WaywardWind Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 12 hours ago, howto said: They have not lost any 'rights', nor will they. I am neither for or against abortion. Those whom 'need' and abortion can still get one. Each state determines such and now Fed $$$ will not be used, as it should be. According to the US Supreme Court, a woman has the right to choose abortion up to the second trimester as a matter of Constitutional right; this has existed since 1973 and is not subject to modification by any state, although efforts by states to do so through various mechanisms have been relentless. Three years later, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which bars the use of federal funds to support abortions. Many family planning and women's health organizations receive federal funds to provide health services for women, notably Planned Parenthood. While PP does perform abortions as a small part of their services (3% of their overall services), no federal funds are used in any aspect of those services in keeping within the Hyde Amendment. Those services are paid for through funds raised from other sources. What the Trump administration is proposing (and has just made effective for international women's health organizations) is that any organization which receives federal funding may not offer abortion services, nor may they even discuss it with a patient. Essentially, this means a death knell for such organizations, which is precisely what the rabid RWNJs want. So yes, women's rights are under dire threat, and no, federal funds have not been used to fund abortion services for more than 4 decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardWind Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: You want examples of institutionalized racism? There have been many experiments done where applications for loans are submitted. Even though the information on the loan forms is exactly the same, those with names that are likely to belong to black people are rejected at a much higher rate than for white people.The same goes for applications for employment. One of the more infamous examples involved Donald Trump and his father Fred Trump, who owned thousands of rental apartments in the NYC area. Black couples, armed with documents attesting to their financial stability, applied to rent apartments and were told that none were available. The very next day, white couples, armed with the same information, applied and were shown multiple units. Both couples were undercover agents from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Legal action was commenced against the Trumps, and it was later settled with a substantial fine and a binding agreement to cease such practices. Within a year, the Trumps were back to their old practices, and had to be threatened with criminal charges before they stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tawan Dok Krating Daeng Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, Matej said: And that institutionalized racism is not generalisation? For your information institutionalized racism is racism expressed primarily in actions of political institutions and government. Show me institution, policy or law that is racists ... Otherwise you are just repeating popular, but meaningless leftie phrases. Do you often feel the need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs? You do not need to go much further than the US criminal justice system to find continual and constant racial bias. After exhausting that almost unlimited well of institutionalized racism, you can then look at the Welfare system, the School system, in fact pretty much every system at local, state and federal levels. If you expand beyond racism to bigotry against other minorities including the poor, the instances expand exponentially. No. Referencing institutional racism is not an over generalization. I use it as a noun. For your information, a noun is a naming word. One is expected to use nouns in written and oral speech. It is a name of a characteristic. It was not used as a generalization in the same manner that you over generalized. I can provide more information on the grammatical use of nouns if you wish. I am not really interested in carrying forward this exchange. I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Each of your posts has indulged in stupid polemic and I am not interested in the statements of such people. If I see a genuine post I may participate in the discussion but you certainly do not have any business demanding that I produce anything for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Re US criminal justice systems..... I looked.... Judge Judy seems pretty fair.... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matej Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said: You want examples of institutionalized racism? There have been many experiments done where applications for loans are submitted. Even though the information on the loan forms is exactly the same, those with names that are likely to belong to black people are rejected at a much higher rate than for white people.The same goes for applications for employment. Capitalism cares only about one color, the green one. For example look at Jim Crow's laws in 60ties, forcing businesses to discriminate against black people, but business owners were cheating because they wanted black people money. They wanted to sell them stuff and provide them services. You want to tell me that bankers in 2017 discriminate people just because they are black? That is your example of institutionalized racism? The idea that government will dictate private businesses what to do is very dangerous. Jim Crow's laws on one side and leftist beating florist because he don't want to serve gay wedding on the other side. It didn't work then it will not work now. You pick something and interpret it as racism because racism has to be somewhere out there that doesn't solve problems for anybody, actually it creates more problems, because they, blacks in this case, live in society where they are told that every obstacle they face in their life's is from nameless and faceless group of people who is out there to get them just because of the color of their skin, they gender or sexuality ... THEY WILL NEVWR BE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT SOCIETY. I'm responding from smartphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matej Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said: Do you often feel the need to teach your grandmother to suck eggs? You do not need to go much further than the US criminal justice system to find continual and constant racial bias. After exhausting that almost unlimited well of institutionalized racism, you can then look at the Welfare system, the School system, in fact pretty much every system at local, state and federal levels. If you expand beyond racism to bigotry against other minorities including the poor, the instances expand exponentially. No. Referencing institutional racism is not an over generalization. I use it as a noun. For your information, a noun is a naming word. One is expected to use nouns in written and oral speech. It is a name of a characteristic. It was not used as a generalization in the same manner that you over generalized. I can provide more information on the grammatical use of nouns if you wish. I am not really interested in carrying forward this exchange. I do not believe you are acting in good faith. Each of your posts has indulged in stupid polemic and I am not interested in the statements of such people. If I see a genuine post I may participate in the discussion but you certainly do not have any business demanding that I produce anything for you. Thank you for explanation. You are lucky that I'm not a woman, because it would be mansplaining and your liberal friends don't like that. Of course there are individual cases of racism and of course there are racist people. But saying that whole system is based on pure racism and implicit bias is incorrect. No data, statistics support your statement. You are like Obama. 