rickyp wrote:Fate

What does Ryan have to do with this?

He's the Congressional leader ... He should lead on this issue...

Here's what he won't do ...

Paul Ryan won't compare Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations to those facing Donald Trump

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... 59c77.html

Ryan will not call on the Texas Republican to resign following a POLITICO report that he used $84,000 in taxpayer funds to pay off an accuser, his office said Friday night — even though he has called for Democratic Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) to step aside over similar sexual harassment allegations.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/ ... ans-275984

Who's the family values party now?

It ain't the Democrats.

And, your guilt-by-association crap is just that. You present nothing but ad hominem bilge.

There's plenty more on the Democratic side. Please remember: Harvey Weinstein is good buddies with both Clintons. All the Hollywood stars who have been outed are liberals. The Democrats are the party of Weiner, Ted "I hope she can swim" Kennedy, and Bill "have a cigar" Clinton.

It is also the party of "kill every baby for any reason." If those are "family values," please limit them to your own family.

As always, feel free to stay in Canada. I'm glad you're not an American.

Doctor Fate wrote:There's plenty more on the Democratic side. Please remember: Harvey Weinstein is good buddies with both Clintons. All the Hollywood stars who have been outed are liberals. The Democrats are the party of Weiner, Ted "I hope she can swim" Kennedy, and Bill "have a cigar" Clinton.

I think if we're learning anything from society's newfound understanding of sexual harassment and assault, it's that shitty behavior is perhaps the most non-partisan issue there is. Men (I'm not aware of any current accusations against women, but correct me if I'm wrong) of all political stripes have and are committing egregious behavior.

I was appalled that it took so long for a significant number of Democrats to call for Franken to resign and I'm even more appalled that so much awful behavior by so many men was known about for years, even decades, and just... accepted, as long as everyone agreed to just not mention it. I am also appalled that it appears the Republican Party has little inclination to condemn Donald Trump and Roy Moore on this issue as harshly as its members have John Conyers and Al Franken.

Doctor Fate wrote:It is also the party of "kill every baby for any reason."

That's not actually a political position that anyone that I'm aware of advocates. It is, however, an insult that is extremely unhelpful in promoting civil debate between opposing political ideologies.

Southern Marylander wrote:I am also appalled that it appears the Republican Party has little inclination to condemn Donald Trump and Roy Moore on this issue as harshly as its members have John Conyers and Al Franken.

Oh, I think there's been plenty of condemnation of Roy Moore. Even Trump himself was against him, until he was for him.

But, there's a long list of GOP/conservatives condemning Moore. I could not vote for him.

Doctor Fate wrote:It is also the party of "kill every baby for any reason."

That's not actually a political position that anyone that I'm aware of advocates. It is, however, an insult that is extremely unhelpful in promoting civil debate between opposing political ideologies.

It actually is the position of the Democratic Party. The only protection Democrats afford babies is after they are born. What limitations on abortion is the Democratic Party in support of?

Doctor Fate wrote:It actually is the position of the Democratic Party. The only protection Democrats afford babies is after they are born. What limitations on abortion is the Democratic Party in support of?

I'm willing to grant that there is a significant difference of opinion on what constitutes a "baby" according to the two predominant sides of the abortion debate. However, there is no position within the Democratic Party advocating that every pregnancy should be terminated with an abortion, only that every woman should have the right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or not.

Therefore,

It is also the party of "kill every baby for any reason."

... is a highly inaccurate representation of the position of the Democratic Party on abortion. Perhaps it's meaningless semantics given the massively different views of abortion, from what rights women should have over their bodies to the very definition of what constitutes a baby versus a fetus. Still, despite the events of the 2016 election cycle and the current administration's time in office, I'd like to think that some words matter. "Kill every baby for any a reason," is an unfactual statement (i.e. lie) about the Democratic Party's position on abortion and beneath the dignity of political discussion. "Kill some babies for any reason," is still a gross distortion in my opinion, but at least falls into the realm of a difference of opinion and not an outright lie.

Southern Marylander wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:It actually is the position of the Democratic Party. The only protection Democrats afford babies is after they are born. What limitations on abortion is the Democratic Party in support of?

I'm willing to grant that there is a significant difference of opinion on what constitutes a "baby" according to the two predominant sides of the abortion debate. However, there is no position within the Democratic Party advocating that every pregnancy should be terminated with an abortion, only that every woman should have the right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or not.

Therefore,

It is also the party of "kill every baby for any reason."

... is a highly inaccurate representation of the position of the Democratic Party on abortion. Perhaps it's meaningless semantics given the massively different views of abortion, from what rights women should have over their bodies to the very definition of what constitutes a baby versus a fetus. Still, despite the events of the 2016 election cycle and the current administration's time in office, I'd like to think that some words matter. "Kill every baby for any a reason," is an unfactual statement (i.e. lie) about the Democratic Party's position on abortion and beneath the dignity of political discussion. "Kill some babies for any reason," is still a gross distortion in my opinion, but at least falls into the realm of a difference of opinion and not an outright lie.

Fine, I'll modify: any baby may be killed for any reason at any time prior to birth.

That's a real "pro-family" platform.

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine, I'll modify: any baby may be killed for any reason at any time prior to birth.

That's a real "pro-family" platform.

See, even on this most contentious of topics, we were able to find the tiniest bit of common ground. That's a good thing.

Now, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of all aspects of family-related legislation in the United States, I'm more than happy to, though this may not be the appropriate thread.

