Utopia Talk / Politics / can we have a sane party?

Sam Adams Member	Sat Jun 25 09:45:33 That does sane logical shit? Reps have gone full retard religious fundamentalist style, while dems go full retard woke-socialist style. This is bad.
murder Member	Sat Jun 25 10:02:06 Don't worry, it will all be over soon.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 10:06:23 Where's the woke-socialism? If only that were true. At least I'd have better healthcare. All the far-left has done since Biden became president is whine that their freebies haven't come yet. Pretty clear that the GOP is a fundamentalist religous meme party. The worst I have to worry about with Dems is having to register for a gun-safety class or some annoying-ass transgender berating me for using the wrong pronoun. They're not going to strip me of basic human rights or completely ignore science like Republicans will.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 10:06:38 I did call this with Republicans getting too much power and acting goofy. Are best hope is a government at odds with itself.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 10:07:59 "If only that were true. At least I'd have better healthcare." False. With your money, you have better HC than most any socialist state.
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 10:13:04 If I wanted the very best treatment, I could still pay for that on top of socialist healthcare. For everyday stuff, single-payer is better even when you are rich. One less thing to worry about. And I get utility from my friends and family having predictable and universal access to healthcare as well. I keep myself healthy. My greatest fear is something happening to someone I love and care about.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 10:18:29 "If I wanted the very best treatment, I could still pay for that on top of socialist healthcare." If your wealthy, the best HC is usually in the US. That said, I'm all for universal HC. Especially general care. Even Dental, its insane we cant even get dental and basic 4 visits a year covered nationwide.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 25 10:31:35 I take a big issue with the assertion that one has to be religious in order to think that unborn children should have legal protections. You don't need to believe in God for that. You just need to have seen an ultrasound.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jun 25 10:37:05 "I take a big *cocks..." Fixed.
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 25 10:38:31 Hello again my old friend.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jun 25 10:46:29 "that one has to be religious in order to think that unborn children should have legal protections." The agenda has been pushed by the religious zealots to justify. And you're also retarded to only believe its limited to 'muh unborn child', which are many more factors as to why a woman will choose to have an abortion. You keep harping on the notion that it is only limited to that narrow scope. And you are unbelievably retarded to think this will not affect those who take a pill, birth control, and other items that affects a pregnancy. Or how this dangerously opens up more legal liability to those who have a miscarriage. But hey, keep sucking on that huge extreme conservative cock thinking you have the "moral high ground" to "preserve life", because we all know that is bullshit.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 10:59:18 Sane party platform 1. We will prioritize to make gas less than 2.50/Gallon. 2. Universal general HC.Most contraception always free or super cheap. 3. Abortions until 15 weeks. 4. Most everyone should be able to have guns, crazies and violent criminals must prove they are cured/trustworthy. One bar fight 10 years ago isnt cause for removal of this right. 5. All coal plants will be phased out into Nuclear power. We will work with coal workers to get them new jobs hopefully in Nuclear.Hydro too. 6.You can go to your doctor and get legal narcotics. You will pay for these, they will not be covered by UHC. Said doctors can help you mitigate damage. 7.No more overseas wars unless we have a congressional vote and a treaty. Taiwan will be protected. 8. Ethanol in gas will be banned. 9. Food subsidies will be overhauled to give preferential treatment to healthier foods. 10. Complete overhaul of the US grid. 11. FEMA will prioritize prevention over pay outs afterwards. 12. Lower pollen levels. 13. Kill the Pythons stemming from Florida. Total annihilation. That's good enough for now.
