Anyone interested in getting a sense of what kind of FBI employee Andrew McCabe was would be well-served to read this Twitter thread, which has actual documents and emails showing the steps he took once his wife decided to run for office, obtained courtesy of FOIA requests. This information does not show a nefarious actor:
Yes, but this begs the question why did the OPR, headed by a Mueller appointee no less, recommend his firing?
I think that people close to the scene (who are NOT political appointees) who were tasked with investigating his misconduct know more than us.
"Do it or your next."
From what I have read, the whole procedure was rushed so McCabe would be fired before his retirement date. It's a kangaroo court system, that as a citizen of the country it happened in, you should be worried.
This isn't to say that McCabe wasn't guilty, but he was owed due process which he didn't get. You also have to remember why he was fired, which is leaking information about the Clinton Email Investigation during the election. If this was a breach of public trust, why did it take the Sessions this long to bring charges against him, especially when the same excuse was used for firing Comey.
The idea that Trump or Sessions care about whether Hillary was treated unfairly is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. Moreoever, they are arguing Comey and McCabe were in the tank for her, while at the same time citing actions that would have HURT Hillary as the reason for their dismissals.
One way to reduce the number of deadbeat dads is to improve access to birth control and abortion services.
Birth control is available from almost literally any store. I also fail to see why murdering children is a good resolution to ANYTHING.
Condoms are available at almost every store, but they aren’t particularly reliable and aren’t free. Unintended pregnancies are less frequent when more reliable contraceptives methods are easier to get (e.g., over-the-counter oral contraception) and more affordable (e.g., insurance coverage for IUDs). Regardless of how you feel about whether these measures should help, the reality is that they do help.
If you believe that abortion is murdering children, then taking these steps should matter to you even more.
One way to reduce the number of deadbeat dads is to improve access to birth control and abortion services.
Birth control is available from almost literally any store. I also fail to see why murdering children is a good resolution to ANYTHING.
Condoms are available at almost every store, but they aren’t particularly reliable and aren’t free. Unintended pregnancies are less frequent when more reliable contraceptives methods are easier to get (e.g., over-the-counter oral contraception) and more affordable (e.g., insurance coverage for IUDs). Regardless of how you feel about whether these measures should help, the reality is that they do help.
If you believe that abortion is murdering children, then taking these steps should matter to you even more.
I know for a fact @ThacoBell has very valid, personal reasons for being against abortion, which he has shared here in the past, so he certainly doesn't need to explain himself again.
As for birth control, I continue to find it incredibly problematic that many pro-life contingents are also vehemently opposed to birth control access. I'd also again point out (and the data is posted by me in another post from many months ago) that while abortions have been going down in every Presidency since Reagan, they went down much more under the Clinton and Obama Administrations. I found the numbers again:
Yes, but this begs the question why did the OPR, headed by a Mueller appointee no less, recommend his firing?
I think that people close to the scene (who are NOT political appointees) who were tasked with investigating his misconduct know more than us.
Maybe they don't want to lose their pensions too? And a "Mueller appointee?" what's that mean?
Mueller ran the FBI he appointed all kinds of people presumably he didn't ask them who they voted for and demand they take an oath of loyalty and demand they sign a NDA when he hired him.
In short, not everyone hired in the government is a partisan hack. You expect that from Donald Trump people but others are not that way. Sometimes, and this may be shocking in today's climate you just pick the best person and don't only look for loyalists.
@jjstraka34 I appreciate the good faith, and while I don't feel like relating everything again, I'll give a quick summary of my stance for the newcomers.
Okay, that wasn't as quick as I would have like. Put in spoilers.
My stance on abortion actually HAS changed since I first started posting on these forums, so here we go. I understand the need for the procedure in some situations, if the mother, or the infant, or even both are going to die, something needs to be done. In some instances, there is no choice, both will die unless the pregnancy is stopped early, etc. Sometimes you can save either one, in which case a choice must be made as to who to save (which chills me to the bone to think of the families that have had to make such a choice). But in the even of elective abortions, I view them as murder. A life is being ended unecessarily, and I oppose that.
@joluv I guess I don't understand "more accesible". You can literally buy packs of condoms for $1 at most general stores and they range from 96% to 98% effective. You can use them as needed and are as simple as putting on socks. Heck, some schools give them out. That's pretty darn accesible. Birth control pills cost significantly more, true. But they have to be used daily and at a consistent time, if you miss a day, then you are sunk for awhile and have to wait anyway. At peak the pills are 99% effective, that only a 1 to 3% percent difference over the cheaper, easier to use condoms. Not to mention that people already tend to be irresponsible in the first place. Even if you "make them more accesible" (I don't even know what that would entail. Have a personal assistant put them on for you?) there is no guarantee that they will be used. You can't blame the tools when they aren't used.