Southern Marylander wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Fine, I'll modify: any baby may be killed for any reason at any time prior to birth.

That's a real "pro-family" platform.

See, even on this most contentious of topics, we were able to find the tiniest bit of common ground. That's a good thing.

Now, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty of all aspects of family-related legislation in the United States, I'm more than happy to, though this may not be the appropriate thread.

Someone else wanted to make this about "family values."

Sexual harassment is often a function of power - people with power who use it to gain advantage over someone with less power. A politician with an intern. A movie producer with an aspiring actor. A local prosecutor with young kids whose parents he encounters at court. A prominent comedian with up and comers.

And outside the "public" and "celebrity" spheres, we know it happens in workplaces, schools, at malls, in marriages...

Neither party can claim a mantle of "family values" with any honesty. It's just a slogan used to bypass the cognitive functions and go straight for the partisan feels.

Abortion is also irrelevant. If there were not pro-life Democrats, and if the Republicans were not currently putting CHIP and other programmes that help children post-birth to survive and thrive, then there might be a consistent point in claiming that the Democrats are the party of murdering babies. But even if there were, it has nothing to do with politicians and parties rallying around sex pests.

danivon wrote:Sexual harassment is often a function of power - people with power who use it to gain advantage over someone with less power. A politician with an intern. A movie producer with an aspiring actor. A local prosecutor with young kids whose parents he encounters at court. A prominent comedian with up and comers.

And outside the "public" and "celebrity" spheres, we know it happens in workplaces, schools, at malls, in marriages...

Neither party can claim a mantle of "family values" with any honesty. It's just a slogan used to bypass the cognitive functions and go straight for the partisan feels.

Agreed.

Abortion is also irrelevant. If there were not pro-life Democrats, and if the Republicans were not currently putting CHIP and other programmes that help children post-birth to survive and thrive, then there might be a consistent point in claiming that the Democrats are the party of murdering babies. But even if there were, it has nothing to do with politicians and parties rallying around sex pests.

It has to do with claiming “family values.”

As for Republicans and CHIP, sorry, that’s not comparable. If you can show me that alcohol and drugs are not bigger threats to children than budget cuts, I’ll be impressed. The truth is the “at risk” of hunger children in this nation are mostly “at risk” because their parents are derelicts.

danivon

But even if there were, it has nothing to do with politicians and parties rallying around sex pests.

It seems that private industry is doing a better job of dealing with cases of sexual harrassment or other misconduct than the political sphere.
The spectacle of a sitting President campaigning for an alleged sex offender (notwithstanding his other publicly stated positions that are at odds with the Constitution. ) is galling.
But consider that the GOP relented and funded Moore's campaign. And the republican leadership?

“The people of Alabama are going to decide a week from Tuesday who they want to send to the Senate,” McConnell said on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday. “It’s really up to them. It’s been a pretty robust campaign with a lot of people weighing in. The president and I, of course, supported somebody different earlier in the process. But in the end, the voters of Alabama will make their choice.”
When pressed by CBS’s John Dickerson about whether he thought the Senate Ethics Committee should look into the Moore allegations if he is indeed elected, McConnell declined to weigh in definitively. “The Ethics Committee makes those decisions about whether behavior prior to the Senate is relevant or not. They will decide the parameters, if you will, of their jurisdiction,” he said

.

What will this mean down the road? Especially if Roy Moore wins?
It can't help in the midterms...
Trumps support seems to be slipping even with his base on white non-college, and with white evangelicals.. Embracing Moore won't help Trump or the GOP as a whole...
If the argument is that a pedophile is better than any democrat .......the people who want to support that statement has got to be in the minority. (Hopefully even in Alabama, and failing Alabama in the US Senate itself.)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/ ... index.html

Fate

The truth is the “at risk” of hunger children in this nation are mostly “at risk” because their parents are derelicts.

Why are there so many derelicts then?

Its tough to be poor in the US. Far tougher than other advanced nations. Because of a lack of social support, disposable household PPP income of poor families is far lower than for the poor in comparable nations... From which you can conclude only that its also much tougher delivering the basics, like healthy food.

If you judge a society by how well it treats its top, the US is certainly the best in the world. If you judge a society by how well it treats its bottom, however, the US is trailing behind a good chunk of developed countries, even when you look only narrowly at absolute incomes. The US trails these countries, not for any uncontrollable reason, but because it uses inferior economic institutions that predictably distribute the national income poorly.

http://www.demos.org/blog/1/5/15/when-i ... be-america

rickyp wrote:Fate

The truth is the “at risk” of hunger children in this nation are mostly “at risk” because their parents are derelicts.

Why are there so many derelicts then?

Its tough to be poor in the US. Far tougher than other advanced nations. Because of a lack of social support, disposable household PPP income of poor families is far lower than for the poor in comparable nations... From which you can conclude only that its also much tougher delivering the basics, like healthy food.

If you judge a society by how well it treats its top, the US is certainly the best in the world. If you judge a society by how well it treats its bottom, however, the US is trailing behind a good chunk of developed countries, even when you look only narrowly at absolute incomes. The US trails these countries, not for any uncontrollable reason, but because it uses inferior economic institutions that predictably distribute the national income poorly.

http://www.demos.org/blog/1/5/15/when-i ... be-america

It’s really “surprising” that you would cite a Marxist organization to criticize the US.

I’m just shocked.

Again, feel free to criticize the US. Stay in Canada. More socialists are not needed.