murder Member	Sat Jun 25 12:39:14 Senator John Cornyn @JohnCornyn Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education. http://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1540689961040482306
obaminated Member	Sat Jun 25 13:09:26 1 the gop hasn't gone religious insane. Sam you just don't understand why abortion is morally evil. 2 dukhat admitted he needs socialized medicine for better Healthcare.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jun 25 13:24:22 "1 the gop hasn't gone religious insane. Sam you just don't understand why abortion is morally evil." "abortion is morally evil" This is a black and white issue you fucking dumbass.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sat Jun 25 13:24:34 isn't*
Sam Adams Member	Sat Jun 25 13:25:05 "Sam you just don't understand why abortion is morally evil." Abortion is clearly good and proper
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 13:27:08 Sam is the opinion of the founders of planned Parenthood. :)
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 13:31:09 99% of Conservative positions are hating on people they feel are inferior and stupid. Now you want to take away the ability of those people to have abortions. DaFuck.
Forwyn Member	Sat Jun 25 13:43:02 Luckily, the kinds of folks who would murder their own kids live in states that will continue to allow them to kill their own kids. Sanger would be proud.
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Jun 25 13:43:27 Repub version of Jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ2L-R8NgrA
OsamaIsDaWorstPresid Member	Sat Jun 25 13:45:17 if jezus wuz alife 2day he wuldnt suport comuniesm
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 14:10:18 Forwyn reveals more and more along that his libertarianism was virtue-signalling and that he's jsut a typical slack-jawed Republican.
williamthebastard Member	Sat Jun 25 15:05:53 99% of libertarians are guys who voted for Bush or Trump or Nixon et al and when it all comes crashing down like sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground, they go, Who me? Not my fault, I'm a libertarian
kargen Member	Sat Jun 25 15:10:18 Why the ethanol ban?
McKobb Member	Sat Jun 25 15:17:08 nice song
earthpig GTFO HOer	Sat Jun 25 15:41:37 I'd vote for Habebe's platform. Less to nitpick and disagree with there than the current options. We're stuck with the 2 party system thanks to our electoral system. Duverger's Law. Which two parties we have are not locked in, however. My fantasy remains Libertarians supplanting the GOP. We'd have plenty of shit left to fight over, but a lot of the social stuff, we'd be done fighting. The gay marriage debate would be "sure everyone can marry who gives a fuck" v "should marriage even be a *legal* framework at all?" On "day 0" of that shift, all the folks on the wrong side of history on abortion, etc, would latch on. So it would take a generation or so to brainwash them. Which would happen, no differently than folks currently vote republican thinking it's the party of reduced gov't spending in spite of all facts to the contrary.
murder Member	Sat Jun 25 16:19:04 "1 the gop hasn't gone religious insane. Sam you just don't understand why abortion is morally evil." obaminated is going to adopt all those unwanted babies. ;o)
Rugian Member	Sat Jun 25 17:16:42 "On "day 0" of that shift, all the folks on the wrong side of history on abortion, etc, would latch on. So it would take a generation or so to brainwash them. Which would happen, no differently than folks currently vote republican thinking it's the party of reduced gov't spending in spite of all facts to the contrary." This, as well as your post from yesterday, reveal the workings of a delusional mind. Expand your horizons beyond California bro. The rest of the country isn't like you faggots, no matter how much you and your fellow circlejerk of SoCal bankers might wish it to be otherwise.
murder Member	Sat Jun 25 17:21:44 ^ libertarian that supports slavery
Dukhat Member	Sat Jun 25 17:31:40 Gop has no ideology. It’s 3 pillars of absolutionists. One on taxes. One on guns. One on abortion.
murder Member	Sat Jun 25 17:37:32 "Gop has no ideology." The GOP wants to turn the calendar back to 1778.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 18:42:59 Kargen, Id rather pay farmers to just build redundancy into food production. Ethanol is a majornpet peeve of mine. 1. It destroys anything it touches in an engine, soecially rubber/plastics (seals). 2. It isn't good for the environment if you factor in the effort of creating the fuel. 3. Its innificient, 1 gallon of ethanol takes the energy to make of about 1.3 gallons of ethanol. 4. It gives about 1/3 less mileage. 5.even at 10% levels in gasoline it takes up 40% of our corn fields. Which we could use.to make food or atleast food for livestock. That's....thats about it.