8 years he was talking about institutionalized racism, but never showed single law or policy that is racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tawan Dok Krating Daeng Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, Matej said: Thank you for explanation. You are lucky that I'm not a woman, because it would be mansplaining and your liberal friends don't like that. Of course there are individual cases of racism and of course there are racist people. But saying that whole system is based on pure racism and implicit bias is incorrect. No data, statistics support your statement. You are like Obama. 8 years he was talking about institutionalized racism, but never showed single law or policy that is racist. I see that you also do not quite get irony. You take exception to me doing to you exactly what you presumed to do to me. Oh well. Further, you continue to present arguments against things that I have never said. The collorary to Obama that you present is facile and further evidence of your bad faith posting. I will not engage with trolling further. You want a discussion then address the points I make, not the points you make up and put in my mouth. Who said that US institutions are based on racism? Either you are deliberately being obtuse to play into your stupid polemic or you have legitimate difficulties in comprehension. Either way, nobody can counter such intellectual dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matej Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said: I see that you also do not quite get irony. You take exception to me doing to you exactly what you presumed to do to me. Oh well. Further, you continue to present arguments against things that I have never said. The collorary to Obama that you present is facile and further evidence of your bad faith posting. I will not engage with trolling further. You want a discussion then address the points I make, not the points you make up and put in my mouth. Who said that US institutions are based on racism? Either you are deliberately being obtuse to play into your stupid polemic or you have legitimate difficulties in comprehension. Either way, nobody can counter such intellectual dishonesty. Read what you wrote on previous side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 22 hours ago, Jingthing said: Yes which means a political movement is needed to oppose trumpist policies outside Congress. Nobody said it was going to be easy or fast. This is the tea party from the other side. Any political movement must have legal standing. Knitted pink head gear and crude posters with vaginal imagery won't cut it. Never paid much attention to the tea party, although I read about the original back in high school. Bottom line is any movement to reduce or forestall Trump's policies need to be grounded in law. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, Toronto said: Any political movement must have legal standing. Knitted pink head gear and crude posters with vaginal imagery won't cut it. Never paid much attention to the tea party, although I read about the original back in high school. Bottom line is any movement to reduce or forestall Trump's policies need to be grounded in law. Good luck. Really? So are you asserting that the Tea Party (circa 2009-2017) didn't accomplish anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Any political movement must have legal standing. Knitted pink head gear and crude posters with vaginal imagery won't cut it. Never paid much attention to the tea party, although I read about the original back in high school. Bottom line is any movement to reduce or forestall Trump's policies need to be grounded in law. Good luck.What are you on about? Peaceful protest is grounded in law. Efforts to Impeach are grounded in law. Of course any violence related to the anti trump resistance is illegal unless in self defense against trumpist goons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retiredinmaerim Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, lannarebirth said: I think he set that record in November, and all these same women are just a subset of that group. I am not trying to inject race here, just making an observation. Looking at the photos of the marches it would seem that they where mostly white women. Trump took 54 percent of their vote in the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retiredinmaerim Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, Jingthing said: What are you on about? Peaceful protest is grounded in law. Efforts to Impeach are grounded in law. Of course any violence related to the anti trump resistance is illegal unless in self defense against trumpist goons. Jingthing, I guess you do not read the news. The only goons seem to be of the the sore loser type. You are a citizen of what country Jingthing ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balo Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If you want to teach your child how to lie , Trump is the best example . Liar from day 1 in office . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 8 minutes ago, retiredinmaerim said: I am not trying to inject race here, just making an observation. Looking at the photos of the marches it would seem that they where mostly white women. Trump took 54 percent of their vote in the election. I fail to see how that is germane to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retiredinmaerim Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, balo said: If you want to teach your child how to lie , Trump is the best example . Liar from day 1 in office . He sure seems to fib a lot about trivial matters. But on the other hand he seems true to his election platform so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: Really? So are you asserting that the Tea Party (circa 2009-2017) didn't accomplish anything? No. I didn't follow it that closely. What I meant was that to effect political change, it must be done within the confines/constraints of existing law. A certain poster posited that a political movement is needed to oppose "trumpist" policies outside Congress. I'm only saying it must be done through currently legitimate channels. What, for example, would constitute a political movement to weaken this administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farcanell Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, balo said: If you want to teach your child how to lie , Trump is the best example . Liar from day 1 in office . Lol... from the looks of it, he will need a cast of assistants to prop up his snout, before to long.... hey.... more jobs for the unemployed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Toronto said: No. I didn't follow it that closely. What I meant was that to effect political change, it must be done within the confines/constraints of existing law. A certain poster posited that