The Political Discussion Thread

[Starsaber]

What about the other oath they took.. "First, do no harm". Abortion certainly does harm.
You phrase it as "refusing to aid".
They are not withholding aid that would save the patients life or treat injuries. They simply don't want to be penalized for adhering to their own beliefs, such as abortion being wrong, for example.

What about cases where the abortion is medically necessary for the survival of the mother? In that case, refusing to perform the abortion would be withholding aid to save the life of the patient.

I'm not in favor of abortions in most cases, but there are times where they might be necessary. I'd rather have them legal and regulated than illegal and performed anyways in more dangerous/unsanitary conditions.

[SoulReaver]

What about the other oath they took.. "First, do no harm". Abortion certainly does harm.

yeah if not done correctly it can harm the host :|
also the electric chair does a lot more harm

[Annoyed]

What about cases where the abortion is medically necessary for the survival of the mother? In that case, refusing to perform the abortion would be withholding aid to save the life of the patient.

I'm not in favor of abortions in most cases, but there are times where they might be necessary. I'd rather have them legal and regulated than illegal and performed anyways in more dangerous/unsanitary conditions.

Rare situations such as the mother's life is in danger I agree with you. They are needed. But I think we both know that the vast majority of them are simply birth control a day late.

[Gatefan1976]

Not that it concerns you...but I lost a ton of respect for you. While my country isn't headed in the right direction, I will still defend her. Will I defend the man in the White House? No...he defines what is wrong with this country.

Without the man in the white house, I would have never made such a comment.

[Coco Pops]

Yes I meant UK, no idea about Aus but if you look at most Countries budgets they run at a deficit, which in business terms means insolvent, aside from a few good years in the late 90's the UK has been running a loss since the Second World War. If we were a business we'd have been wound up years ago.

Carillain is a UK company yes, but they have contracts all over the world, chances are if you have a local big construction project, it's run by Carillain.

Carillain had many UK government contracts (450+) they do all sorts from cleaning schools to building hospitals, what they did was they would tender for and usually win a contract (say to build a hospital) then sub-contract the operation of that contract out to another supplier, usually a local business, but what seems to have happened is they paid themselves too much, and in some cases like the Liverpool Hospital, the work has fallen behind schedule and they pay a fine for each week that goes on, essentially they acted as a broker between the Government and local sub-contractors and simply spent too much money. They were also heavily involved in PFI (Public Finance Iniative), where say the Government wanted a hospital built, Carillain would build it for them, and the Government would then rent back the Hospital from Carillain on a fixed term rent of 30, 50 or 100 year leases, so long term Carillain would make a lot of money, but initially they would have to pay for the building themselves.

It's actually a crap scheme and costs the public an awful lot more than had the Government simply borrowed the money and built the hospital themselves, but such is the nuttiness of the U.K. Government they don't want any public projects on the public accounts.

Oh good gods that sounds awful..... Sounds just like what they did with the Royal Adelaide Hospital. The new hospital took 10 years to build, was built on contaminated railyards which had to be cleaned up. Yeah wonderful thinking behind the location.. And the financing was all wonky too.

[Coco Pops]

Hey I do like that the US is experimenting with laser canons on planes and stuff. I think that's kind of awesome. They even had a buggy that can shoot down drones with a solid state laser.

[Gatefan1976]

I can understand your outrage. You're seeing changes that you consider absolutely wrong being pushed through by someone whom you don't consider fit to hold the office.

Given that few changes are actually in place, it's not about his agenda, it is purely about his fitness for office. Who he puts IN to affect those changes, namely people who are the antithesis of their charge, that's ridiculous.

But if I were in your shoes (or more specifically, Lefty voters in the US) I would be attacking the leadership of the Democratic party, wanting a wholesale change in leadership. Out for blood, as they say.

Why?

If they hadn't rigged the game so that Hilary was their candidate in 2016, I think Sanders would have won comfortably. But I haven't seen a lot of news about the party leadership accepting the blame for the loss. If I was a lefty, I would be going after the hides of the party management for that.

You think someone branded as a socialist would "comfortably win"?
Even the American left does not trust "ebil socialists"
All you are doing is projection, no facts, no reality to back your claims, and going nowhere near my shoes.

[Annoyed]

Given that few changes are actually in place, it's not about his agenda, it is purely about his fitness for office. Who he puts IN to affect those changes, namely people who are the antithesis of their charge, that's ridiculous.

I assume you're referring to the EPA and Education boss appointments. Both of those agencies have been far too intrusive and heavy-handed with their regulations for a few decades now. They need to be muzzled. What better way to do that than to put someone who has that viewpoint in charge of them?

But if I were in your shoes (or more specifically, Lefty voters in the US) I would be attacking the leadership of the Democratic party, wanting a wholesale change in leadership. Out for blood, as they say.

Why?

Because by manipulating the rules so that Hilary was their candidate, rather than Sanders, who had stronger support in the early primaries, the party leadership handed Trump the keys to the White House. The DNC wasn't going to run him regardless of primary voter support. How many Sanders supporters bailed after the handwriting was on the wall? If I was a lefty, I would be pissed about that.

You think someone branded as a socialist would "comfortably win"?
Even the American left does not trust "ebil socialists"
All you are doing is projection, no facts, no reality to back your claims, and going nowhere near my shoes.

Yes, I really do think that Sanders v Trump would have had Sanders in the White House. Trump barely won as it is.

Trump is extremely polarizing, just as Hilary is. Both candidates have a large # of people who despise the very air they exhale. Sanders didn't generate anywhere near the animosity that Clinton did. Trump, on the other hand also had a high level of animosity directed at him.

