Which Political Issues Are Most Important to You?

[Guest]

On 7/10/2017 at 3:56 PM, Patine said:

Still, you're using a specific instance to try to prove a broad, general, across-the-board point. I admit, it's a common tactic in debate nowadays - even high-level politicians use it - but it doesn't, in truth, prove the bigger, wider points outright.

Under people who weren't tough on crime here(close to ~35 - 40% of the population lived in the city for reference and it's fair to say most crimes were commited here as the crime rate massively decreased once Giuliani started broken-windows policing,these are in state-rankings BTW) NY was at the top in terms of violent crime,in the 10's for murder(under the Dinkins years at the top) and property crimes,was in the 20's and 30's for rape,was number 1 in robbery from 1967 - 1994,was within the top 15 in terms of assault,for Burgulary ranged from #2 in 1965 to #26 in 1993,For Larceny was generally in the 20's and for vehicle crimes were almost always within the top 5.When Broken-windows policing began being applied crime rates dropped dramatically.(source:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)

[Patine 469]

1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

Under people who weren't tough on crime here(close to ~35 - 40% of the population lived in the city for reference and it's fair to say most crimes were commited here as the crime rate massively decreased one Giuliani started broken-windows policing,these are in state-rankings BTW) NY was at the top in terms of violent crime,in the 10's for murder(under the Dinkins years at the top) and property crimes,was in the 20's and 30's for rape,was number 1 in robbery from 1967 - 1994,was within the top 15 in terms of assault,for Burgulary ranged from #2 in 1965 to #26 in 1993,For Larceny was generally in the 20's and for vehicle crimes were almost always within the top 5.When Broken-windows policing began being applied crime rates dropped dramatically.(source:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm)

Have you considered the statistics your quoting (let's say, the top murder capitals, as an example) have not changed SOLELY because the policies of NYC. In the '70's and '80's, NYC was the murder capital of the world - that much is undeniable. However, today, the top 10 (I dare say top 40) murder capitals in the world are ALL in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and the Caribbean. These same cities, with just a few exceptions, were not even perceptible on those lists in the '70's and '80's. Do you believe the change in the state of affairs in those cities (mostly related to drugs) have not had a significant impact on who has the title of murder capital of the world, or even in the top 10 or top 50, or that the change in NYC's status is SOLIDLY Guiliani and his "broken windows" and other law-and-order policies, and other cities ratcheting up on that list rapidly has had no impact on that statistic?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Have you considered the statistics your quoting (let's say, the top murder capitals, as an example) have not changed SOLELY because the policies of NYC. In the '70's and '80's, NYC was the murder capital of the world - that much is undeniable. However, today, the top 10 (I dare say top 40) murder capitals in the world are ALL in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and the Caribbean. These same cities, with just a few exceptions, were not even perceptible on those lists in the '70's and '80's. Do you believe the change in the state of affairs in those cities (mostly related to drugs) have not had a significant impact on who has the title of murder capital of the world, or even in the top 10 or top 50, or that the change in NYC's status is SOLIDLY Guiliani and his "broken windows" and other law-and-order policies, and other cities ratcheting up on that list rapidly has had no impact on that statistic?

I'm saying that adoption of broken-windows in NYC was a massive cause given that a significant amount(I dare say even a majoirty) of crimes happened in the city and not in wyoming county.

[jvikings1 40]

I wouldn't say Republicans need to adopt most of the Libertarian platform.  But, they do need to move in that direction on many social issues.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I wouldn't say Republicans need to adopt most of the Libertarian platform.  But, they do need to move in that direction on many social issues.

so you support having all kinds of abortion legal?

[jvikings1 40]

5 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

so you support having all kinds of abortion legal?

Nope.  That is one of the reasons why I don't want most of the Libertarian platform adopted and is one of the social issues that shouldn't be moved in that direction.

[vcczar 1,224]

24 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I wouldn't say Republicans need to adopt most of the Libertarian platform.  But, they do need to move in that direction on many social issues.

