I don't really want to be in this discussion......
This is nothing, it's a walk in the park. You should see some of the really nasty discussions. On second though, no, you're good, you don't need to see them.
is there a sub-set of the Brazilian right that is secular??
Yes, but they're quite different from the secular right from the United States.
You gotta keep in mind that in countries like Brazil and Argentina, most people are Catholic. Not only that, but Catholicism is the state religion. In Argentina, you can't be president unless you're catholic. It's in the Constitution. In fact, there was a president back in the 90's who was Muslim, and he had to convert to Catholicism in order to take office.
Evangelism is very popular in these regions as well. Bolsonaro had the Evangelist vote, for example.
This argument about welfare mothers is pretty prevelant on the American right as well, but the conversation typically stops at letting them rot in poverty, not eugenics. And I fail to see how providing funds at barely a sustenance level is going to be any more expensive than these mass payouts for sterilization. Is there a sub-set of the Brazilian right that is secular?? Because the Catholic Church would view this plan as nothing less than anathema. Then again, so would much of the civilized world.
Welfare mothers are a problem in countries with US$ 60.000,00 GDP per capita. Now imagine it in countries with US$ 14.000,00 GDP per capita + aging population + a extreme corrupt government. The problem is like 10x bigger.
I don't really want to be in this discussion......
This is nothing, it's a walk in the park. You should see some of the really nasty discussions. On second though, no, you're good, you don't need to see them.
Like what?
The most bizarre thing that I ever saw is a guy with Polish surname advocating for "nazism"
And when I mean nazism, is not the definition "everything more right wing than a social democrat" that many people use, I mean literally nazism.
The most bizarre thing that I ever saw is a guy with Polish surname advocating for "nazism"
And when I mean nazism, is not the definition "everything more right wing than a social democrat" that many people use, I mean literally nazism.
Nah, that's quite mainstream, I (unfortunately) debated a lot of people like that. Eventually I lost interest, they always say the same things over and over again, and there's nothing you can say that will change their mind in any way.
The nastiest political discussion among Latin Americans are soccer discussions. Seriously, not even joking.
The most bizarre thing that I ever saw is a guy with Polish surname advocating for "nazism"
And when I mean nazism, is not the definition "everything more right wing than a social democrat" that many people use, I mean literally nazism.
Nah, that's quite mainstream, I (unfortunately) debated a lot of people like that. Eventually I lost interest, they always say the same things over and over again, and there's nothing you can say that will change their mind in any way.
The nastiest political discussion among Latin Americans are soccer discussions. Seriously, not even joking.
Some things are extremely bizarre. Argentina has the largest Jewish population on Latin America and the largest population of war criminals fleeing WW2 Germany after the defeat of the 3rd reich. Adolf Eichmann was captured by Mossad due it. The complete history is off topic and here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
But Soccer fanaticism is a thing which I always hated. Some friends of mine, ended a Childhood friendship due soccer. A guy literally lost his hand due a accident with fireworks and when was at the hospital, was more concerned about the game than with his hand. The 7x1 from Germany did a good thing. Made people appreciate more other games. Now finally, people talk about UFC and other sports. Not only soccer.
And the government invests huge amounts of money with all policing during matches. It and carnival are just waste of public money. The government suspended lessons but din't touched in the carnival due the pandemic.
On UK i have heard that soccer is also taken extremely seriously.
Don't forget about the mafias that are linked to the world of soccer. And politics is connected to soccer as well. There's a lot of money in that game, too much money for it to be simply a game.
2) It will 100% be corrupted and used predominently against "undesirable" economic and ethnic groups.
3) It's evil.