Put it all together, and I think Sanders would have won.

[SoulReaver]

I assume you're referring to the EPA and Education boss appointments. Both of those agencies have been far too intrusive and heavy-handed with their regulations for a few decades now. They need to be muzzled. What better way to do that than to put someone who has that viewpoint in charge of them?

for the education dept it makes sense: spawn off ignoramuses to pave the way for the next generation of Trumpets
for the environment dept...let's just say it will be fun watching your cities smothered in smog

[Falcon Horus]

What about the other oath they took.. "First, do no harm". Abortion certainly does harm.
You phrase it as "refusing to aid".

A nurse refusing to give care after an abortion has been performed because she/he objects to it on moral or religious grounds, needs to have a good luck in the mirror and ask herself why she/he refuses care to a patient who's just been through a medical procedure that no woman takes lightly?

They are not withholding aid that would save the patients life or treat injuries. They simply don't want to be penalized for adhering to their own beliefs, such as abortion being wrong, for example.

They are essentially neglecting their duty as professional people.

You highlighted abortion -- which was a predictable reply -- but what about the MD who refuses to help a child of a lesbian couple because he morally objects to 2 women in a relationship? An emergency room nurse refusing to give aid to the young man she thinks looks rather gay but might not be, who just walked in with a gash across his forehead? Or the paramedic who sees the transwoman in the car, and objects to transporting her to the emergency care cause his religion tells him "God created us in his image and we should respect that"? Or the black man who brings in his infant son, born from his white mother, a fever spiking and the nurse who should take care of the child refuses because she objects to interracial marriage?

This goes far, far, far, far beyond your petty thoughts about what a woman does to her own body -- which by the way is none of your or my business. It's private and none of the Doctor's or nurse's business either. They are there to help and care, and do their job (the one they chose for crying out loud).

In a way. it's similar to the bakery / cake case; these folks want their rights (to unfettered abortion, for example) placed above the rights of the service provider to behave according to their beliefs. They should not be forced to provide services that are against their beliefs.

Those cake makers aren't forced into anything -- they make cakes. That's their job.

They are not living according to their beliefs. They pick and choose what to belief, as long as it fits their choice of they want to be interpreted. Evangelicals are living proof of that.

Rare situations such as the mother's life is in danger I agree with you. They are needed. But I think we both know that the vast majority of them are simply birth control a day late.

And here are the three main reasons why women choose to have an abortion:

"The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford raising a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner."

Oh, and about that day late...

"Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2008 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%)."

Woops...

Source: Induced Abortion in the United States (Guttmacher Institute)

[Annoyed]

An emergency room nurse refusing to give aid to the young man she thinks looks rather gay but might not be, who just walked in with a gash across his forehead? Or the paramedic who sees the transwoman in the car, and objects to transporting her to the emergency care cause his religion tells him "God created us in his image and we should respect that"? Or the black man who brings in his infant son, born from his white mother, a fever spiking and the nurse who should take care of the child refuses because she objects to interracial marriage?

You have a point with emergency room staff & first responders.
But for non-emergency purposes, the person can simply go find a service provider that has no problem with whatever.

Oh, and about that day late...

"Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2008 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%)."

Woops...

Source: Induced Abortion in the United States (Guttmacher Institute)

Medical education is so very difficult isn't it? Even the most basic concepts such as keeping your pants on are so difficult for people to understand.

[Coco Pops]

Republicans control both houses and the whitehouse so how in the hell can you spin this to blame democrats that you now have a government shutdown?


Someone explain how this can be spun that way?

[Gatefan1976]

Republicans control both houses and the whitehouse so how in the hell can you spin this to blame democrats that you now have a government shutdown?


Someone explain how this can be spun that way?

1: It's Obama's fault
2: It's Hillary's fault
3: They are obstructionists

You can use your imagination, they certainly do

[Gatefan1976]

I assume you're referring to the EPA and Education boss appointments. Both of those agencies have been far too intrusive and heavy-handed with their regulations for a few decades now. They need to be muzzled. What better way to do that than to put someone who has that viewpoint in charge of them?

You can't even get through a sentence without reverting to right wing positions, what hope does anyone have of asking you to consider their positions?
I gave you reasons to reject trump, and they had nothing to do with partisanship, but the actual health of the US, at home and abroad.
You might as well just say MAGAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Because by manipulating the rules so that Hilary was their candidate, rather than Sanders, who had stronger support in the early primaries, the party leadership handed Trump the keys to the White House. The DNC wasn't going to run him regardless of primary voter support. How many Sanders supporters bailed after the handwriting was on the wall? If I was a lefty, I would be pissed about that.

There ARE no rules in a primary, it is a purely "take the pulse" system. They broke NO rules. Trump broke no rules by winning the primaries either.
It's not my fault that people are so politically ignorant to understand that.

Yes, I really do think that Sanders v Trump would have had Sanders in the White House. Trump barely won as it is.

It was the biggliest, hugeiest margin ever.
Day one and he was blowing smoke up your arse.

Trump is extremely polarizing, just as Hilary is. Both candidates have a large # of people who despise the very air they exhale. Sanders didn't generate anywhere near the animosity that Clinton did. Trump, on the other hand also had a high level of animosity directed at him.

If that were true, sanders would not have lost the popular vote in the primaries, not via rigging, just because he lost.

Put it all together, and I think Sanders would have won.

Put it all togeather, and I think you should go back to servicing engines, there are far less variables.

[Coco Pops]

This is rather depressing........

What you get when you phone the Whitehouse

https://www.facebook.com/icecoldbree...3510034454876/