Definitely on most social issues. 

[vcczar 1,224]

@jvikings1 and @NYrepublican

I see you both don't want abortion legal. Are there any cases in which you think it aught to be legal, or not punished? Secondly, why should abortion be illegal? If the reason is because you think it is murder, then what is your definition of murder? If it is the "unlawful killing of a human being," then what is your definition of a human being? At this point I'd argue that a collection of top, and active scientists determine what a human being is, and whether existing life (they'd have to define life) is a prerequisite for being human, or if a mass of cells that can't feel pain is enough. Just for the religious vote, we can require that a certain portion of the scientists be active Church goers (I'd even accept all of them), but it must also be required that all the scientists be active, publishing scientists in creditable journals and working for creditable universities. I think that's a fair balance. Once life has been described, and confirmed as a law, we then have to determine at what point abortion is legal as a method of self-defense (mother's life is in danger), and then we can set when abortion is legal and when it is not. I would also like to know what your stance is for abortion involving women that had been raped. 

I remember my dad, a religious conservative (not unlike @Reagan04) by the time he died, was asked if he favored abortion, but then asked what he would probably do if he was told that his child would be seriously mentally and physically handicapped, then he admitted that he would, "abort it and send it straight to Heaven." 

[vcczar 1,224]

48 minutes ago, Patine said:

Have you considered the statistics your quoting (let's say, the top murder capitals, as an example) have not changed SOLELY because the policies of NYC. In the '70's and '80's, NYC was the murder capital of the world - that much is undeniable. However, today, the top 10 (I dare say top 40) murder capitals in the world are ALL in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Colombia, and the Caribbean. These same cities, with just a few exceptions, were not even perceptible on those lists in the '70's and '80's. Do you believe the change in the state of affairs in those cities (mostly related to drugs) have not had a significant impact on who has the title of murder capital of the world, or even in the top 10 or top 50, or that the change in NYC's status is SOLIDLY Guiliani and his "broken windows" and other law-and-order policies, and other cities ratcheting up on that list rapidly has had no impact on that statistic?

I have to admit that Guiliani, despite all his faults, did help make NYC a much safer place. The NYC of 1970s and 1980s was very unsafe. He Disneyfied the place in the 1990s and now it's extremely safe. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@jvikings1 and @NYrepublican

I see you both don't want abortion legal. Are there any cases in which you think it aught to be legal, or not punished? Secondly, why should abortion be illegal? If the reason is because you think it is murder, then what is your definition of murder? If it is the "unlawful killing of a human being," then what is your definition of a human being? At this point I'd argue that a collection of top, and active scientists determine what a human being is, and whether existing life (they'd have to define life) is a prerequisite for being human, or if a mass of cells that can't feel pain is enough. Just for the religious vote, we can require that a certain portion of the scientists be active Church goers (I'd even accept all of them), but it must also be required that all the scientists be active, publishing scientists in creditable journals and working for creditable universities. I think that's a fair balance. Once life has been described, and confirmed as a law, we then have to determine at what point abortion is legal as a method of self-defense (mother's life is in danger), and then we can set when abortion is legal and when it is not. I would also like to know what your stance is for abortion involving women that had been raped. 

I remember my dad, a religious conservative (not unlike @Reagan04) by the time he died, was asked if he favored abortion, but then asked what he would probably do if he was told that his child would be seriously mentally and physically handicapped, then he admitted that he would, "abort it and send it straight to Heaven." 

I'd probably agree with your dad.In cases of rape,or the endangerment of the mother abortion should be legal.

Abortion should be illegal as it's the unlawful or at least immoral taking  of another human life.

I'd say probably week 11 once the child is a Fetus.

[vcczar 1,224]

7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd probably agree with your dad.In cases of rape,or the endangerment of the mother abortion should be legal.

Abortion should be illegal as it's the unlawful or at least immoral taking  of another human life.

I'd say probably week 11 once the child is a Fetus.