4) No country has 100% employment, it is not possible for everyone to have a job all of the time. The vast majority of people on welfare would work if we could, this is a known and proven fact from multitudes of studies in different countries and places. Anybody who has told you differently has no regard for the truth. The few people that genuinely don't want to work, it is cheaper to simply pay a subsistence wage than to try and force them to do (substandard) work, particularly given any net trying to catch them will inevitably catch and punish many innocent people. Welfare is also a benefit to the economy because a) it keeps temporary unemployment from destroying the economic position of people and b) poor people generally spend all their money, leading to direct recirculation of funds with the economy.
5) It's evil.
6) It would not actually help Brazil to do this in any way, because Brazil's problems do not include overpopulation. Brazil is, as I am sure you are aware, incredibly huge and having 2/3 the population of the United States is an asset, not a liability. Shrinking populations are actually disastrous to countries, which is why countries with naturally shrinking populations make up the difference with immigration.
7) It's effing evil this is the twenty-first century forced sterilisation is actual Nazi shit what the actual hell please stop sounding like a comic book villain.
1 - Why? And why is more evil than leting people starve to death and risking transforming an continental country into an big favela? Favelas din't existed in my city and now, there are a couple of then which will expand and take the entire city. Criminality, diseases, graffiti, this things are becoming more and more common.
2 - Wrong. In fact, welfare was used to "legally buy votes". The states which received most welfare got most of the votes for PT(workers), Bahia for eg, got over 80% of votes for Haddad(PT).
4 - Still not forced. Offer money to a unemployed necessitated woman in exchange of sex is not rape. Even the countries which punished buying sex consider it as a far less serious offense than rape.
7 - Again, still not forced. You can say that is immoral, but is entire voluntary.
1) Forced sterilisation is recognised as a crime against humanity by the ICC. It is also widely condemned by basically everyone else whereever evidence of it comes to life. Note that your plan for Brazil to implement it on a grand scale should take into account the economic effect of the massive sanctions that would be levelled on Brazil by, oh, say, most of Europe (for starters).
Forced sterilization is considered genocide when it's targeted at a population based on an ethnic/religious/national/cultural characteristic. If your proposed policy becomes genocide when you substitute "Jews" for "Poor" - that should be an indicator of the moral standing of your argument.
1 - Why? And why is more evil than leting people starve to death and risking transforming an continental country into an big favela? Favelas din't existed in my city and now, there are a couple of then which will expand and take the entire city. Criminality, diseases, graffiti, this things are becoming more and more common.
2 - Wrong. In fact, welfare was used to "legally buy votes". The states which received most welfare got most of the votes for PT(workers), Bahia for eg, got over 80% of votes for Haddad(PT).
4 - Still not forced. Offer money to a unemployed necessitated woman in exchange of sex is not rape. Even the countries which punished buying sex consider it as a far less serious offense than rape.
7 - Again, still not forced. You can say that is immoral, but is entire voluntary.
1) Forced sterilisation is recognised as a crime against humanity by the ICC. It is also widely condemned by basically everyone else whereever evidence of it comes to life. Note that your plan for Brazil to implement it on a grand scale should take into account the economic effect of the massive sanctions that would be levelled on Brazil by, oh, say, most of Europe (for starters).
As for favelas, they constitute 6% of the Brazilian population, which is hardly a dire threat to "transform the country". They are caused by urban poor who cannot afford urban housing. If you feel their existence is strongly negative, the correct response is "more affordable housing", because urban poor will not vanish even if you carry out your literally evil plan to sterilise the poor. They are an inevitable consequence of the capitalist system you prize.
The biggest disease problem Brazil has right now is due to the unscientific and unethical actions by the leadership of the country.
2) Corruption of the welfare system, which can certainly happen, does not change that the ultimate effect of welfare economically is a positive one, which is why every industrialised nation has instituted a welfare system (that, and it's obviously the right thing to do). You are also ignoring that economically depressed areas (by definition areas with lots of welfare) might vote for reasons beyond "legally buying votes", such as a perception that maybe PT cares more about their plight.
4) Threatening to take away the money people need to live unless they agress to sterilisation is coercion, and most courts in most countries would have absolutely no problems seeing that is not "voluntary" in the slightest.