kargen Member	Sat Jun 25 19:09:40 The corn used to make ethanol is still fed to livestock. In fact it is better for them after going through the process. There is also a byproduct molasses that can be fed to cattle that promotes weight gain. In the early 1980s I worked at a gasohol plant for about a year. They had a contract with a feedyard. Corn went directly from the plant to the mill to be mixed as feed. That said I think we need to start moving away from corn as a feed when/if we can because it really impacts ground water irrigating corn. We do have another source available to create ethanol. All kinds of garbage and waste can be converted to fuel. Your points about efficiency are valid but instead of abandoning the idea we should work towards making it better. I'm thinking not so much for consumer cars as eventually we are wanting to go electric there but maybe as a replacement for farm diesel and fuel for other heavy machinery where going electric is much farther down the line.
Habebe Member	Sat Jun 25 19:37:37 Anyone who regularly uses small engines (mowers and such) it destroys the fuel line, pump, carbs etc. The alcohol is just to drying on rubber, they turn brittle. This year especially it should be suspended. If the lady on the news was accurate, that 40% could have been used tonjust about offset the global grain shortage. Another issue is that our agri. Sector was made to dominate, and as such does a poor job at keeping us healthy.Which considering heart disease/diabetes are such a toll on our health needs to be addressed.
kargen Member	Sun Jun 26 01:40:24 the corn used for making ethanol is field corn and becomes feed for cattle. The corn people eat is sweet corn and is not used for making ethanol. Suspending ethanol production would not have done anything in the way of providing more grain as either feed for cattle or for human consumption. As I said above we do need to get away from corn. I mentioned it is water intensive but there are other issues as well one being it isn't very good for us.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 02:24:07 Perhaps she meant to use the land to grow other foods. Your definitely right that.The dried after grain gets mixed in with livestock feed.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 03:59:43 "Forwyn reveals more and more along that his libertarianism was virtue-signalling and that he's jsut a typical slack-jawed Republican." A) Abortion, like border protection, is a sticking point among Ls, being one of the most highly debated topics. B) I've never called for strong abortion restrictions. I believe a search on my comments of such would reflect the viability clause of Roe v. Wade, such that it is lower than it was when RvW was issued, and will continue to lower with advancement. That's about it. C) RvW continues to be poorly authored with no basis for federal intervention. I get that you and your ilk despise that each state has far more autonomy than you would like, and it's easier to get judges and Presidents to just circumvent the system than to Article V the changes you want.
patom Member	Sun Jun 26 05:42:19 If every time med had sex, they risked death, physical disability, social shunning, a life altering interruption of their career or education, and the life long responsibility for another human being. I think they would want a choice in the matter.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 05:45:48 Every time a man has sex he risks 18 years of indentured servitude with clear female bias in the courts.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 05:46:47 Considering how much more dangerous male jobs are, we're on the raw end of that deal.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 05:46:48 Considering how much more dangerous male jobs are, we're on the raw end of that deal.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jun 26 11:16:52 Half the states in the union want to ban abortion even in casesof rape and incest and want no input from the doctor at all … all based upon the religous narcissistic wishes of evangelical voters. And foreskin thinks there’s no proof that the federal government should intervene to protect the right. Just goes to show not only does he not have any black friends, he doesn’t have any non-idiot female friends either.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 11:26:35 ...because "it just makes sense", "look at these dumb states", and "listen to your female friends" are not constitutional clauses.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 11:29:23 Nor were prisoners rights, but 1983 action changed that. Next.
