black and white approach peddling fear and demogaguing approach********
- Such bullshit... Chris "Chicken Little" Hedges, Can't believe people sop this up. It's such bullshit Look at the audience, not a minority in siterobotron3k
- curious he talks about how easy historically it is to lay socialism foundation for facsim to prosper? does eh talk about that with giovanni, mussolini, hitler********
- types. that was what got me interested to click... any cliff notes? takeaways?********
- superb, thanks for sharing.fadein11
- jaylarson2
- i wonder if ppl do not like to be harassed by a person with a camera about history that doesnt directly relate to them********
- or more a technology thing where as any outright issue can easily be turned agaisnt them. with all the facial recognition and controls********
- and social credit it becomes a liability to any individual to have an opinion********
- Wow they way they culturally avoid.robotron3k
- i wonder if ppl do not like to be harassed by a person with a camera about history that doesnt directly relate to them
- robotron3k5
Just amazing...
- robotron3k-1
This happened about a week ago but looks like there are going to be some significant social arguments around Margaret Singers Planned Parenthood program.
Basically there seems to be enough points of view to support overturning Roe vs. Wade due to unearthed revelations as it's secondary function (could be used as) a eugenics program against blacks.
Clarence Thomas wrote an interesting piece opening up the argument...
Clarence Thomas Lays Foundation to Overturn Roe v. Wade
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling this week in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky shows that the end of Roe v. Wade may be in sight!
The heart and meat of the ruling is the concurring opinion of the Court’s Senior Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.
The Court upheld the part of the Indiana law that dealt with the disposal of aborted fetuses. Thomas wrote that the Indiana law “prohibits... treating the 'bodies of aborted children' as infections waste and incinerating them alongside ... laboratory-animal carcasses, and surgical byproducts.”
His reference to “children” is itself noteworthy.
On the second question before the Court — whether Indiana could prohibit abortions because of the child’s race, sex, diagnosis of Down syndrome, disability, or related characteristics — the Court refused to consider that part of the law because only the Seventh Circuit had addressed the issue.
In concurring with the Court’s decision, Thomas takes the opportunity to tackle the issue of selective abortions head on and discussed it within the context of the controversial issue of eugenics — the practice or advocacy of controlled selective breeding of human populations.
He writes that the Indiana law and others like it, promote a State’s compelling interest in “preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics” concluding that use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is “not merely hypothetical.”
Many in the black pro-life movement, as recently discussed in this space, have argued that abortion of black babies is tantamount to genocide.
Thomas’ well researched and extensively documented 20-page opinion should be mandatory reading for pro-life advocates, particularly those in the black anti-abortion movement!
It provides an excellent discussion and history of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger — how she helped to shape the eugenics movement in America and its relationship to abortion today.
Stating that the foundations for legalizing abortion in America had been laid during the early 20th century birth control movement which developed alongside the “American eugenics movement,” he noted that Sanger “recognized the eugenic potential of her cause.”
He writes that as whereas Sanger “believed that birth control could prevent ‘unfit’ people form reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being in the first place;” that “Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and, abortion advocates... endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.”
Sanger campaigned for birth control in black communities and initiated the “Negro Project,” in 1939 in an “effort to promote birth control in poor, Southern black communities.”
She later emphasized that black ministers should be involved in the program, noting, “‘We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea...’”
Thomas doesn’t say it, but it is truly ironic that today most black politicians are in the pocket of Planned Parenthood as was former black president Barack Obama!
He rightly points out that “with today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics.”
He references “petitioners and several amicus curiae briefs” stating that “abortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.”
He then provides sources, references and citations regarding abortion rates in several countries for children diagnosed with Down syndrome: “Iceland approaches 100%; United States 67%; Denmark 98%; United Kingdom 90%; and, France 77%”!
Regarding sex-selective abortions in Asia, Thomas cites data showing that “widespread sex-selective abortions have led to as many as “160 million ‘missing’ women—more than the entire female population of the United States.”