Yeah, condoms are probably close to peak accessibility. When I made my other comment, I was thinking of other forms of birth contol. In this case, an “only 1 to 3% difference” means a pregnancy is 2 to 4 times more likely, which is a lot. IUDs and implants are even more effective, and there’s nothing to forget.
I think it’s best not to think of this as a question of “blame.” It’s relatively easy to study how various policies affect abortion rates (which are probably roughly proportional to unintended pregnancy rates), and we should adopt the solutions that work.
I agree with @ThacoBell. It is necessary sometimes.
I don't feel the "my body, my life" argument is valid at the expense of a baby as if there isn't another body and life at stake. And the whole "it isn't a baby, it's a fetus" argument is just moronic. I think it would help if more men would step up and take responsibility if a child comes unexpectedly. If you are willing to take the risk you should shoulder the responsibility of the results.
I agree birth control needs to be more available though. My ex had PCOS and the insurance which was unfortunately through a church-owned business wouldn't cover it even though it was a medical necessity. I'm religious, but you don't use religion to deny medical needs or careful family planning just because you are worried somebody will use it to cover up their out-of-wedlock sex life. I wish it were required to be covered.
Sorry, edited because I realized my response was too concise. If I weren't religious I still feel strongly about respect for life and sexual responsibility.
BTW, I'm a moderate, not a conservative. I respect others have other views, and I'm not saying people are morons for having other views. I only mean calling it a fetus to dehumanize and justify the abortion is problematic. I'm not saying you are a moron if you are a woman put in the awful situation of having to make such a decision because you have no support from the father.
To me, “sexual responsibility” is such a bizarre framework for thinking about this. You should have a baby because you’re able and willing to be a parent, not as a punishment for promiscuity.
@themazingness So I have a question. From the moment of ejaculation, when exactly do the sperm and egg constitute a baby rather than a fetus? Or is it never a fetus? Is every sperm sacred?
To me, “sexual responsibility” is such a bizarre framework for thinking about this. You should have a baby because your able and willing to be a parent, not as a punishment for promiscuity.
Actually, I agree with you. I see carrying a baby as punishment as a bizarre framework though. I mean, that is the result of having sex under typical circumstances. It is a consequence of sex (in a neutral meaning of the term).
@themazingness So I have a question. From the moment of ejaculation, when exactly do the sperm and egg constitute a baby rather than a fetus? Or is it never a fetus? Is every sperm sacred?
Hah, I love Monty Python! And I'm not that absurd about it. Again, I just don't like dehumanizing an unborn fetus as if it isn't anything else. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not really looking to debate where life begins. My feelings are more personal on that point than political.
So do you think it's right to make policy based on your personal feelings?
Do you think its alright to make policy without the consent of those it affects?
*edit* @themazingness I differentiate between birth control for recreational purposes and medical purposes. My wife has PCOS, so I understand the need. But people aren't entitled to ANYTHING for purposes of recreation.
@themazingness So I have a question. From the moment of ejaculation, when exactly do the sperm and egg constitute a baby rather than a fetus? Or is it never a fetus? Is every sperm sacred?
Is this question intended to help you better understand the other side's viewpoint, or is it intended to prompt the other side to make a claim that's easy to dispute so you can attempt to claim a rhetorical victory?
Let's bear in mind that "winning" the debate is not the point here. We're here to exchange ideas, not fight over them.
@themazingness So I have a question. From the moment of ejaculation, when exactly do the sperm and egg constitute a baby rather than a fetus? Or is it never a fetus? Is every sperm sacred?
Is this question intended to help you better understand the other side's viewpoint, or is it intended to prompt the other side to make a claim that's easy to dispute so you can attempt to claim a rhetorical victory?
Let's bear in mind that "winning" the debate is not the point here. We're here to exchange ideas, not fight over them.
The question is intended to help me understand what the argument is. @themazingness is being quite vague in what he is actually suggesting.
Does human life have inherent value however? For example should a primate which can communicate- by learning some sign language for example- be valued less than a human who has suffered severe brain damage? Does a certain set of DNA give inalienable rights? (And can we forfeit those rights in turn through our conduct?)
Elective abortion is one of those moral abominations that will be looked back upon with revulsion like we do other forms of historical atrocities, I believe. The idea that we solve the problem of unwanted children by killing them and are totally unwilling to ascribe any notions of responsibility to those who make unwanted children reflects a deeply narcissistic view of the world.
Of course human life has inherent value, if we don't hold that notion, very little about political dialogue or society makes sense, and people naturally value their lives, and will only apply the principle of human life being worthless in ways that won't affect them. It is only ever an excuse to treat another like they have no value.
