U.S. Democratic Primary

[MigL]

I fail to understand the importance of what JC considers ;far left'; He will not be voting in any American elections.
And I'm pretty sure INow will be voting Democrat; Any Democrat, no matter what they propose.

What is important is how half of the American population will vote, and what THEY consider 'far left'.
And "Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing" is implied when K Harris attacks J Biden, after having evolved and become a better human being in the last 50 yrs, and practically calls him a racist on National TV. The candidates should be presenting their vision for the future and platforms, instead of attacking each other. Try to remember they are on the same team, with the same objective; A return to sane American government.
They are merely providing D Trump, and a lot of gullible Americans, with ammunition to use during the election, and may unwittingly help him get re-elected.

[J.C.MacSwell]

45 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

Which of these “most” candidates see a 3rd trimester fetus as nonhuman? This should be fascinating to watch, but I’m confident you don’t have the courage of your convictions and you’ll just evade yet again. 

Example Elizabeth Warren: Warren was asked point-blank if she would put any limits on abortion, to which she answered, “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-dem-debate-elizabeth-warren-wont-say-she-supports-any-limits-on-abortion

That would include third trimester abortions...or she is lying. I'm sure she understands what "full range" means in the context of answering on abortion in this manner.

LOL at your "evade yet again"...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 INow was interested in where I might consider the far left to be and gave some examples...I placed them roughly where I saw them on the spectrum, and added a couple. Treating undocumented border crossings was discussed in the debate (at least Thursday, not sure of Wednesday)

But it can only be a position if people are advocating it. Who is calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist?

I do see that the border crossing was discussed. (I didn’t see the debate)

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who is calling everyone with any thoughts that don't agree with their own "alt right" or racist?

 

 

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

 

Still too common for them to even imply it, even about each other.

 

 

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Example Elizabeth Warren: Warren was asked point-blank if she would put any limits on abortion, to which she answered, “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.”

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/at-dem-debate-elizabeth-warren-wont-say-she-supports-any-limits-on-abortion

That would include third trimester abortions...or she is lying. I'm sure she understands what "full range" means in the context of answering on abortion in this manner.

LOL at your "evade yet again"...

Third-trimester abortions for reasons other than medical necessity are largely a GOP-generated fiction. And medical necessity is...medical necessity 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, swansont said:

Third-trimester abortions for reasons other than medical necessity are largely a GOP-generated fiction. And medical necessity is...medical necessity 

Then why not include those limitations, and not give the GOP that ammo? 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

“I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.”

... Is now equivalent to “3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman?”

If that’s the level of spin and message twisting we’re dealing with, then we can safely say it doesn’t matter WTF Democrats say or don’t say. The GOP (and even intelligent good natured fellas like yourself) are apparently gonna use extremely tortured logic to attack one-dimensional caricatures instead of actual 3-dimensional candidates. 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And "Nobody is saying people are racist merely for disagreeing" is implied when K Harris attacks J Biden,

So, when Kamala Harris said to Joe Biden:

 “I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground. But I also believe — and it’s personal, it was hurtful — to hear you talk about two United States senators who built their reputations and careers on the segregation of race in this country. It was not only that; you also worked with them to oppose bussing.” 

You take that to mean she’s calling him racist? Surely, you’re not being serious right now?

[MigL]

She is not calling him a racist, now.
She implies he was in the past.

The quote seems simple to interpret.
( I would hope you know by now when I'm not being serious )

[iNow]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Third-trimester abortions for reasons other than medical necessity are largely a GOP-generated fiction. And medical necessity is...medical necessity 

Trump has taken it to a whole other level of lying:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/28/us/politics/trump-abortion-fact-check.html

Quote

WHAT TRUMP SAID

“The baby is born. The mother meets with the doctor. They take care of the baby. They wrap the baby beautifully. And then the doctor and the mother determine whether or not they will execute the baby.”

...and as our friends here demonstrate, it seems to be working. 

[MigL]

Again, it's not your friends here that you have to worry about.
We can't vote in your elections.

You have to worry about the people in States like Alabama, Georgia, Ohio, Mississipi and Missouri, where abortion is banned after the period of gestation before most women even know they are pregnant.
They are the ones that you have to convince Democrat and 'far left' are not equivalent.

[iNow]

They’re not the ones here posting, making claims, and refusing to offer evidence in support of or clarify them when asked. 

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

She is not calling him a racist, now.
She implies he was in the past.