I often think Conservatives think Liberals abort as a means of regular birth control. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I often think Conservatives think Liberals abort as a means of regular birth control. 

Margaret Sanger was a firm proponent of eugenics and it's possible that Planned parenthood was founded for this reason.she even said "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Even nowadays according to a 2011 CDC report "Among the 27 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2011 (Table 12), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.2% and 36.2%, respectively), and Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other race category accounted for smaller percentages (19.7% and 7.0%, respectively)." (see:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm#Tab12)

@Reagan04 @vcczar

@jvikings1

[vcczar 1,224]

17 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Margaret Sanger was a firm proponent of eugenics and it's possible that Planned parenthood was founded for this reason.she even said "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Even nowadays according to a 2011 CDC report "Among the 27 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2011 (Table 12), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.2% and 36.2%, respectively), and Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other race category accounted for smaller percentages (19.7% and 7.0%, respectively)." (see:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm#Tab12)

@Reagan04 @vcczar

@jvikings1

I don't think the demographics are as important as 1) the income-level of the people 2) the reasons for doing it 3) education level. 

[Guest]

Just now, vcczar said:

I don't think the demographics are as important as 1) the income-level of the people 2) the reasons for doing it 3) education level. 

Here's your answers

"While the discourse around abortion still focuses on scared white teenagers, the reality is that the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of color." - prospect.org

"Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged." - same source as above

 

[Patine 469]

40 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Margaret Sanger was a firm proponent of eugenics and it's possible that Planned parenthood was founded for this reason.she even said "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Even nowadays according to a 2011 CDC report "Among the 27 areas that reported cross-classified race/ethnicity data for 2011 (Table 12), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.2% and 36.2%, respectively), and Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other race category accounted for smaller percentages (19.7% and 7.0%, respectively)." (see:https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6311a1.htm#Tab12)

@Reagan04 @vcczar

@jvikings1

I don't think a founding or other former member of one of many groups working to support a given policy having a very questionable motive throws the whole issue entirely to the other side of the debate in a moral sense. That logic can compromise pretty much every activist movement for or against any controversial policy out there, if you dig around enough.

[vcczar 1,224]

3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Here's your answers

"While the discourse around abortion still focuses on scared white teenagers, the reality is that the typical abortion patient these days is a twenty-something single mother of color." - prospect.org

"Today, a full 42 percent of women having abortions live under the poverty line, and another 27 percent have incomes within 200 percent of the poverty line. Taken together, 69 percent of women who have abortions are economically disadvantaged." - same source as above

 

To me it sounds like Republicans or other anti-abortion politicians should focus on income-gap inequality, educational opportunities, well-paying employment, job training programs, among women and minorities. Even if abortion is made illegal, if someone can't afford a baby, they will find a way for an abortion, either going to another state, another country, or do it covertly through a black market abortion service or something. 

[Guest]

Just now, vcczar said:

To me it sounds like Republicans or other anti-abortion politicians should focus on income-gap inequality, educational opportunities, well-paying employment, job training programs, among women and minorities. Even if abortion is made illegal, if someone can't afford a baby, they will find a way for an abortion, either going to another state, another country, or do it covertly through a black market abortion service or something. 

there's child tax credits and similar things for a reason.Just throwing that out there.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

To me it sounds like Republicans or other anti-abortion politicians should focus on income-gap inequality, educational opportunities, well-paying employment, job training programs, among women and minorities. Even if abortion is made illegal, if someone can't afford a baby, they will find a way for an abortion, either going to another state, another country, or do it covertly through a black market abortion service or something. 

if there's an abortion black market it will be a boom to the economy as much as many people won't like it(including me) as prohibition was in the 20's

[avatarmushi 6]

In my mind the Dems need to be more constantly liberal on Healthcare, social and economic issues, while staying or at least promoting more centralist stances on Foreign policy and immigration

 

The Republicans need to distance themselves from Trump at least somewhat right now and move more centralist on Social issues and promote renewable energy and face global warming

[vcczar 1,224]

10 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

there's child tax credits and similar things for a reason.Just throwing that out there.