If human life has no value, what does? If non-human life holds more value, then one cannot survive, as our bodies create energy at the expense of other life. If life holds no value beyond our own self worth, what is the point of any kind of debate? Or even society for that matter. In the absecence of any value ascribed to life, we may as well permit all things.
Elective abortion is one of those moral abominations that will be looked back upon with revulsion like we do other forms of historical atrocities, I believe.
I think this might be true, mostly because we're going to get really good at birth control. Same for meat-eating, probably, because artificial meat is going to get really good. To those judgmental denizens of the future, I say: Shut up, your shiny clothes look stupid.
Not really adding to the current discussion but: Does anyone else find it really weird that its the Left that is largely pro abortion? The political side of better welfare programs, racial equality, anti anti immigration (I really can't think of good way to articulate that). The party that advocates programs to help people shoved into poverty and held down in ways beyon their control, is the same party that advocates the murder of children because its convienant.
I get that people in general tend to be selfish, but it would really make more sense to me if it was the Right that advocated for abortion. Their motto is basically, "Screw you, I got mine."
Comments
If you believe that abortion is murdering children, then taking these steps should matter to you even more.
As for birth control, I continue to find it incredibly problematic that many pro-life contingents are also vehemently opposed to birth control access. I'd also again point out (and the data is posted by me in another post from many months ago) that while abortions have been going down in every Presidency since Reagan, they went down much more under the Clinton and Obama Administrations. I found the numbers again:
https://qz.com/857273/the-sharpest-drops-in-abortion-rates-in-america-have-been-under-democratic-presidents/
Mueller ran the FBI he appointed all kinds of people presumably he didn't ask them who they voted for and demand they take an oath of loyalty and demand they sign a NDA when he hired him.
In short, not everyone hired in the government is a partisan hack. You expect that from Donald Trump people but others are not that way. Sometimes, and this may be shocking in today's climate you just pick the best person and don't only look for loyalists.
Okay, that wasn't as quick as I would have like. Put in spoilers.
I understand the need for the procedure in some situations, if the mother, or the infant, or even both are going to die, something needs to be done. In some instances, there is no choice, both will die unless the pregnancy is stopped early, etc. Sometimes you can save either one, in which case a choice must be made as to who to save (which chills me to the bone to think of the families that have had to make such a choice). But in the even of elective abortions, I view them as murder. A life is being ended unecessarily, and I oppose that.
@joluv I guess I don't understand "more accesible". You can literally buy packs of condoms for $1 at most general stores and they range from 96% to 98% effective. You can use them as needed and are as simple as putting on socks. Heck, some schools give them out. That's pretty darn accesible. Birth control pills cost significantly more, true. But they have to be used daily and at a consistent time, if you miss a day, then you are sunk for awhile and have to wait anyway. At peak the pills are 99% effective, that only a 1 to 3% percent difference over the cheaper, easier to use condoms. Not to mention that people already tend to be irresponsible in the first place. Even if you "make them more accesible" (I don't even know what that would entail. Have a personal assistant put them on for you?) there is no guarantee that they will be used. You can't blame the tools when they aren't used.
I think it’s best not to think of this as a question of “blame.” It’s relatively easy to study how various policies affect abortion rates (which are probably roughly proportional to unintended pregnancy rates), and we should adopt the solutions that work.
I don't feel the "my body, my life" argument is valid at the expense of a baby as if there isn't another body and life at stake. And the whole "it isn't a baby, it's a fetus" argument is just moronic. I think it would help if more men would step up and take responsibility if a child comes unexpectedly. If you are willing to take the risk you should shoulder the responsibility of the results.
I agree birth control needs to be more available though. My ex had PCOS and the insurance which was unfortunately through a church-owned business wouldn't cover it even though it was a medical necessity. I'm religious, but you don't use religion to deny medical needs or careful family planning just because you are worried somebody will use it to cover up their out-of-wedlock sex life. I wish it were required to be covered.
BTW, I'm a moderate, not a conservative. I respect others have other views, and I'm not saying people are morons for having other views. I only mean calling it a fetus to dehumanize and justify the abortion is problematic. I'm not saying you are a moron if you are a woman put in the awful situation of having to make such a decision because you have no support from the father.
Obligatory Python
*edit*
@themazingness I differentiate between birth control for recreational purposes and medical purposes. My wife has PCOS, so I understand the need. But people aren't entitled to ANYTHING for purposes of recreation.
Let's bear in mind that "winning" the debate is not the point here. We're here to exchange ideas, not fight over them.
Of course human life has inherent value, if we don't hold that notion, very little about political dialogue or society makes sense, and people naturally value their lives, and will only apply the principle of human life being worthless in ways that won't affect them. It is only ever an excuse to treat another like they have no value.
I get that people in general tend to be selfish, but it would really make more sense to me if it was the Right that advocated for abortion. Their motto is basically, "Screw you, I got mine."