No. She’s saying he didn’t do enough to support the black community in the past, and that some of his legislative actions actually harmed them (such as criminal justice reform).

Those are separate and distinct things from “calling him a racist.” This isn’t exactly rocket science. 

Further, if you assume Biden gets the nod and your goal is for him to steal away Trump voters, convincing them he may be slightly racist could actually help (too soon?)

[MigL]

"posting, making claims, and refusing to offer evidence in support of or clarify them when asked"

I prefer to word it "posting opinions".
And you refuse to acknowledge that its your own population you need to worry about in the 2020 election.
Certainly not JC and I.

Yes too soon.
Almost as untimely as when JC suggested you held D Trump in high esteem.
( 23 hrs ago )

Edited June 29, 2019 by MigL

[iNow]

28 minutes ago, MigL said:

it's not your friends here that you have to worry about.
We can't vote in your elections.

 You have to worry about the people in States

And I engage with them in open dialogue whenever I get the chance, just like I’m doing with you both here. You don’t get to share your opinions then admonish me when I challenge them simply because you can’t vote here. If your residence in another country didn’t prevent you from posting then it equally cannot prevent me from critiquing your posts and pointing out their flaws. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

... Is now equivalent to “3rd trimester fetuses are nonhuman?”

If that’s the level of spin and message twisting we’re dealing with, then we can safely say it doesn’t matter WTF Democrats say or don’t say. The GOP (and even intelligent good natured fellas like yourself) are apparently gonna use extremely tortured logic to attack one-dimensional caricatures instead of actual 3-dimensional candidates. 

 

I said less than human, and clarified that as less than human under the law (nonhuman is how you described it). It is an accurate interpretation of “I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services” when she was asked whether she would put any limits on abortion.

You don't need an Orwellian dictionary to interpret what she meant. Whether you can accept that or not doesn't change her position. Only she can do that.

It is a difficult issue. Most candidates have been less clear.

[iNow]

One either is human or is not human. Hence, less than human means not human. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

THE FACTS: Federal data suggests that very few U.S. babies are born alive as a result of a failed abortion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 deaths between 2003 and 2014 involving infants born alive during attempted abortions.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/05/13/trump-executing-babies-after-failed-abortion-fact-check-ap/1186702001/

1 minute ago, iNow said:

One either is human or is not human. Hence, less than human means not human. 

Stating that a fetus is nonhuman suggests it is of a different species.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Stating that a fetus is nonhuman suggests it is of a different species.

Agreed, and I’m not the one saying Democrats claim anything even remotely similar to this. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just now, iNow said:

Agreed, and I’m not the one saying Democrats claim anything even remotely similar to this. 

I'm not sure what your position really is other than not accepting my interpretation of what Warren said.

The alternative is that she does believe in restrictions on abortion.

What Trump is suggesting is infanticide. Warren clearly didn't cover that.

[iNow]

I’m not trying to be cagey here. Thought I was pretty clear. 

I have a problem with how you seem compelled to twist this:

“I would make certain that every woman has access to the full range of reproductive health services.”

... which is what Warren actually said, into this:

“3rd trimester fetuses are subhuman.”

...which is how you chose to describe Warrens stance here.

Even when I correct nonhuman to subhuman, that’s just disingenuous.

I know politics is often a land of lies and intentional misrepresentation, but that one crosses a line and suggests you’re not arguing in good faith. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

“3rd trimester fetuses are subhuman.”

 

I never used that term.

I'm not trying to twist anything. You are struggling with the interpretation...as well you should...I have no doubt Warren did as well.

It's really not that complicated an issue...just a really tough one. 

Any restrictions on abortion and the state is limiting what females can do inside their own bodies. Putting no limitations means the state is not protecting the fetus. You can't give full rights to each.

Regardless of where you decide to draw the line (or choose to avoid drawing one) can you not at least see that allowing abortions is somewhat mainstream/left, and supporting unrestricted third trimester abortions is farther left? And that the candidates for the most part support abortions...most without being able to include any limitations or restrictions?...which leaves them to the left of most Americans, at least in appearance?

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

I know politics is often a land of lies and intentional misrepresentation, but that one crosses a line and suggests you’re not arguing in good faith. 

It's a tough issue but let's not forget...

 

...you asked

7 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Which of these “most” candidates see a 3rd trimester fetus as nonhuman? This should be fascinating to watch, but I’m confident you don’t have the courage of your convictions and you’ll just evade yet again. 

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

can you not at least see that allowing abortions is somewhat mainstream/left, and supporting unrestricted third trimester abortions is farther left?