In India, “over the course of several decades, 300,000 to 700,000 female fetuses were selectively aborted in each year--today there are about 50 million more men than women in the country.”
The opinion goes on to cite sources for recent evidence suggesting that sex-selective abortions of girls are common among certain populations in the United States and that conclude “Chinese and Asian-Indian families in the United States 'show a tendency to sex-select boys.'”
Writing that “abortion in the United States is also marked by a considerable racial disparity,” he cites statistics showing that the reported national abortion ratio among black women is nearly “3.5 times the ratio for white women.”
He references New York Department of Health numbers showing that there are areas of New York City in which “black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”
In concluding his opinion, Thomas states that “while the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever.” With that, he sends a strong message:
Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.
He reminds us all: “In other contexts, the Court has been zealous in vindicating the rights of people even potentially subjected to race, sex, and disability discrimination.”
If the Court is “zealous” in vindicating peoples’ rights based on race or sex or disability, how could it rule that killing an innocent “child” based on race, sex, or disability in the womb is justifiable?
As Thomas states, “The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”
- ffs... let people kill their children in peace, robo.PonyBoy
- Thomas' opinion does not align with the text posted, this is fake bullshit.zarkonite
- your second paragraph is so back-fuck-wards wrong that nothing you write after that is worth readingmonospaced
- https://www.supremec…robotron3k
- It's an article dude, here's the piece by Thomas, page 7 from a week ago. https://www.supremec…robotron3k
- I'd say any writings by any Supreme Court Judge using Planned Parenthood & Eugenics in the same sentence is telling... Feel free to differ.robotron3k
- im with this. i support abortion as a womans right even despite a mans intentions. I dont think it is something for the SC********
- I also hate planned parenthood for their bullshit on over the counter contraception. it hsoudl be defunded and rules removed for BC.********
- however i also have to respect democractic rule if voted in reps choose bad decisions outside SC rule********
- the current abortions laws are no different to bump stock bans. certain ppl just see freedom as only involving their world********
- implying that a function of roe v. wade is to kill minorities is absolutely bonkers insanemonospaced
- wow mono thats quite the spin maddow would be proud of.********
- Good post Robo, detailed claim, with back-up source, and promotes discussion. A well appreciated change.T-Dawg
- And I doubt many people on the left would disagree that killing a 'child' based on race, sex, or disability is justifiable.T-Dawg
- They would however disagree on when a fetus is defined as a child, and subsequently gets protection from the state.T-Dawg
- And they would also point to the data that abortion rates are similar whether it is legal, or it is not. (W.H.O. study)T-Dawg
- The underlying issues justice Thomas underlines, seem to stem from economic issues, with the exception of the autism related abortions.T-Dawg
- And while I recognize and agree that there are bad motives in the history of abortion in the US, there have been other developments in it's advocacy.T-Dawg
- I guess we'll wait and see what happens in the lower courts.T-Dawg
- @deathboy, I didn't spin this at all.monospaced
- "implying that a function of roe v. wade is to kill minorities is absolutely bonkers insane" thats great spin********
- would you like to reference where such summation comes from without leaving out the greater context... might take a a number of sideposts********
- R_Kercz-1
Some More News : "Joe Biden, Primary Donald Trump As A Republican"
- ********0
One lawmaker in Massachusetts is set on making money moves in favor of “body confidence” by sponsoring legislation that would provide financial incentives to companies that did not alter the look of models in their ads.
In the bill sponsored by state Rep. Kay Khan, cosmetic, personal care and apparel companies that “do not digitally alter models’ skin tone, skin texture, body size, or body shape” would get a tax credit of up to $10,000, Boston Magazine reports.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/…
boredom? need to justify job? 15 min of fame? fat daughter? what goes through some of these peoples minds making this shit up.