7) If I say "I'll shoot you if you don't give me your wallet", your giving me your wallet is not voluntary. Yes, you DO have a choice not to, but the choice is correctly recognised as a coerced one. Similarly, "we will take away the money you/your family needs to live if you don't get sterilised" is not a voluntary choice.
1 - Again. What part of VOLUNTARY you din't understood? Someone paying someone to have a child is not forced pregnancy. Paying for sex is not rape and paying for someoen to not having child is not forced either.
2 - PT only cares about equality dogma. They wanna everyone equally miserable like any socialist. The draconian anti gun laws which makes owning a unregistered 9mm a more serious crime than permanently blinding someone, the affirmative action programs which lead to literally racial tribunals where someone can be considered black in a state and white in other due the different ethnic makeup in different states and crippled universities, the biggest corruption scandal in the country history, is all due that party.
4 - By your logic, prostituition is coercion, hell ANY work is coercion.
And anyone here believes that Stalin was better than Romanov family?
Better in what way? Stalin was a lot better at a) not losing wars, and b) not getting overthrown and murdered, as it turns out.
Like, Nicholas II (and for that matter, Kaiser Wilhelm II) is a really weird hill to die on for the greatness of monarchs, seeing as how they led their countries into disastrous, avoidable wars and ended up removed from power. That's hardly the only foolish/self-destructive things either of them did, either. They were really bad rulers. Saying Stalin was also a bad ruler (he was, and one big reason he was was his own autocraticness!) does not somehow make Willy and Nicky any better.
Neither Germany nor Russia want their monarchs back, through good times and bad. And there have been good times and bad for both. Doesn't that suggest to you that maybe the presence or absence of a monarch is not the determining factor for a country's fortunes?
After a lot but compare Weimar republic and soviet union with the respective monarchies...
You know, this is reminding me of something. The left will often get smeared with supporting eugenics for being in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. But the whole "choice" thing seems to get left out of the equation. Somewhere along the line, being "pro-choice" became "pro-abortion". That's a bunch of nonsense. I fully support a woman's right to have ten kids (even though I wouldn't recommend it) as much as I support her right to have none.
But what is being talked about here is different. If you are providing a monetary benefit to sterilizing a woman, then the government who is offering that money is, by default, ENCOURAGING sterilization. So you can say all you want it's a choice but 1.) it's not much a choice at all if you have no money otherwise and 2.) it's only a matter of time before ENCOURGED sterilization become MADATORY sterilization. I see no way it wouldn't. And it only gets more horrific from there.
You know, this is reminding me of something. The left will often get smeared with supporting eugenics for being in favor of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. But the whole "choice" thing seems to get left out of the equation. Somewhere along the line, being "pro-choice" became "pro-abortion". That's a bunch of nonsense. I fully support a woman's right to have ten kids (even though I wouldn't recommend it) as much as I support her right to have none.
But what is being talked about here is different. If you are providing a monetary benefit to sterilizing a woman, then the government who is offering that money is, by default, ENCOURAGING sterilization. So you can say all you want it's a choice but 1.) it's not much a choice at all if you have no money otherwise and 2.) it's only a matter of time before ENCOURGED sterilization become MADATORY sterilization. I see no way it wouldn't. And it only gets more horrific from there.
Thanks. Finally a good argument which is not a strawman(ie - strawmaning encouraging with forcing), however Abortion received the same criticism and din't become mandatory in any western country which legalized it. No one wanna be in trials for crimes against humanity..
And only because I agree with most right wing polices, doesn't means that I agree with everything that the "right" advocate for. One aspect that I strongly disagree with republicans is the endless wars on the other side of the world.
However, I strongly believe that the "my body my choice" should't restrict to abortion. Feminists in my country wanna legalize abortion but make voluntary with no encouragement sterilization easy, they are against it cuz "what if the person regret" (we can be against any medical procedure with that weak argument, even tattoos)
And again, using the argument that "is not choice if she is in need" can be said to consider any job slavery.