No, because this is not a “left/right” distinction, but is instead a bullshit framing of the issue that we keep seeing from the right. For decades, the claim has been that there’s a clear threshold between a gestation time when abortion is okay and a gestation time when suddenly abortion is not okay, and it’s an arbitrary nonsensical distraction.

Pretty much everyone agrees abortions should be limited and restricted to medically necessary reasons as time passes. End conversation. The right, however, doesn’t even want contraception... the thing which stops unwanted pregnancies and REDUCES abortion rates... covered by health insurance. 

For those who wish to read what Warren actually has to say on the subject and prefers not to be led by how JCM chooses to spin it, here’s her position from her own mouth from just last month: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/congressional-action-to-protect-choice-aaf94ed25fb5

This is purely a fringe issue intended to outrage people and shutdown meaningful discussion and rational legislation (and btw... your boy Andy Yang agrees with Warren here... you do the math).

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-congress-abortion-politics-state-bans-supreme-court-2020-republicans-20190422-story.html

Quote

Abortions late in pregnancy are rare. Just over 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks or later, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. An abortion after that time would likely occur because of a serious fetal anomaly or for the health of the woman. The vast majority of abortions — 89% — are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

...and 21 weeks is BEFORE the 3rd trimester for those not paying close attention. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by iNow

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, because this is not a “left/right” distinction, but is instead a bullshit framing of the issue that we keep seeing from the right. For decades, the claim has been that there’s a clear threshold between a gestation time when abortion is okay and a gestation time when suddenly abortion is not okay, and it’s an arbitrary nonsensical distraction.

Pretty much everyone agrees abortions should be limited and restricted to medically necessary reasons as time passes. End conversation. The right, however, doesn’t even want contraception... the thing which stops unwanted pregnancies and REDUCES abortion rates... covered by health insurance. 

 

It certainly is, not only in the context of this thread but that is how it is generally characterized.

Dumping on the right has no bearing on bearing on left or leftist (further left) positions, or the fact that Warren holds them. They aren't her positions, leftist ones are.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

For those who wish to read what Warren actually has to say on the subject and prefers not to be led by how JCM chooses to spin it, here’s her position from her own mouth from just last month: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/congressional-action-to-protect-choice-aaf94ed25fb5

Perhaps you can point out where she puts any restrictions or limitations on abortions. It seems quite the opposite, where she thinks they should be both fully accessible with no restrictions, and have the state fund them.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Despite having the least speaking time, Andrew Yang seems to have picked up the most twitter followers since the debates...both in terms of percent and absolute numbers, and by very significant margins.

https://nypost.com/2019/06/29/andrew-yang-scored-over-100k-new-twitter-followers-after-dem-debate/

#LetYangSpeak

Edited July 1, 2019 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Despite having the least speaking time, Andrew Yang seems to have picked up the most twitter followers since the debates...both in terms of percent and absolute numbers, and by very significant margins.

He did pickup twitter followers, but not as mind-blowingly as you’ve suggested. He’s #4 in terms of post-debate gains:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-first-democratic-debate-in-five-charts/

Edited July 1, 2019 by iNow

[CharonY]

On 6/29/2019 at 1:07 PM, MigL said:

I fail to understand the importance of what JC considers ;far left'; He will not be voting in any American elections.

The thread went into the direction as JC asked why some Dems were running on an extreme left platform. Some, including myself have explained that many if not most are essentially mainstream positions rather than extreme, which is why they are so common among the candidates. That explanation was mostly ignored which prompted me to ask which of the candidate's policy would be considered extreme. This was especially puzzling as JC's favourite, Yang, is one of the more progressive candidates (e.g. advocating for MD only decision of abortion, UBI, medicare for all) with clear social democratic messages (and just btw. how the heck did he manage to blow the core question of his central platform on live TV?). Thus, in order to further a discussion I believe a clear positioning would be helpful to assess what we are talking about. Without any clarification everyone would just write in their own code. This is especially true as binary positioning within the political system is not terribly helpful.

And while it is true that it would be more important to convey that to American voters, I would add that we are still a discussion forum and not a political advocacy forum. As such discussing matters regardless of the nationality of the participants.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

He did pickup twitter followers, but not as mind-blowingly as you’ve suggested. He’s #4 in terms of post-debate gains:

Seeing how many followers Williamson has I wonder what the relevance of twitter followers is. I really hope they amount to little (also I would have thought that someone with a tech background would do better, but then I am apparently wrong on a lot of things).