Utopia Talk / Politics / Trump state visit sweepstakes

Seb Member	Sat Jun 01 04:31:31 Ok, so, what's he going to say to pend everyone? I've got off to a late start so he's already backed Boris Johnson and called a member of the royal family "nasty", so those are off the table. I'm guessing he's going to say something like "I prefer prime ministers who aren't losers, you should have sued them" on a podium next to Theresa May. Any takers?
Seb Member	Sat Jun 01 04:31:48 to offend
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 01 04:59:57 He has no filter at all and shows some of the traits of early dementia so who knows. Not like 42% of our country cares that they're watching the slow brain-death of an ingrate. As long as taxes are low or the government is telling women what to do with their bodies, they are happy.
Paramount Member	Sat Jun 01 06:08:45 Depends if he is having a bad hair day or not but I think he’s going to compliment the royal family. Tell them that they are good people, and so on. He might remind them how he saved Britain during the WW2, and that he will be there for Britain again if they need a good deal after brexit. On his way home, on Air Force One, he will probably tweet that Kate Middleton looks almost as good as his daughter does.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 01 07:27:45 "or the government is telling women what to do with their bodies," Pretty sure no government in the country is telling women not to have sex.
patom Member	Sat Jun 01 08:11:22 Rugian, no they are telling women that if they have sex and get pregnant it is on them to raise the child. It is all their fault because they were born the wrong sex.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 01 08:15:52 Pretty sure also that no state is banning abortion outright (to say nothing about birth control). But it's also the height of delusion to argue that abortion is about controlling women's bodies. It shows that you've completely abandoned any effort whatsoever to understand the other side of the argument. Yeah, when pro-life people sat down one day and decided they didnt like abortion, it wasn't out of concern for the lives of the unborn children invovled; no, it's because evil white men want to control womens' bodies! Patriarchy! Delusional.
Pillz Member	Sat Jun 01 08:15:54 Patoms the only one showing early signs of Dementia.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 01 08:18:38 Anyway, we should take this to another thread if we want to continue.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sat Jun 01 11:23:28 Trump shaking the Queen's hand should offend every loyal Britain as for words, speaking like a mentally ill moron child is difficult, so i'll just say he'll imply he could've handled Brexit better
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 01 13:06:35 "He called a member of the royal family nasty " He called a divorced mulatto who is clearly going to be a pain in the ass for the royal family, "nasty"
Forwyn Member	Sat Jun 01 14:08:43 This after Markle called him misogynistic and his politics divisive, and promised to move to Canada if he won. But Seb gonna Seb
kargen Member	Sat Jun 01 15:04:29 "Rugian, no they are telling women that if they have sex and get pregnant it is on them to raise the child." Adoption is still an option.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 01 15:35:14 Rugian: " But it's also the height of delusion to argue that abortion is about controlling women's bodies. " If it's about principle of life, why is it explicitly legal in the Alabama law to terminate a fertilizer embryo in a lab setting? Hi Many Catholic countries that take this life at conception thing to extend it to ban in vitro fertilization for this very reason.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 01 15:37:46 Forwyn: On a state visit you'd ignore that as in the past. She's a member of the royal family now and he is here officially as their guests.
Seb Member	Sat Jun 01 15:38:40 Obaminated: The Queen appears quite taken by her. Her son of course is famously divorced.
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 01 16:36:46 http://www...kle-stern-queen-elizabeth-eggs Yeah, seems like she is a real peach and the queen adores her. Rofl. Oh seb. When will you ever be right?