murder Member	Sun Jun 26 13:04:31 "...because "it just makes sense", "look at these dumb states", and "listen to your female friends" are not constitutional clauses." Neither is a nine member Court or a 435 member House ... or the filibuster.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 14:01:34 "Nor were prisoners rights, but 1983 action changed that." Merely a mechanism for seeking a redress for violation of rights, not just for prisoners, in a bill that itself that has had several sections struck down. States still wield a great deal of autonomy in their handling of prisoners. Next.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 14:17:16 "States still wield a great deal of autonomy in their handling of prisoners..."[..that do not violate their constitutional rights. Which were not orginally a constitutional clause.] Prisoners and all states keep their 14th amendment rights. Women with the recent ruling arguably do not. Next.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 15:26:56 Vague crying with no evidence. Even in redneck Arkansas, abortion laws target providers, not the women. And even if they are targeted, there's no indication that they would be inexplicably imprisoned and denied due process. Equal Protection is even less valid. Next.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 15:41:55 For real it will take months until wenhave a clear picture. I suspect several states with relativley strict rules will codify some exceptions if they are popular. Good chance we see some voter referendums on the details.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 15:44:48 Cock-bot, Are you also against red flag laws? Child support? And restraining orders? All are atleast as egregious towards the 14th. 2 of the 3 clearly violate it.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 17:09:58 "Vague crying with no evidence. Even in redneck Arkansas, abortion laws target providers, not the women." Kinda like how abortions being allowed that women just do it willy nilly with no regards to preserve life. I mean, this is your platform right? To preserve life, to protect the 'unborn innocents', yet disregard other variables that contribute to the decision-making as to why a woman may choose to have an abortion. I mean, your platform is treating this as a clearly black/white issue. Obviously it is not. "And even if they are targeted, there's no indication that they would be inexplicably imprisoned and denied due process. Equal Protection is even less valid." That is the point, it more probable than not may lead to that and open up ample of legal liability and ramifications on women. Your justification isn't enough. You have two main points. "muh state rights" which is a clearly a bullshit argument. and "preserve 'life'". Which is subjective anyways. Next.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Sun Jun 26 18:07:10 "Cock-bot, Are you also against red flag laws? Child support? And restraining orders? All are atleast as egregious towards the 14th. 2 of the 3 clearly violate it." Hardly egregious, since these are civil contempt matters.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Jun 26 22:11:46 In Utah we have an independent that the Dems dropped any competition for and threw their weight behind to attempt to get rid of one of our Trumpian senators (Mike Lee). Locally, it's an attempt at a "sane party" movement. There is a little hope - the guy ran independent in 2016 against Hillary and Trump and had more than 20% of the state vote totals. If all the Hillary voters plus independent voters vote for him, could be close.
Habebe Member	Sun Jun 26 22:15:32 Cockbot, They do not offer due process before they deprive liberty and property.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jun 26 23:01:56 "disregard other variables that contribute to the decision-making as to why a woman may choose to have an abortion." Abortion rates are highest in states that have had entrenched Democratic majorities for decades, giving them carte blanche to institute massive economic schemes for the women choosing abortion. Instead they make it easier to obtain - up to term in extreme states like NY - while the poor get poorer, and they say they're not pro-abortion. lol. "your platform is treating this as a clearly black/white issue." No. "it more probable than not may lead to that and open up ample of legal liability and ramifications on women." Maybe. That's not enough for a sweeping federal intervention. "muh state rights" You have it backwards. I focus on the federal government's lack of standing to intervene. The onus is on them to prove they have a) the constitutional authority, and b) a vested interest in intervening for the public good - which is subjective, as you say. "and "preserve 'life'" False. I am content to mock those who kill their children. I have never advocated one way or the other for abortion regulations. If pressed to choose a policy position on the "right to life", it would likely centralize on evictionism. "In Utah we have an independent" That CIA stooge McMullin? lol