Now one thing that is hypocrisy. If the woman doesn't wanna the child, she can abort or put to adoption. However, if the father doesn't wanna, he is forced to pay alimony. And the unique case of prison by debt left on most countries is by not paying child support. Is this fair?
Well, for one thing, most dead-beat dads do NOT, in fact, end up going to prison for it. They probably should, but what usually happens is they get their wages levied from their paycheck by the state. But those who are particularly keen on not ever supporting their children get around that by simply working for cash and never actually holding a job in which their income is reported. My aunt, even now in her 50s, STILL sometimes sees a check because the father of her first child owes her ten of thousands of dollars that will never be paid, but it never lasts because he doesn't stay at those jobs.
As for why the father doesn't get as much say, it's really fairly the simple. The woman is the one who has the carry the damn baby inside her body for 9 months, and in the OVERWHELMING amount of cases, if one parent bails on the child, it's going to be the father, and the mother is the one who is forced to raise a child by herself for 18 years. It's not really a complicated question. Does it go the other way sometimes?? Sure. But not very often. There is a reason "welfare mother" is a pejorative and "welfare father" isn't, just as there is a reason "dead-beat dad" is one and "dead-beat mom" isn't.
I have zero interest in relitigating 2016. Suffice to say the election results in 2016 seemed fishier than 2020 and actual collusion happen with Russian operatives and a few people got in trouble though the highest value targets evaded justice. There was a whole thing by Republicans, the Mueller investigation. There was literally something there and razor thin margins. This election is not particularly close and there's zero evidence of the types of things that happened in 2016.
Call it what you want, and fine, election denial or contested election would fit better. Trump is denying he lost. He is threatening to have the highest court court with people he appointed invalidate the will of the people. He has fired top people in the military and replaced them with loyalists possibly setting the state for a military coup. He has elected officials, and states colluding together and disputing the Biden victory. He has an army of propagandists claiming he actually won the election.
To me, sure technically you are correct, which is the best kind of correct, but you are also splitting hairs. There is a slow motion attempt to overturn the election that could turn at any moment into a coup. Or if you'll indulge me in a little language - there's a "cold coup" in progress that could turn into a "hot coup" at any minute.
I have zero interest in relitigating 2016. Suffice to say the election results in 2016 seemed fishier than 2020 and actual collusion happen with Russian operatives and a few people got in trouble though the highest value targets evaded justice. There was a whole thing by Republicans, the Mueller investigation. There was literally something there and razor thin margins. This election is not particularly close and there's zero evidence of the types of things that happened in 2016.
Call it what you want, and fine, election denial or contested election would fit better. Trump is denying he lost. He is threatening to have the highest court court with people he appointed invalidate the will of the people. He has fired top people in the military and replaced them with loyalists possibly setting the state for a military coup. He has elected officials, and states colluding together and disputing the Biden victory. He has an army of propagandists claiming he actually won the election.
To me, sure technically you are correct, which is the best kind of correct, but you are also splitting hairs. There is a slow motion attempt to overturn the election that could turn at any moment into a coup. Or if you'll indulge me in a little language - there's a "cold coup" in progress that could turn into a "hot coup" at any minute.
I agree, let’s not start reacting once/if he manages to overturn the outcome of free and fair elections
I have zero interest in relitigating 2016. Suffice to say the election results in 2016 seemed fishier than 2020 and actual collusion happen with Russian operatives and a few people got in trouble though the highest value targets evaded justice. There was a whole thing by Republicans, the Mueller investigation. There was literally something there and razor thin margins. This election is not particularly close and there's zero evidence of the types of things that happened in 2016.