- what is male gislature?wordssssss
- this is normally the kind of useless, performative gesture one would expect from male politician looking for social points.Gnash
- jeez gnash such stereotypical male sexism********
- ^ holy crap, deathboy, I think that's the shortest comment i've ever seen you post :)Gnash
- hehe. sometimes i mix it up********
- or is it robo that gets the sexism stuff?********
- ********0
i made a comment just a bit ago about finally getting free higher edu in the states and if offered on public dime, campuses cant house everyone and eventually highschool edu will need to be expanded another 4 years.
https://www.rgj.com/story/news/e…
Think its funny they're building this latest school like this. Lot other local fun bits about closing hug high (thug high as known since its the "poor ppl" school) and converting it into technical school and buying out a failed golf course to build this thing. my buddy bids on these types of contracts and loves them. such great money makers and keeps himself employed now that tesla has halted all construction... well besides the fix after fix shit due to poor planning... but i suspect when it comes to dollars when providing free shit a extended high school edu will be the answer
- MOOC classes are basically free, I think you can get an MBA for like $900robotron3k
- even that seems expensive but for the rigamaroll of it probably a real cost********
- you're still not getting it ... offering free college does not automatically admit everyone into college, ffsmonospaced
- if anything it just makes the schools more competitive with students who normally wouldn't apply for financial reasons, finalyl applyingmonospaced
- If you're going around saying that free college means that all schools have to admit everyone, then you're a moron.monospaced
- lol @ the term 'free'—you call folks 'morons' over an admittance discussion but openly (moronically) use the term 'free' as if that's even an appropriate word.PonyBoy
- And what's the point in scraping money from the public and calling it 'free' if it's not for the public on the whole?PonyBoy
- mono you don't understand economics or common sense. would it be politically viable to cap all colleges at certain head counts?********
- would colleges? it would be in the college's best interest to make as many seats as possible and lower acceptances********
- until access is accessible to anyone who wants it. And why would anyone not take it? We know those with degrees tend to look for others with degrees even knowin********
- their own was a waste of time. so that culture also helps reinforce more not to turn it down. What in your mind do you think "free" education is? and how********
- exactly would it be funded at the federal level? Do you think every class from every school would count towards free? Will schools have to offer majors only********
- covering fed level pay? You know how big of a clusterfuck medicare is right? and how that free money begins to be gamed and change the entire market?********
- usually skyrocketing the price. But layout what you think would happen and why because we are clearly thinking 2 different things********
- and take as many side notes as you want or do a big post. this one might need a big post.********
- what not going there mono :( .too tough********
- yup, you clearly don't comprehend the very basic concept, insisting wrongly that free college means seats for everyone ... done here, you are wrongmonospaced
- all it means, if you bothered to look, is that state schools would be subsidized fully by gov., not that harvard has to allow anyone above a certain GPA, ffsmonospaced
- it means that anyone who would normally be excluded from an opportunity based on money alone would now have one, and there are spaces availablemonospaced
- it doesn't mean there won't be fierce competition, because there will ... that's what you're somehow idiotically not comprehending. Too tough? Go to college.monospaced
- I'm not even defending it, but I do feel compelled to at least help define it, because you are getting a fundamental about it totally wrong. You're welcome.monospaced
- no you still don't get it. If a state school is subsidized fully by gov it would be based on head count. If head count means more money, why would a school not********
- increase its ability to grow it's head count? are you telling me schools are not very interested in money or growth right now? that they dont have lazy rivers********
- and shit to grow user base? You think free education for all would be no different than it is now but its free for those who go? that it wouldnt change any********
- market forces? if you believe that than you really don't understand markets and people. But if you want a little learnin go back to bush's no child left behind********
- see how that worked out. what funding did to schools and all that, even with tryin to tie it to merit based stuff.********
- And tuition is only out of hand because of gov trying to help out. throwing money at the problem and setting up poor incentives. destroying the market********
- but you know all that with the higher education act because you are one of those really really smart college fellas right. More of the same poison never works********
- especially when trying to masquerade as a free market system with choice. only way to control the rampant costs is get tyrannical. dictate it choose who can go********
- where and when. what they learn, a set list of things taught and little deviation. let that mao shit in. embrace what it is you want and stop half steppin.********
- allthethings0
A wealthy Iraqi sheikh who urges a hard-line U.S. approach to Iran spent 26 nights at Trump’s D.C. hotel
- PhanLo1
New Yorker article two years ago when Trump Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci drew a piquant distinction between himself and a prominent presidential advisor, saying “I’m not Steve Bannon, I’m not trying to suck my own cock”
-
- nb0
https://www.nytimes.com/interact…
Great in-depth look at the alt-right the mind-numbing social networks that draw us in.
- allthethings3
https://twitter.com/steckel/stat…
Fox: The metric system is tyranny!
The guy who posted this is 100 percent right. And we don't need any help looking like complete fucking idiots.
- Sigh.
Words fail me.Continuity - his whole feed is grandcolin_s
- that guy calls himself an "anti-metrite" LOLrenderedred
- Sigh.
- yuekit1
- A million people protest against law that would essentially give mainland China legal jurisdiction over Hong Kong.yuekit
- Sadly it seems like authoritarianism is on the rise all over the world.yuekit
- They so docile, gonna be easy takeover.robotron3k
- I predict Vancouver will be the most expensive city to live in by 2047!!!robotron3k
- authoritarianism... it is on the rise but surprisingly only visible if you disagree********
- cannonball19780
https://nationalpost.com/news/do…
Apparently dodgeball is a tool of oppression
- colin_s9
jon stewart still kicking ass and taking names
- He would be a really good President.monospaced
- You’d make a good president in comparison to what’s in the driving seat today manIanbolton
- dang. he was very good at thatGnash
- Stewart/Colbert 2020fooler
- Where are all of the God fearing, Family Values, America First Republicans?utopian
- we're not ukraine.... yet....********
- robotron3k0
And then this happens, ff to 5:08...
- What happened?mathinc
- This whole clip actually makes me like him even more!fooler
- https://youtu.be/S-A…robotron3k
- @robo nah; no parallel . The Hillary one was cringeworthy AF. Pete here is not pandering and comes off genuine AF.Krassy
- ok so hes a person. says nothing about his policies.cannonball1978
- ^ I dunno. It's hard to find a politician who's a normal person. Can you picture Trump or Hillary doing anything normal?********
- robo why so partisan? constantly on the hunt to laugh at anyone on the left. it's all you do on this thread.inteliboy
- I'll refer to my first statementcannonball1978
- monospaced5
All 19 Black Women Running for Judge in a Texas Race Won Tuesday Night
- always thought it weird how political one has to get to win a supposedly apolitical position in the judicial branch (and congrats to these women!)PonyBoy
- are judges down there voted for, or appointed?Gnash
- odd to elect a judgeGnash
- bothPonyBoy
- voting for a judge just seems wrong. but you guys do you! :)Gnash
- ^welcome to Americasarahfailin
- we elect cats here, don't take it too seriouslyimbecile
- you're right, PonyBoy, it's maybe not in the right thread ... although their careers will definitely deal in politics one way or another, in a very serious waymonospaced
- Probably should have been a News of the Day post. It's nice to see that the judges in these districts will better represent the populace, and make good decisionmonospaced
- A step in the right direction, even if a small one.monospaced
- this is the right thread, dude... they were 'elected'... def. political. I was just stating basically what Gnash did - confusion @ the idea of electing a judgePonyBoy
- hopefully they had more merit for winning than being black women********
- ********0
- utopian0
Noting that the 9/11 first responder funding is “not a Republican-Democrat issue,” Stewart added later, “Not all Republicans oppose this, but everyone who has opposed it is a Republican. And it’s unacceptable.”
The party of family values - GOP
- Not supporting first responders is very un-American.monospaced
- oh but the savings!imbecile
- I'm glad he brought attention to this. I was trying to find out info, seems like they do fund but it always expires, so now they'll fund an remove expirationrobotron3k