I don't think that's enough. We have to determine the specific reasons why abortion occurs among the demographics you mention. If the reason is financial, we have to go further and determine what the financial hindrances are. Is it a low paying job because of a lack of education or job training? Is it a lack of employment because of a bad job market or because the prospective mother has too little experience? Is it because she can't work because she's taking care of elderly or disabled relatives, or because she already has children that she is struggling to clothe, feed, keep healthy? Is she an addict? Is she a single mother? Is she mentally or physically handicapped and cannot work? Is she 14 years old? Is the child endangering the mother? Was she a rape victim? The list goes on and on. 

Child tax credits helps, but in some cases, it isn't enough. 

Republicans and Democrats could consider the following:

If the problem is...

• Low paying jobs or lack of employment, why not advocate a higher minimum wage, benefits to businesses that hire young mothers from low-income neighborhoods, accessible and engaging job programs and work-finding organizations, free weekend classes at Community Colleges, and grants to colleges and universities for young mothers that make great grades at the community college. 
• That she's taking care of elderly or disabled relatives, why not advocate federally-funded at-home jobs, probably via a computer. A private organization, local, state or federal government could provide a work-only computer, computer training, and a cell phone (if they don't have their own CPU and phone), and have them work at home in some helpful capacity for businesses or the government. This allows them to take care of the relative and work, and hopefully raise a child.
• If she already has children she's struggling to clothe, feed, or keep healthy, any of the two above suggestions might work here as well. 
• If she's an addict, I'm wondering if you really want the mother bringing a child into the world. Have you seen the videos of babies born addicted to crack? Nevertheless, accessible rehab centers that aren't degrading, and also help the recoverer build skills and confidence for the workplace would be desirable. 
• If she's a single mother, then one of the top two bullet points might work here as well.
• If she's mentally or physically handicapped and cannot work (possibly with an elderly guardian that might not last long), then there must be some system that allows the child to survive, and more than JUST survive. This assumes abortion is off the table here as an option. 
• If she's 14, she can't really work. She may not even live at home, if she ran away from home. She may live in an abusive household. She may be a student and can't both work and go to school, if she can work at all. Child tax credits might not be enough. 
• If the childbirth would endanger the mother, then you have to save the mother. 
• If the the woman was a rape victim, then the potential child was forced upon her via a serious crime. 
• And much more. 

I see Democrats advocating some of these, which I think would greatly reduce abortions among the demographics you mentions. Many Republicans advocate nothing or the defunding of the little we have that do some semblance of these; thus, making abortion MUCH more likely, while advocating the banning of abortion. There's something perverse in that philosophy. I'm okay with politicians and people opposing abortion (to a point, obviously), but you have to have a constructive solution that reduces abortion, even if you want abortion banned. Banning will not get rid of it, and possibly won't really reduce it; it will black market it. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

• Low paying jobs or lack of employment, why not advocate a higher minimum wage, benefits to businesses that hire young mothers from low-income neighborhoods, accessible and engaging job programs and work-finding organizations, free weekend classes at Community Colleges, and grants to colleges and universities for young mothers that make great grades at the community college. 

The buying power of the minimum wage has actually decreased over time from when it was $1.00 in 1960 we could index that wage to inflation which would be $8.35 and have it automatically indexed in the future. Further minimum wage increases may harm job growth: "Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested."(http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/)

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

 

• That she's taking care of elderly or disabled relatives, why not advocate federally-funded at-home jobs, probably via a computer. A private organization, local, state or federal government could provide a work-only computer, computer training, and a cell phone (if they don't have their own CPU and phone), and have them work at home in some helpful capacity for businesses or the government. This allows them to take care of the relative and work, and hopefully raise a child.
• If she already has children she's struggling to clothe, feed, or keep healthy, any of the two above suggestions might work here as well. 
• If she's a single mother, then one of the top two bullet points might work here as well.