Call it what you want, and fine, election denial or contested election would fit better. Trump is denying he lost. He is threatening to have the highest court court with people he appointed invalidate the will of the people. He has fired top people in the military and replaced them with loyalists possibly setting the state for a military coup. He has elected officials, and states colluding together and disputing the Biden victory. He has an army of propagandists claiming he actually won the election.
To me, sure technically you are correct, which is the best kind of correct, but you are also splitting hairs. There is a slow motion attempt to overturn the election that could turn at any moment into a coup. Or if you'll indulge me in a little language - there's a "cold coup" in progress that could turn into a "hot coup" at any minute.
The hysteria on both sides every four years for the last 20 year's is just aggravating to me. What in the fuck are we supposed to do about this 'coup' even if you're right? If the military gets involved I'll eat my hat. If the Supreme Court touches this with a 10' pole, I'll eat my hat. If I'm wrong there isn't one Goddamned thing I can do about it anyway so I'm just not going to stress myself out and take years off my life worrying about something that very likely is NOT going to happen...
There's also a big difference between the 2016 and 2020 situations in relation to who's disputing the election. In 2016 there were a few liberal pundits and random social media posters disputing the result of the election. I don't remember any legal actions relating to that and none of the important players disputed it at all - Clinton conceded soon after the networks called the election for Trump, Obama gritted his teeth and invited Trump into the White House and the General Services Administration signed off on the transition process the day after the election, so that by this time in 2016 that was already well under way.
My memory is admittedly poor and this isn't a subject I think worth researching, but I doubt that any members of the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration went on record in the days following the election to cast doubt on its outcome.
Contrast that to 2020 where no members of the Trump campaign or administration have supported the outcome of the election. While the most common theme heard is that we just need to be patient and follow the process of legal challenges, that is implicitly casting doubt - and there's of course been no shortage of comments doing that extremely explicitly.
The political line being taken by the GSA is particularly nasty and I suspect is aimed at making the early days of the Biden administration as difficult as possible - another example of the regrettable tendency of Trump's administration to regard those Americans that don't support him as enemies and seek ways to punish them (and if his own supporters also get caught in the crossfire, well you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs ...).
I do not think there is an immediate need to do something since the Republicans in contested states (including the states that now flipped blue) do not seem to go along with the fraud allegations. It is mostly the Republicans in deep red states that parrot the accusations from Trump.
Long term you should be worried that so many Republicans seem like they would be perfectly happy to go along with a coup, even if it won't happen now. And that should not be forgotten in any future elections.
I have zero interest in relitigating 2016. Suffice to say the election results in 2016 seemed fishier than 2020 and actual collusion happen with Russian operatives and a few people got in trouble though the highest value targets evaded justice. There was a whole thing by Republicans, the Mueller investigation. There was literally something there and razor thin margins. This election is not particularly close and there's zero evidence of the types of things that happened in 2016.
There was never any evidence for election fraud back then either, but I too have zero interest in relitigating it. We argued it for years.
Many seem to want to blame outside malfeasance for their losses, rather than looking inward to see what that candidate did wrong. I only need to look at 2016 debates vs 2020 debates Trump to understand why he lost, or to listen to how Clinton talked about half the country.
Not related, but Russia has become a full-on boogeymen to the liberal intelligentsia. Twice now they've used the specter of "Russian influence" to attack Bernie Sanders as well. I fully believe that they would have Russiagated Bernie had he been the primary winner just as they did Trump. Bernie was always a threat to the military/corporate interest/democratic party alliance.
What I worry about is how they are going to behave now that they hold power. After half a decade of accusing Russia of manipulating democracy from behind the scenes, of being one of our greatest enemies, etc. etc. Democrats were calling for sanctions against them.
Hostility against Russia will play out across a number of proxy battles around the world, most notably in the Middle East.
How many people are going to die to legitimize the Russian boogeyman as our New Greatest Threat? At least some, the way things are looking now.