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Mon Jun 27 06:58:50 "Abortion rates are highest in states that have had entrenched Democratic majorities for decades, giving them carte blanche to institute massive economic schemes for the women choosing abortion. Instead they make it easier to obtain - up to term in extreme states like NY - while the poor get poorer, and they say they're not pro-abortion. lol." If you think it is strictly an economic decision. You're misinformed. Along with the rest of the statement clearly infers it. ["your platform is treating this as a clearly black/white issue." "No."] I get it now. You think this is about you. Yes, the proponents regarding the recent ruling, the main justification for any of them, has been primarily about preservation of the unborn, regardless of other variables that exist in the equations. So, "Yes", black in white issue. Unless you are still going to pretend that there hasn't be any conservative politician recently that has touted this, or states considering adding laws to criminally prosecuting ones who would have gotten an abortion, regardless of the circumstances. I guess in your own world, those extremes do not exist. "Forwyn Member Sat Jun 25 13:43:02 Luckily, the kinds of folks who would murder their own kids live in states that will continue to allow them to kill their own kids." "Maybe. That's not enough for a sweeping federal intervention." Define "enough." "You have it backwards. I focus on the federal government's lack of standing to intervene. The onus is on them to prove they have a) the constitutional authority, and b) a vested interest in intervening for the public good - which is subjective, as you say." Its not about you there, snufflepuffs. "False. I am content to mock those who kill their children. I have never advocated one way or the other for abortion regulations. If pressed to choose a policy position on the "right to life", it would likely centralize on evictionism." Your contempt still counts as much. Otherwise, it wouldn't waste the energy to mock. Therefore, you have some sort of emotional response about the concept of the practice. Again, this isn't about you. This is, again, the general platform that is being used. Primarily, "think about the babies!!!"
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Mon Jun 27 07:09:48 "Cockbot, They do not offer due process before they deprive liberty and property." Perhaps, you need to go research various rulings by state supreme courts and their justifications as to while this does not fall under the violation of their civil rights. I will give you a hint; its primarily because of the individual's civil contempt. And if such individual would have abided or comply with the court's previous orders, they would not be in contempt of what the court had ordered. If the individual, or subject is sent jail, it would not be a permanent or unconditional loss of liberty. This isn't strictly a 14th amendment issue, this is a 6th amendment one as well. And has been widely used in many child support cases as an argument to state their civil rights have been violated to pay. Now, do I think there should be reform as it relates to what support should be provided and find other ways to hold individuals accountable. Yes.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jun 27 08:32:43 "You think this is about you." "this is your platform right?" "your platform is" "Your justification isn't enough." "You have two main points."
Habebe Member	Mon Jun 27 08:38:16 Cockbot, I know what They say, I very much so think they are wrong. Much like you think the USSC is wrong in Dobbs. They skirt around the law to make what they find is a more pragmatic approach. Putting someone in jail for CS is a debtors jail in the same way that SS is a tax. Technically they can call it something else, but it is what it is. Taking someone's rights and liberty away without due process/grand jury is a violation of our rights. We can agree to disagree, its not that deep for me.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Mon Jun 27 09:12:18 ""this is your platform right?" "your platform is" "Your justification isn't enough." "You have two main points."" Generalization; based upon proponents bank on. You are arguing basically the same points. Then in your attempt to separate "I'm not one of them", you then started to cite the particulars. My point stands. "Cockbot, I know what They say, I very much so think they are wrong. Much like you think the USSC is wrong in Dobbs." But do you though? "Technically they can call it something else, but it is what it is. Taking someone's rights and liberty away without due process/grand jury is a violation of our rights. We can agree to disagree, its not that deep for me." Me thinks you don't know how the process works.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jun 27 09:31:27 Lol. So you want to argue against a strawman (the GOP, that basically no poster here broadly supports), and be able to pick and choose which points to argue by saying, "it's not about you." You can have that argument by yourself in the shower.
RugianLovesTheCock Member	Mon Jun 27 09:34:08 Or you can remain on your island and stick with "the world according to forwyn" versus the reality as to why the proponents are celebrating it.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jun 27 09:37:54 I don't always support the GOP ... but I support all their talking points and all their policies. -Foreskin 2022
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: