The Political Discussion Thread

[mad_gater]

Why is someone who supports women's rights to control their own bodies a threat to American politicias?





Bodird

might have something to do with the high taxpayer price tag much of this "empowerment" carries

[garhkal]

Why is someone who supports women's rights to control their own bodies a threat to American politicias?

Bodird

Its not a threat persay, its that its often applied unevenly. Take the military for example. A woman has 'the right to abort babies, cause its her body' but a military man who is married does not have the right to get a vasectomy UNLESS his wife signs off on it.
Even in the civilian sector, many doctors offices also require a wife to sign off on it.
So why is it "her body, her choice", but not "his body, his choice"?

[mad_gater]

Its not a threat persay, its that its often applied unevenly. Take the military for example. A woman has 'the right to abort babies, cause its her body' but a military man who is married does not have the right to get a vasectomy UNLESS his wife signs off on it.
Even in the civilian sector, many doctors offices also require a wife to sign off on it.
So why is it "her body, her choice", but not "his body, his choice"?

and let's not forget that the body the woman is harming when getting an abortion is not her own, though more often than not a lot of collateral damage occurs to the woman's body anyway as a result

[Annoyed]

Its not a threat persay, its that its often applied unevenly. Take the military for example. A woman has 'the right to abort babies, cause its her body' but a military man who is married does not have the right to get a vasectomy UNLESS his wife signs off on it.
Even in the civilian sector, many doctors offices also require a wife to sign off on it.
So why is it "her body, her choice", but not "his body, his choice"?

I didn't know that.. But it is an excellent questions. Good for the gander, good for the goose.

[SoulReaver]

a military man who is married does not have the right to get a vasectomy UNLESS his wife signs off on it.
Even in the civilian sector, many doctors offices also require a wife to sign off on it.
So why is it "her body, her choice", but not "his body, his choice"?

somewhat OT but valid point and it is an aberration - what's the rationale behind this law?

[SoulReaver]

and let's not forget that the body the woman is harming when getting an abortion is not her own

damn! you're right it's even worse - it's an intruder she should evict it asap :/

btw when she takes an ru486 pill I suppose it's not her taking it either?

[Womble]

In the news about things that actually matter, Obama has finally sold the Middle East to Iran for a handful of promises.

Under the just-signed deal:

$100 billion of frozen Iranian assets will be released.

All trade sanctions on Iran will be lifted. And they'll be lifted at once, not gradually.

Over 800 persons and companies, including state-owned Iranian oil company, will be removed from sanctions list.

Arms embargo on Iran will be lifted; restrictions on conventional missiles will be lifted five years from now, restrictions on ballistic missiles after eight years.

No Iranian nuclear facilities will be closed or decommissioned, although the core of one of the reactors will be redesigned to produce less plutonium.

Iran is allowed to retain technologies for a full uranium enrichment cycle, and a greater number of centrifuges than Pakistan had when it created its nuclear weapons.

There will be no surprise inspections. IAEA cannot inspect Iranian nuclear facilities without Iranian government's approval. Inspectors can only be from countries who have diplomatic relations with Iran (translation: no Americans allowed).

- If there are allegations that Iran has not met its obligations, a joint commission will seek to resolve the dispute. If that effort is not successful within 30 days, the matter would be referred to the UN Security Council, which would vote on continuing sanctions relief. A veto by a permanent member would mean that sanctions are reimposed... theoretically. How they plan to return those $100 billion into jurisdictions where they can be frozen once more, or how one could conceivably roll back hundreds of billions in new contracts that are about to be signed is a mystery.

What did the world gain? Well, the ever-optimistic White House infographic simultaneously boasts that all pathways to an Iranian nuclear weapon will be completely and utterly blocked - so blocked, in fact, that Iran's breakout capacity will be increased... increased I tell you... from 2-3 months to one year. Translation: Iran was just given hundreds of billions of dollars for a 7 months reprieve. Now re-read the above paragraph and realize that should suspicious activity be discovered, Iran can stall for a month, then refer the whole thing to the UN Security Council to deliberate for at least another month. Hardly any extra time gained.

P.S. - One of the annexes of the Iran deal actually commits the US government to discourage the existing state-level policies of non-investment into Iran:

25. If a law at the state or local level in the United States is preventing the implementation of the sanctions lifting as specified in this JCPOA, the United States will take appropriate steps, taking into account all available authorities, with a view to achieving such implementation. The United States will actively encourage officials at the state or local level to take into account the changes in the U.S. policy reflected in the lifting of sanctions under this JCPOA and to refrain from actions inconsistent with this change in policy.

Florida, California and some other states have local laws that keep state pension funds etc. from investing into Iran. Obama has just committed to pressuring them to reverse those policies.

[Annoyed]

Well, you didn't think the LSoS was going to look out for the U.S.'s interests, did you?

This sorry excuse for a president hates the country he is running. And was elected, twice.

[SoulReaver]

but isn't "realpolitik" crucial to capitalism? (in other words invest wherever you want & do business with whomever you want even dictatorships, as long as it yields profit$)

[Annoyed]

The LSoS is not supposed to be representing bushiness interests. He is supposed to be representing the interests of the U.S. And making it easier for Iran to get nukes regardless of the reason is not in the best interests of the U.S. Or anyone else for that matter.

[SoulReaver]

no he's not, however - in an ideal capitalist system - he's also not supposed to interfere with business either (because any interference with the economy is communist remember)
and not restricting business investments - or in this case lifting such restrictions - is in line with this non-interference policy

besides corporations are good for the People & the Country right? (that's what Friedman & Hayek said) so I'm sure American corporations will take care not to make any risky investments with Iran - even if these could be lucrative - after all the raison d'être of a corporation is to work for the greater good

[aretood2]

From what I read this only pushes Iran back by one year before it has its first nuke. That is a negative return in the initial investment of negotiations. So for two years worth of negotiating...we get one year?

To be honest, I always thought that 2004 should have been the start of the war in Iran, not Iraq. And here is another consequence of that choice which does continue a long history of American mistakes in the middle east. But to be honest...could there have been a better deal that doesn't involve military intervention?

[SoulReaver]

will Iran at least fight ISIS? (if I'm not mistaken they don't like each other much)

[aretood2]

will Iran at least fight ISIS? (if I'm not mistaken they don't like each other much)

Surely you can't be suggesting that they nuke ISIS?

[SoulReaver]

Surely you can't be suggesting that they nuke ISIS?

that'd be difficult geographically speaking :/