My memory is admittedly poor and this isn't a subject I think worth researching, but I doubt that any members of the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration went on record in the days following the election to cast doubt on its outcome.
I mean even as early as last year it's not hard to find statements by Clinton saying the election was stolen from her, along with how many other Democratic Party figures, but she also conceded the next day, so I guess it's how you interpret it. She bowed out without challenging the results but continued to cast doubt on the outcome. I suppose you could call it a middle road.
But as I've said before I'm okay with a full audit + recount. Hell, it should be standard procedure. More transparency is a good thing given how many people mistrust the process when it comes right down to it.
Why don't we compare modern Germany with Kaiser Wilhelm's Reich? One wonders why a short-lived, unstable republic imposed by the victors of a war and crippled by reparations is what you pick as an example, rather than the much more obvious and long-lasting modern republic.
If you look to the ranking of the most heritage foundation, the unique socialist things on Finland is the government spending and relative lack of labor freedom ( https://www.heritage.org/index/country/finland )
And the second reich was just an example. You can see ANY country who was a monarchy and now is a democracy. Napoleon was far more tyrannical than any French king.
Meanwhile, the countries with the highest happiness and highest quality of life index are pretty much invariably mixed socialist/capitalist economies, like Finland and Denmark.
They are rich despite the socialism, not cuz the socialism.
Making an analogy, the impact of wasting half of everything that you make on Casinos when you are a millionaire is different than the impact of wasting half of your money if you are a minimum wage worker. And if you are extremely rich and has a small culturally homogeneous population, you have much more money to waste.
But they adopted welfare state AFTER becoming incredible rich, not before. They would be even richer is they had maintained the capitalism.
Comments
This is nothing, it's a walk in the park. You should see some of the really nasty discussions. On second though, no, you're good, you don't need to see them.
Yes, but they're quite different from the secular right from the United States.
You gotta keep in mind that in countries like Brazil and Argentina, most people are Catholic. Not only that, but Catholicism is the state religion. In Argentina, you can't be president unless you're catholic. It's in the Constitution. In fact, there was a president back in the 90's who was Muslim, and he had to convert to Catholicism in order to take office.
Evangelism is very popular in these regions as well. Bolsonaro had the Evangelist vote, for example.
Welfare mothers are a problem in countries with US$ 60.000,00 GDP per capita. Now imagine it in countries with US$ 14.000,00 GDP per capita + aging population + a extreme corrupt government. The problem is like 10x bigger.
Like what?
The most bizarre thing that I ever saw is a guy with Polish surname advocating for "nazism"
And when I mean nazism, is not the definition "everything more right wing than a social democrat" that many people use, I mean literally nazism.
Nah, that's quite mainstream, I (unfortunately) debated a lot of people like that. Eventually I lost interest, they always say the same things over and over again, and there's nothing you can say that will change their mind in any way.
The nastiest political discussion among Latin Americans are soccer discussions. Seriously, not even joking.
Some things are extremely bizarre. Argentina has the largest Jewish population on Latin America and the largest population of war criminals fleeing WW2 Germany after the defeat of the 3rd reich. Adolf Eichmann was captured by Mossad due it. The complete history is off topic and here > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann#Capture
But Soccer fanaticism is a thing which I always hated. Some friends of mine, ended a Childhood friendship due soccer. A guy literally lost his hand due a accident with fireworks and when was at the hospital, was more concerned about the game than with his hand. The 7x1 from Germany did a good thing. Made people appreciate more other games. Now finally, people talk about UFC and other sports. Not only soccer.
And the government invests huge amounts of money with all policing during matches. It and carnival are just waste of public money. The government suspended lessons but din't touched in the carnival due the pandemic.
On UK i have heard that soccer is also taken extremely seriously.
1 - Why? And why is more evil than leting people starve to death and risking transforming an continental country into an big favela? Favelas din't existed in my city and now, there are a couple of then which will expand and take the entire city. Criminality, diseases, graffiti, this things are becoming more and more common.