These are nice suggestions and could potentially help. I would establish a committee to see how this would work and what its effects would be.

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

• If she's an addict, I'm wondering if you really want the mother bringing a child into the world. Have you seen the videos of babies born addicted to crack? Nevertheless, accessible rehab centers that aren't degrading, and also help the recoverer build skills and confidence for the workplace would be desirable. 

By that logic why do we let pregnant women smoke? Considering that the effects may be wworse than those addicted to drugs:"A new study suggests that even casual smoking during pregnancy harms a fetus, producing behavioral changes similar to those in babies born to mothers who use illegal drugs.Women who smoke just 6 to 7 cigarettes per day give birth to babies who are more jittery, more excitable, stiffer and more difficult to console than newborns of nonsmokers, report Brown Medical School researchers in the June issue of the journal Pediatrics. The higher the dose of nicotine measured in a mother, the greater the signs of stress in her new baby."(http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2002-03/02-143.html)

I personally support rehabilitation as opposed to imprisonment for low-level drug offences and more easily accessible rehab centers would be nice. (You could probably raise some money for it by a GoFundMe)

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

• If she's mentally or physically handicapped and cannot work (possibly with an elderly guardian that might not last long), then there must be some system that allows the child to survive, and more than JUST survive. This assumes abortion is off the table here as an option. 

That's why instead of giving agencies much more money than they need and giving them opportunities to waste it (this was the first example I found:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pentagon-hides-study-showed-125b-wasteful-spending-article-1.2900291) we should give it to things that need it like a system for this.

 

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

• If the childbirth would endanger the mother, then you have to save the mother. 
• If the the woman was a rape victim, then the potential child was forced upon her via a serious crime. 

I never disputed those two points that abortion should be legal in those cases I said "In cases of rape,or the endangerment of the mother, abortion should be legal."

[vcczar 1,224]

3 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

The buying power of the minimum wage has actually decreased over time from when it was $1.00 in 1960 we could index that wage to inflation which would be $8.35 and have it automatically indexed in the future. Further minimum wage increases may harm job growth: "Many studies over the years find that higher minimum wages reduce employment of teens and low-skilled workers more generally. Recent exceptions that find no employment effects typically use a particular version of estimation methods with close geographic controls that may obscure job losses. Recent research using a wider variety of methods to address the problem of comparison states tends to confirm earlier findings of job loss. Coupled with critiques of the methods that generate little evidence of job loss, the overall body of recent evidence suggests that the most credible conclusion is a higher minimum wage results in some job loss for the least-skilled workers—with possibly larger adverse effects than earlier research suggested."(http://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2015/december/effects-of-minimum-wage-on-employment/)

These are nice suggestions and could potentially help. I would establish a committee to see how this would work and what its effects would be.

By that logic why do we let pregnant women smoke? Considering that the effects may be wworse than those addicted to drugs:"A new study suggests that even casual smoking during pregnancy harms a fetus, producing behavioral changes similar to those in babies born to mothers who use illegal drugs.Women who smoke just 6 to 7 cigarettes per day give birth to babies who are more jittery, more excitable, stiffer and more difficult to console than newborns of nonsmokers, report Brown Medical School researchers in the June issue of the journal Pediatrics. The higher the dose of nicotine measured in a mother, the greater the signs of stress in her new baby."(http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/2002-03/02-143.html)

I personally support rehabilitation as opposed to imprisonment for low-level drug offences and more easily accessible rehab centers would be nice. (You could probably raise some money for it by a GoFundMe)

That's why instead of giving agencies much more money than they need and giving them opportunities to waste it (this was the first example I found:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pentagon-hides-study-showed-125b-wasteful-spending-article-1.2900291) we should give it to things that need it like a system for this.

 

I never disputed those two points that abortion should be legal in those cases I said "In cases of rape,or the endangerment of the mother, abortion should be legal."

In the latter part, I'm not saying you disputed that. I saw your previous comment. I'm talking about anti-abortion Republicans in general. It wasn't targeted at you.