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 01 16:40:09 I genuinely hope that harry has been cucked by some random celebrity and mehgan gives birth to some african looking baby. Jesus the memes that will flood the internet.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 01 19:35:29 Seb "If it's about principle of life, why is it explicitly legal in the Alabama law to terminate a fertilizer embryo in a lab setting?" Have you tried to find out, or do you feel you are content with the answer "to control women's bodies"?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jun 01 19:37:14 Anyway the answer is, otherwise they couldn't pass the law as evident by failure in other states.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sat Jun 01 19:46:25 "Yeah, seems like she is a real peach and the queen adores her." Your own link goes on to say pretty much just that. Oops.
obaminated Member	Sun Jun 02 02:26:35 my link says she freaked out over eggs and the queen had to tell her to cut that shit off. the link goes on to say the queen was freaked out over how Harry felt he didn't have a place. sorta makes sense that they are doing their best to make him and his bitch feel like they belong, despite them being ostracized by everyone as time goes on.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 04:14:47 Nimatzo: I'm sure they have lots of logically inconsistent rationales. But it boils down to believing they should regulate womens bodies.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 04:16:44 Why wouldn't they be able to pass the law?
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 04:22:13 See when you say "couldn't pass", what you mean is "would ammount to banning IVF which would be very unpopular, so they feel compelled to allow something they claim to consider murder because the political unpopularity of treating *that* as murder trumps the important principle of not taking a life". So it does rather look, doesn't it, that really this is about controlling women more than the sanctity of life. Because if you really, really believed terminating an embryo was murder, you absolutely wouldn't make this exemption.
EuropeanPussy Member	Sun Jun 02 05:12:58 Sky News teaser http://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1134776605191081986
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 02 08:38:05 Seb, Or, here's a thought. Maybe pro-life advocates are more capable of coming up with more nuanced definitions of "life" than you're giving them credit for. But you're probably right. When the old white Male politicians in flyover country are trying to pass pro-life legislation, their thought process is totally "yeah, this is how we're going to subjugate women and keep them as second-class citizens in our patriarchal society! Manaical laugh we're so evil and misogynistic, maniacal laugh!"
chuck Member	Sun Jun 02 08:55:12 Holy hell, obaminated has his issues on full display here.
patom Member	Sun Jun 02 10:03:59 Rugian, it isn't that they are maniacally scheming to keep women down. It was how they were raised and virtually every religion in the world is structured on male domination. They raise their daughters with the expectation that they will bring more children into this world. These are their core beliefs.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 02 10:36:08 >>I'm sure they have lots of logically inconsistent rationales.<< You have your principles and then you have a democratic process to pass legislation. Since we do not live in a dictatorship, that means compromising on your principles to get something good enough.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 02 10:39:34 Seb Since you didn't save all the 60 million refugees, then I guess this was all about supplying cheap labor for your big business cronies and drive up crime stats to keep the sheep in check, right? I don't care about the logically inconsistent reason you have for not saving all the refugees.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jun 02 10:44:57 And since this whole "control women body" isn't going to die any time soon, I'm gonna say it. We should climit and control all bodies so that no body tries to harm or kill another body, anything else would be insane. This argument was always a bad one buttered by people who don't want to understand what the other side is saying.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 11:19:06 Rugian: The sad thing is when people say they "want to control women's body", they don't even mean it in the way you suggest as an overtly deliberately pointless malicious act. But the fact you can't imagine any other meaning is why there is a culture war in the first place. Nim: So like I said, not a very strong principle if you will cave so easily to "infertile people will be upset and not vote for me". It ammounts to A woman's right to regulate her own body being less important than some other peoples concerns regarding a ball of cells, being less important still on those persons concerns about their job. To put it another way, if you are going to insist on deeply prejudicing a woman's right to regulate her own body to the degree a full abortion ban does, but are not prepared to put your own job on the line by applying the same principle to IVF and take the flack for that; you really aren't acting on any other principle. You are just weighting womens rights at near zero.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 11:23:17 "I don't care about the logically inconsistent reason you have for not saving all the refugees." It's entirely possible for the world to deal with all refugees. The UK alone, of course, cannot physically do so. This is rather different from arguing that "I'll legislate against women terminating an embryo because it carries no repurcussions politically and justify it as on the basis of the absolute sanctity of life, but then immediately turn around and allow an explicit provision for the absolute sanctity of life be violated at a much larger scale in the same circumstances because I'll lose my job of I try to ban that." I'm honestly surprised you are trying such a ludicrous line of argument.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 02 12:30:38 "would ammount to banning IVF which would be very unpopular, so they feel compelled to allow something they claim to consider murder because the political unpopularity of treating *that* as murder trumps the important principle of not taking a life". Or they did that science thing people are always making a fuss about. When IVF is used many eggs are fertilized because the fail rate is still really high. When one finally takes the rest are no longer needed. At that point they can be frozen or disposed of. The third option would be to do nothing until they are no longer viable which really is the same as disposing of but looking at it from one perspective the fertilized egg in a womb left alone has a good chance of being a new life. A fertilized egg in a petri dish left alone has zero chance of developing farther. That it ever became an issue shows how stupid people on the extreme of both sides have been acting.