2 - Wrong. In fact, welfare was used to "legally buy votes". The states which received most welfare got most of the votes for PT(workers), Bahia for eg, got over 80% of votes for Haddad(PT).
4 - Still not forced. Offer money to a unemployed necessitated woman in exchange of sex is not rape. Even the countries which punished buying sex consider it as a far less serious offense than rape.
7 - Again, still not forced. You can say that is immoral, but is entire voluntary.
Forced sterilization is considered genocide when it's targeted at a population based on an ethnic/religious/national/cultural characteristic. If your proposed policy becomes genocide when you substitute "Jews" for "Poor" - that should be an indicator of the moral standing of your argument.
1 - Again. What part of VOLUNTARY you din't understood? Someone paying someone to have a child is not forced pregnancy. Paying for sex is not rape and paying for someoen to not having child is not forced either.
2 - PT only cares about equality dogma. They wanna everyone equally miserable like any socialist. The draconian anti gun laws which makes owning a unregistered 9mm a more serious crime than permanently blinding someone, the affirmative action programs which lead to literally racial tribunals where someone can be considered black in a state and white in other due the different ethnic makeup in different states and crippled universities, the biggest corruption scandal in the country history, is all due that party.
4 - By your logic, prostituition is coercion, hell ANY work is coercion.
7 - Same as 4.
After a lot but compare Weimar republic and soviet union with the respective monarchies...
But what is being talked about here is different. If you are providing a monetary benefit to sterilizing a woman, then the government who is offering that money is, by default, ENCOURAGING sterilization. So you can say all you want it's a choice but 1.) it's not much a choice at all if you have no money otherwise and 2.) it's only a matter of time before ENCOURGED sterilization become MADATORY sterilization. I see no way it wouldn't. And it only gets more horrific from there.
Thanks. Finally a good argument which is not a strawman(ie - strawmaning encouraging with forcing), however Abortion received the same criticism and din't become mandatory in any western country which legalized it. No one wanna be in trials for crimes against humanity..
And only because I agree with most right wing polices, doesn't means that I agree with everything that the "right" advocate for. One aspect that I strongly disagree with republicans is the endless wars on the other side of the world.
However, I strongly believe that the "my body my choice" should't restrict to abortion. Feminists in my country wanna legalize abortion but make voluntary with no encouragement sterilization easy, they are against it cuz "what if the person regret" (we can be against any medical procedure with that weak argument, even tattoos)
And again, using the argument that "is not choice if she is in need" can be said to consider any job slavery.
Now one thing that is hypocrisy. If the woman doesn't wanna the child, she can abort or put to adoption. However, if the father doesn't wanna, he is forced to pay alimony. And the unique case of prison by debt left on most countries is by not paying child support. Is this fair?
As for why the father doesn't get as much say, it's really fairly the simple. The woman is the one who has the carry the damn baby inside her body for 9 months, and in the OVERWHELMING amount of cases, if one parent bails on the child, it's going to be the father, and the mother is the one who is forced to raise a child by herself for 18 years. It's not really a complicated question. Does it go the other way sometimes?? Sure. But not very often. There is a reason "welfare mother" is a pejorative and "welfare father" isn't, just as there is a reason "dead-beat dad" is one and "dead-beat mom" isn't.
Also it's a grift. Part coup, part grift.
Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC
https://ca.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-fundraising-insigh-idCAKBN27R309
It's a coup when the guy loses the election then tries to remain in power anyway right? A coup?
Call it what you want, and fine, election denial or contested election would fit better. Trump is denying he lost. He is threatening to have the highest court court with people he appointed invalidate the will of the people. He has fired top people in the military and replaced them with loyalists possibly setting the state for a military coup. He has elected officials, and states colluding together and disputing the Biden victory. He has an army of propagandists claiming he actually won the election.