a political movement is needed to oppose "trumpist" policies outside Congress. I'm only saying it must be done through currently legitimate channels. What, for example, would constitute a political movement to weaken this administration? You seem to be repeating yourself. Demonstrating is a legitimate channel and is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the 50's and 60's African Americans demonstrated against segregation. Are you saying that their demonstrations were not legitimate? Or that they were not effective? And what do you mean by "currently legitimate.?" Has the First Amendment been abolished in the past few years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retiredinmaerim Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, ilostmypassword said: I fail to see how that is germane to this discussion. It was in response to a previous post which I will quote " I think he set that record in November, and all these same women are just a subset of that group" which implies that Trump has no support among women voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 18 minutes ago, Jingthing said: What are you on about? Peaceful protest is grounded in law. Efforts to Impeach are grounded in law. Of course any violence related to the anti trump resistance is illegal unless in self defense against trumpist goons. Wierd logic. Yes, of course peaceful protest is lawful. However, it does not constitute grounds for impinging on legally instituted policies. Even if 50 million persons walked on Washington, it is not sufficient to overturn a presidential election. Likewise, efforts to impeach are recognized. But proper grounds for impeachment must also be based on sufficient ang legal grounds. Please don't confuse efforts to impeach, and grounds to impeach as anything other than the use of the word impeach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said: You seem to be repeating yourself. Demonstrating is a legitimate channel and is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. In the 50's and 60's African Americans demonstrated against segregation. Are you saying that their demonstrations were not legitimate? Or that they were not effective? And what do you mean by "currently legitimate.?" Has the First Amendment been abolished in the past few years? I'm repeating myself because it appears that my message wasn't clear enough. You can read my response to another poster below. If I were to answer your query about American Africans, I fear I may be repeating myself. Hint: it has sometthing to do with legitimate protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Jingthing, I guess you do not read the news. The only goons seem to be of the the sore loser type. You are a citizen of what country Jingthing ?You're wrong. There has been a huge spike in trumpist inspired hate crimes against the groups that his most deplorable supporters feel it is now open seasons on. I am American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, retiredinmaerim said: It was in response to a previous post which I will quote " I think he set that record in November, and all these same women are just a subset of that group" which implies that Trump has no support among women voters. You're correct. trump won among WHITE women. See a pattern? Edited January 25, 2017 by metisdead Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 No. I didn't follow it that closely. What I meant was that to effect political change, it must be done within the confines/constraints of existing law. A certain poster posited that a political movement is needed to oppose "trumpist" policies outside Congress. I'm only saying it must be done through currently legitimate channels. What, for example, would constitute a political movement to weaken this administration? Like the tea party. Google it. They succeeded quite well. Sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Wierd logic. Yes, of course peaceful protest is lawful. However, it does not constitute grounds for impinging on legally instituted policies. Even if 50 million persons walked on Washington, it is not sufficient to overturn a presidential election. Likewise, efforts to impeach are recognized. But proper grounds for impeachment must also be based on sufficient ang legal grounds. Please don't confuse efforts to impeach, and grounds to impeach as anything other than the use of the word impeach. You're talking in circles. We agree only legal means are acceptable. If trump goes full on Putin then that may need to be revised. The fight is against an authoritarian state. Odds of preventing that not particularly high as thanks to trump we are well on the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retiredinmaerim Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, Jingthing said: You're correct. trump won among WHITE women. See a pattern? Ok, I do not get it. Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years and on television for over 5. In all that time nobody said he was a racist. At the start of the presidential race when no one expected him to win nobody called him a racist. Only after he started being competitive did this racist talk start. Maybe I am wrong, I do not see him as a racist, if you can give me some examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toronto Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 29 minutes ago, Jingthing said: You're wrong. There has been a huge spike in trumpist inspired hate crimes against the groups that his most deplorable supporters feel it is now open seasons on. I am American. Total rubbish. Back up these claims of Trump supporter's hate crimes. Tell us a few. I'm serious... I'd really like to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Ok, I do not get it. Trump has been in the public eye for over 30 years and on television for over 5. In all that time nobody said he was a racist. At the start of the presidential race when no one expected him to win nobody called him a racist. Only after he started being competitive did this racist talk start. Maybe I am wrong, I do not see him as a racist, if you can give me some examples. You're joking right? The disgusting sexual predator clown that led the racist birther movement to try to deligitimize OBAMA for several years - - nobody said he was racist? Wow.A key reason trump won was his Implicit message to make America white again. Which of course ain't gonna happen any more than reviving many old style rust belt jobs but rationality has little to do with such demagogic populist authoritarian movements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tawan Dok Krating Daeng Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Toronto said: Any political movement must have legal standing. Knitted pink head gear and crude posters with vaginal imagery won't cut it. Never paid much attention to the tea party, although I read about the original back in high school. Bottom line is any movement to reduce or forestall Trump's policies need to be grounded in law. Good luck. And we are expected to believe this load of crap why? Because you say so. It seems that the Alt Right feel that they can insult the intelligence of people on a daily basis with sheer nonsense, lies and alternative facts. The particular rubbish that you have just posted is particularly egregious and a flagrant denial of reality. I really wish you lot of BS artists would back up your stupid assertions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now