Wrath of Orion Member	Sun Jun 02 12:37:25 From your own fucking link, which you obviously didn't read... '"Nicholl previously told Fox News that Markle has since developed a close bond with the queen since becoming a member of the British royal family. “I’ve been quite impressed by how much responsibility the queen has given Meghan,” Nicholl explained. “The queen likes Meghan. She recognizes how happy Meghan makes Harry, but she also sees how capable Meghan is as a royal. She showed them how much she thought of Meghan in the early days before they were actually married when she invited Meghan to be a part of the Commonwealth Day service. Quite an important event in the royal calendar. And there was Meghan before she was actually married into the royal family.” Nicholl claimed Elizabeth is so fond of Markle she did more than invite her to personal, intimate family gatherings leading up to the marriage — she put her to work as a future duchess.' The mother coming and telling whoever this is to not behave in her house that way doesn't negate all of that. As usual, you are cherry picking to spin the narrative to suit your own agenda. Now, if you have something that actually supports your narrative, please post it. Note that I won't actually read it this time, because it's the English royals, and really, who gives a fuck besides you (apparently) and Seb?
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Jun 02 12:44:37 just cover for the day when Markle is found w/ her heart ripped out & the Queen looking particularly youthful
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 02 13:20:52 Seb, So what exactly are you saying, that ANY regulation of abortion that recognizes a cutoff point where the rights to life for the fetus overtake the rights of choice for the mother automatically constitutes prima facie control of what women can do with their bodies, regardless of what the actual intent behind the regulation was? If so, I can only assume you're one of those feminists who think that restrictions on abortion at ANY point during pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to "my body, my choice." And unless you're willing to disavow the idea that a woman should have a legal right to kill a 39.5 week old fetus because she feels like it, I consider you to be not only wrong, but disgusting on a fundamental moral level.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 02 13:27:31 Feel free to prove me wrong though. Feel free to state that you do in fact recognize an arbitrary cutoff point where unrestricted abortion should not be acceptable, whether it be viability outside the womb, capacity to feel point, or evidence of a heartbeat. But if you do, please tell me how that doesn't also make you a white male shitlord who wants to control womens' bodies.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 02 13:27:44 *feel pain
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 15:28:56 Kargen: Exactly my point. Which part of your post do you think I'm not aware of. If you actually truly believe that life begins at conception and an embryo should have full legal personhood, IVF is an abomination involving mass murder. It needs to be made illegal. If on the other hand, the practicalities of IVF requiring mass termination of fertilised eggs can be permitted, it makes it very very clear that abortion laws are really about what priority legislators give to womens autonomy; not some inviolable principle.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 15:29:48 WoO: Only care from the perspective of Trump sweepstakes.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 02 15:35:22 Seb, naturally, will ignore the shortcomings of his own moment, that pushed for viability for decades and now ignores that in favor of mUh aUtOnOmY because viability doesn't go far enough for them.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 15:55:23 Forwyn: Sorry, you've lost me completely. The point about viability is that it is the earliest point at which you can say the fetus trumps the autonomy of the woman. I love you are so locked into a dichotomous view of this you think there are simply two movements.