To me, sure technically you are correct, which is the best kind of correct, but you are also splitting hairs. There is a slow motion attempt to overturn the election that could turn at any moment into a coup. Or if you'll indulge me in a little language - there's a "cold coup" in progress that could turn into a "hot coup" at any minute.
I agree, let’s not start reacting once/if he manages to overturn the outcome of free and fair elections
The hysteria on both sides every four years for the last 20 year's is just aggravating to me. What in the fuck are we supposed to do about this 'coup' even if you're right? If the military gets involved I'll eat my hat. If the Supreme Court touches this with a 10' pole, I'll eat my hat. If I'm wrong there isn't one Goddamned thing I can do about it anyway so I'm just not going to stress myself out and take years off my life worrying about something that very likely is NOT going to happen...
My memory is admittedly poor and this isn't a subject I think worth researching, but I doubt that any members of the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration went on record in the days following the election to cast doubt on its outcome.
Contrast that to 2020 where no members of the Trump campaign or administration have supported the outcome of the election. While the most common theme heard is that we just need to be patient and follow the process of legal challenges, that is implicitly casting doubt - and there's of course been no shortage of comments doing that extremely explicitly.
The political line being taken by the GSA is particularly nasty and I suspect is aimed at making the early days of the Biden administration as difficult as possible - another example of the regrettable tendency of Trump's administration to regard those Americans that don't support him as enemies and seek ways to punish them (and if his own supporters also get caught in the crossfire, well you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs ...).
Long term you should be worried that so many Republicans seem like they would be perfectly happy to go along with a coup, even if it won't happen now. And that should not be forgotten in any future elections.
There was never any evidence for election fraud back then either, but I too have zero interest in relitigating it. We argued it for years.
Many seem to want to blame outside malfeasance for their losses, rather than looking inward to see what that candidate did wrong. I only need to look at 2016 debates vs 2020 debates Trump to understand why he lost, or to listen to how Clinton talked about half the country.
Not related, but Russia has become a full-on boogeymen to the liberal intelligentsia. Twice now they've used the specter of "Russian influence" to attack Bernie Sanders as well. I fully believe that they would have Russiagated Bernie had he been the primary winner just as they did Trump. Bernie was always a threat to the military/corporate interest/democratic party alliance.
What I worry about is how they are going to behave now that they hold power. After half a decade of accusing Russia of manipulating democracy from behind the scenes, of being one of our greatest enemies, etc. etc. Democrats were calling for sanctions against them.
Hostility against Russia will play out across a number of proxy battles around the world, most notably in the Middle East.
How many people are going to die to legitimize the Russian boogeyman as our New Greatest Threat? At least some, the way things are looking now.
I mean even as early as last year it's not hard to find statements by Clinton saying the election was stolen from her, along with how many other Democratic Party figures, but she also conceded the next day, so I guess it's how you interpret it. She bowed out without challenging the results but continued to cast doubt on the outcome. I suppose you could call it a middle road.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-election-result-wont-be-overturned-11605134335?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/rj8eVp7CM8
But as I've said before I'm okay with a full audit + recount. Hell, it should be standard procedure. More transparency is a good thing given how many people mistrust the process when it comes right down to it.
If you look to the ranking of the most heritage foundation, the unique socialist things on Finland is the government spending and relative lack of labor freedom ( https://www.heritage.org/index/country/finland )
And the second reich was just an example. You can see ANY country who was a monarchy and now is a democracy. Napoleon was far more tyrannical than any French king.
They are rich despite the socialism, not cuz the socialism.
Making an analogy, the impact of wasting half of everything that you make on Casinos when you are a millionaire is different than the impact of wasting half of your money if you are a minimum wage worker. And if you are extremely rich and has a small culturally homogeneous population, you have much more money to waste.
But they adopted welfare state AFTER becoming incredible rich, not before. They would be even richer is they had maintained the capitalism.
https://mises.org/library/sweden-myth