Rugian Member	Sun Jun 02 15:56:01 Yeah, Seb's an extremist moron. Enough said.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 16:01:47 Rugian: No. We are talking about a law that says conception. So I struggle to see how you arrive at that conclusion. I think the beginning of the third trimester/end of the second is perfectly fine. Arbitrary as it may be (why not a month earlier, why not a month later etc.) But many things are. Why allow the vote at 18 not 17 or 19?
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 16:06:48 The point about viability is that you can at least definitely say it would be wrong to terminate the pregnancy as opposed to induced birth or cesarean. "Heartbeat", as already covered in the last thread on this, starts at four weeks before the brain has formed and spine closed. And we know it can't purely be about principle or IVF would be banned. It's about the *preference* of these legislators: IVF, fine. Women's right to choose, No.
Seb Member	Sun Jun 02 16:08:36 Rugian: Extremist? In line with most OECD countries actually, which limit abortion somewhere in the second trimester or beginning of the third.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 02 19:54:51 "If you actually truly believe that life begins at conception and an embryo should have full legal personhood, IVF is an abomination involving mass murder. It needs to be made illegal." There are some that still believe that. I was taking the line one step farther. Since they think the procedure is an abomination what happens to the embryos before or after isn't an issue linked to abortion of a naturally conceived fetus. Has nothing to do with the woman's body and trying to control it. For most it probably comes down to once inserted in the womb development begins and that particular egg then is protected (or not) according to state abortion laws. The fertilized eggs not used will not left to their own accord have any chance of developing so laws would not apply. Most on both sides of the issue are comfortable with this compromise. The fringes are of course all or nothing types though so you can never know what will set them off. Does bring up an interesting question though. How would they feel if a mother changed her mind say four months into the pregnancy after having IVF done. Either way it isn't about controlling womens' bodies. It is about when the fetus is considered a viable living thing.
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 03 04:08:55 So far Trump has called a member of the British Royal Family "nasty" and said that the Mayor of London is "a loser".
Paramount Member	Mon Jun 03 05:21:55 Why don’t he just declare war already? If he defeats the royal family he could put Farage in charge of Britain.
Seb Member	Mon Jun 03 07:06:31 Kargen: No, clearly it's not about when the fetus is considered living, because if in principle a living thing, you would not permit a fertilised egg to be murdered, as they see it. Eggs fertilizer outside the body might not be viable without a woman, but it would still be intrinsically wrong to terminate them. Indeed, it would be wrong to create them in the first place. You could slow the whole process down, creating a single fertilised embryo at a time (with a much lower success rate and higher cost), removing the need to create blood sacrifice babies (as we should call them). But the fact remains that killing fertilised embryos in IVF simply isn't an issue at all politically. In no way are they considered a legal person, or equivalent to a life. If there were, there would be widespread moral revulsion about the practice as there would be about, say, creating a clone for body parts. What this reveals is that this isn't really about the fetus, it's about the act of abortion in itself. It's fine to kill a fertilised embryo, but not if it's in a womb. For these heartbeat and conception laws, it shows that actually this is about societies view around women's autonomy. It's fine to regulate womens body to prevent them from doing something some people don't like to an embryo; but are perfectly content with in outher circumstances. They may say it's about the rights and ethics of the embryo, but that's clearly not true; or they'd have to object to IVF. The arguments about relative rights of mother and fetus can certainly apply at later stages, but not from conception if to allow IVF. Paramount: I totally should have made this bingo.
patom Member	Mon Jun 03 08:23:31 We are talking about poor low class women here. Not the wealthy and well connected who never have unwanted pregnancies. They may develop 'Female Problems' that can be taken care of with a D&C in a nice sterile location to fix the 'Female Problem'.
kargen Member	Mon Jun 03 20:16:53 "No, clearly it's not about when the fetus is considered living, because if in principle a living thing, you would not permit a fertilised egg to be murdered, as they see it." You are trying to play both sides of the issue here. Do they think it is an abomination or is it a living human deserving rights? Can't be both as you are suggesting.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 04 02:04:20 Kargen: I don't understand your kind of argument. What are the two sides I'm playing? I'm saying that no, a fetus a few weeks old is not a living human being, and that despite their claims to think so; three proponents do not in fact behave as such. If they did feel a fertilised embryo a few weeks old was a living human being in its own right then regardless of context they would find IVF as practiced and it's requirements for the creation and discarding of "loving human beings" morally objectionable. What this shows is actually the object not to the termination of a "living human being", they object to the act of abortion. They don't like the pregnancy being terminated, rather than the embryo being destroyed. How is this playing both sides?
Seb Member	Tue Jun 04 02:04:52 Sorry for typos, very cramped train.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 04 03:55:37 Lol. TM gave trump a framed copy of the first draft of the UN charter. Wonder what she meant by that?
jergul large member	Tue Jun 04 04:38:44 She did not mean anything Trump will understand.
Seb Member	Tue Jun 04 06:58:06 Queen wore Burmese Ruby Tiara, a "gift" from Burma that was designed around rubies and Burmese traditional belief in warding off the effect of evil powers. She also gave him a book. About US isolationism, failure to engage internationally after ww1, and the rise of Naziism. Some top level trolling here by the British establishment.
patom Member	Tue Jun 04 08:52:25 Only problem is the buffoon won't understand any of it. He'll either take it as high praise or just ignore it.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Tue Jun 04 15:30:54 Trump claims protesters are fake news, that there aren't very many and the ones that exist were put there for political reasons R's should be jumping at the chance to impeach this pathological liar, extreme narcissist, mentally ill moron
Seb Member	Tue Jun 04 15:47:02 It's true, there aren't very many. But there's absolutely nobody else as far as I can see.
Pillz Member	Tue Jun 04 18:36:16 Seb says the UK isn't relevant enough to be independent, and I think his last several posts demonstrate why he might be right and why that is. Britain is run by cowards who would rather give books to an illiterate than tackle real issues.
Seb Member	Wed Jun 05 04:56:08 Pillz: The fact we have to be nice to trump is a direct consequence of brexit and exemplifies why brexit makes us irrelevant. I'm not entirely sure what you expect the Queen to do tackle "real issues".
tumbleweed the wanderer	Wed Jun 05 18:13:26 there was a story today about how Trump lied that Princess Diana & Prince Charles were buying apartments in Trump Tower when it first opened & were joining Mar-a-lago basically a comical level of fraud salesman
obaminated Member	Wed Jun 05 20:34:00 the queen also said she enjoyed her stay with trump and hopes he cums again soon. savage GEOTUS.
EuropeanPussy Member	Wed Jun 05 23:12:57 ROTUS http://www...rives-leo-varadkar-discussions "Trump likens Irish border to wall between US and Mexico"
Seb Member	Thu Jun 06 03:35:20 Obaminated: Is that a Freudian slip? In any case she said "I hope you can come to this country again". A subtle but important qualifier.
EuropeanPussy Member	Thu Jun 06 10:07:28 Trump saves the European economy! http://www...-trump-for-1m?CMP=share_btn_tw Irish funeral firm rents out four limousines to Trump for $1m The presidential entourage’s hotel bills have also drawn scrutiny. State department documents show US taxpayers have spent $1,223,230 on VIP accommodation at the InterContinental hotel on Park Lane in Mayfair, London.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jun 06 11:26:07 Trump only went to Ireland to promote his golf course... was nice of the PM to decline going to the course to meet Trump, but i'm sure he still raked in some money off all the people who have to stay w/ him
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: