Trump's Male Room

[Symmetry]

That is also incorrect- American organisations that provide aid in foreign countries are also targeted. Read the thread next time, Patches.

Why should American organizations performing abortions in foreign countries be entitled to taxpayer money to perform those abortions?

The argument can go either way, for or against, and both are valid. It's a valid argument that the US shouldn't be paying for abortions in foreign countries.
It's also a valid argument that the US should help other countries in medicine. There is no right or wrong answer here. It all comes down to personal belief.
The Republicans generally go for the former, the Democrats generally go for the latter.

You fail to see that this withholding of funding happens every single time administrations change in the US.

Again, <yawn>, you are trying to make an issue out of a non issue. Bush jr did the same thing. Obama undid it. Bush sr did the same thing, William "cigar" Clinton undid it. Reagan did the same thing. That's about as far back as I'm sure of, but that pretty much sets the stage, doesn't it?
The point is, which you fail to see, is that this is routine for the past 40 years you twit, but I guarantee you didn't know that because your knowledge of US politics is severely lacking.

The money goes to organisations that provide healthcare to women. I'm well aware of the tug-of-war between Dem and Repub presidency's over the issue.

What you may not realise is that research has been done on this, though I doubt you would have had the intellectual curiosity to actually base your ramblings on research.

So here's the thing:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

We have research on what this policy does- it increases rates of abortion, it increases infant mortality, it increases rates of deaths in childbirth.

Kid, do your research before you have your next rant,

[TA1LGUNN3R]

That is also incorrect- American organisations that provide aid in foreign countries are also targeted. Read the thread next time, Patches.

Why should American organizations performing abortions in foreign countries be entitled to taxpayer money to perform those abortions?

The argument can go either way, for or against, and both are valid. It's a valid argument that the US shouldn't be paying for abortions in foreign countries.
It's also a valid argument that the US should help other countries in medicine. There is no right or wrong answer here. It all comes down to personal belief.
The Republicans generally go for the former, the Democrats generally go for the latter.

You fail to see that this withholding of funding happens every single time administrations change in the US.

Again, <yawn>, you are trying to make an issue out of a non issue. Bush jr did the same thing. Obama undid it. Bush sr did the same thing, William "cigar" Clinton undid it. Reagan did the same thing. That's about as far back as I'm sure of, but that pretty much sets the stage, doesn't it?
The point is, which you fail to see, is that this is routine for the past 40 years you twit, but I guarantee you didn't know that because your knowledge of US politics is severely lacking.

The money goes to organisations that provide healthcare to women. I'm well aware of the tug-of-war between Dem and Repub presidency's over the issue.

What you may not realise is that research has been done on this, though I doubt you would have had the intellectual curiosity to actually base your ramblings on research.

So here's the thing:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

We have research on what this policy does- it increases rates of abortion, it increases infant mortality, it increases rates of deaths in childbirth.

Kid, do your research before you have your next rant,

And you're so fixated on shouting down the opposition, regardless of facts, you ignore what patches said and mischaracterize his position. He clearly said that an argument for the funding can be made, he simply said that's it's the prerogative of that nation. If the U.S. doesn't wish to provide ANY type of assistance funds to another nation, there is nothing right or wrong about it. It's our prerogative. They aren't entitled to those funds, we give them voluntarily.

Just like we shouldn't be the arbiter in world governance, neither should we be obligated to fix every person's ailments.

Your constant hysteria is growing old.

-TG

[Symmetry]

That is also incorrect- American organisations that provide aid in foreign countries are also targeted. Read the thread next time, Patches.

Why should American organizations performing abortions in foreign countries be entitled to taxpayer money to perform those abortions?

The argument can go either way, for or against, and both are valid. It's a valid argument that the US shouldn't be paying for abortions in foreign countries.
It's also a valid argument that the US should help other countries in medicine. There is no right or wrong answer here. It all comes down to personal belief.
The Republicans generally go for the former, the Democrats generally go for the latter.

You fail to see that this withholding of funding happens every single time administrations change in the US.

Again, <yawn>, you are trying to make an issue out of a non issue. Bush jr did the same thing. Obama undid it. Bush sr did the same thing, William "cigar" Clinton undid it. Reagan did the same thing. That's about as far back as I'm sure of, but that pretty much sets the stage, doesn't it?
The point is, which you fail to see, is that this is routine for the past 40 years you twit, but I guarantee you didn't know that because your knowledge of US politics is severely lacking.

The money goes to organisations that provide healthcare to women. I'm well aware of the tug-of-war between Dem and Repub presidency's over the issue.

What you may not realise is that research has been done on this, though I doubt you would have had the intellectual curiosity to actually base your ramblings on research.

So here's the thing:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/12/11-091660/en/

We have research on what this policy does- it increases rates of abortion, it increases infant mortality, it increases rates of deaths in childbirth.

Kid, do your research before you have your next rant,

And you're so fixated on shouting down the opposition, regardless of facts, you ignore what patches said and mischaracterize his position. He clearly said that an argument for the funding can be made, he simply said that's it's the prerogative of that nation. If the U.S. doesn't wish to provide ANY type of assistance funds to another nation, there is nothing right or wrong about it. It's our prerogative. They aren't entitled to those funds, we give them voluntarily.

Just like we shouldn't be the arbiter in world governance, neither should we be obligated to fix every person's ailments.

Your constant hysteria is growing old.

-TG

Hysteria? Meh, you guys have a womb fixation.

Let's be clear though- by making aid provisional on the political beliefs of anti-choice activists, American aid is made political.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

American aid is always political. We aren't giving money away because we actually believe the cause, we give it away because it increases our standing.

-TG

[Symmetry]

American aid is always political. We aren't giving money away because we actually believe the cause, we give it away because it increases our standing.

-TG

Soft power, sure. This EO seems to have been condemned worldwide though. How does that increase standing in your view?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

American aid is always political. We aren't giving money away because we actually believe the cause, we give it away because it increases our standing.

-TG

Soft power, sure. This EO seems to have been condemned worldwide though. How does that increase standing in your view?

Condemned by whom? The failing European nations? Lol.

Speaking only locally, it immediately appeals to the people who voted for him. He deftly made it seem like he condemns abortion without having to worry about overturning Roe v Wade.

-TG

[DirtyDishSoap]

Abortion is on my lowest priority of things that need to be resolved. Reasons being is that no one can come to an agreement on it. It's split down the middle, no matter the stance, you're going to offend a significant amount of people

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

So in 1975, 75% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).
In 2016, 79% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).

So not sure it's split down the middle.

Not sure why you would combine legal under some or all the time but if it was that simple, people wouldn't be throwning a stink everytime abortion comes up. I still find it unlikely its that black and white with just a poll.

[BoganGod]

American aid is always political. We aren't giving money away because we actually believe the cause, we give it away because it increases our standing.

-TG

All gifts have hooks. Some hooks have barbs. Gifts from nations come with obligations attached.

[mrswdk]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

So in 1975, 75% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).
In 2016, 79% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).

Someone who believes abortion should be legal 'under certain circumstances' also believes it should be illegal 'under certain circumstances'. I've rephrased those poll results a little to reflect this important distinction:

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

As we can now see, 69% of Americans currently believe abortion should be illegal. Just one of Barack Hussein 'Allahu Akhbar' Obama's legacies.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

So in 1975, 75% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).
In 2016, 79% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).

Someone who believes abortion should be legal 'under certain circumstances' also believes it should be illegal 'under certain circumstances'. I've rephrased those poll results a little to reflect this important distinction:

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

As we can now see, 69% of Americans currently believe abortion should be illegal. Just one of Barack Hussein 'Allahu Akhbar' Obama's legacies.

STOP COMING AT ME WITH YOUR ALTERNATIVE FACTS. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A (shit, what are they calling it... oh yeah) ALT-RIGHT NAZI! I WILL NOW SHOUT YOU DOWN WITH NO ACTUAL COUNTERARGUMENT SO THAT YOU FEEL BAD AND GO AWAY!

[mrswdk]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Legal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

So in 1975, 75% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).
In 2016, 79% of Americans believed abortion should be legal (in some or all circumstances).

Someone who believes abortion should be legal 'under certain circumstances' also believes it should be illegal 'under certain circumstances'. I've rephrased those poll results a little to reflect this important distinction:

May 2016
- Legal under any circumstances - 29%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 50%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 19%

April 1975
- Legal under any circumstances - 21%
- Illegal under certain circumstances - 54%
- Illegal in all circumstances - 22%

As we can now see, 69% of Americans currently believe abortion should be illegal. Just one of Barack Hussein 'Allahu Akhbar' Obama's legacies.

STOP COMING AT ME WITH YOUR ALTERNATIVE FACTS. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY A (shit, what are they calling it... oh yeah) ALT-RIGHT NAZI! I WILL NOW SHOUT YOU DOWN WITH NO ACTUAL COUNTERARGUMENT SO THAT YOU FEEL BAD AND GO AWAY!

Yeah but you're only saying that because you're a woman, so you hate men except Bernie Sanders who you probably love.

[Symmetry]

American aid is always political. We aren't giving money away because we actually believe the cause, we give it away because it increases our standing.

-TG

Soft power, sure. This EO seems to have been condemned worldwide though. How does that increase standing in your view?

Condemned by whom? The failing European nations? Lol.

Speaking only locally, it immediately appeals to the people who voted for him. He deftly made it seem like he condemns abortion without having to worry about overturning Roe v Wade.

-TG

The "Europe is Failing" thing has been a long running part of American discourse since the Revolution, Chicken Little.

He doesn't really have to appeal to his voters now anyway. He does need to appeal to the people he actually needs to get things done.

[mrswdk]

The "Europe is Failing" thing has been a long running part of American discourse

It's also a consistent theme of Eurostat.

[Symmetry]

The "Europe is Failing" thing has been a long running part of American discourse

It's also a consistent theme of Eurostat.

Seems like a mixed bag to me:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/news/news-releases

Hardly the "Europe is Failing" line.

No wonder you weren't willing to post the link yourself. You're not still upset about me embarrassing you over your misunderstanding of British politics are you?

[BoganGod]

The "Europe is Failing" thing has been a long running part of American discourse

It's also a consistent theme of Eurostat.

Tis also a fact. Europe is failing, and has been for a long time. Too many slack jawed inbreed yokels, and not enough new blood. Don't worry devoted readers, the influx of "syrian" economic migrants/refugees will have to marry out in the first generation. That should diversify the gene pool some what.

[Symmetry]

The "Europe is Failing" thing has been a long running part of American discourse

It's also a consistent theme of Eurostat.

Tis also a fact. Europe is failing, and has been for a long time.

Yup, ever since crappy predictions began.

[thegreekdog]

I wonder what would have happened at the end of World War Two if the United States did not get involved in Europe and then didn't sit on France. Probably we'd be talking about communist Europe. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the United States probably helped ensure the rest of Europe didn't come under the influence of the Soviet Union.

In any event, I think the countries in Europe owe a nice thank you to the United States. Perhaps a card on June 6th or something may be appropriate. I mean, at least Germany should send us something.

[Symmetry]

I wonder what would have happened at the end of World War Two if the United States did not get involved in Europe and then didn't sit on France. Probably we'd be talking about communist Europe. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the United States probably helped ensure the rest of Europe didn't come under the influence of the Soviet Union.

In any event, I think the countries in Europe owe a nice thank you to the United States. Perhaps a card on June 6th or something may be appropriate. I mean, at least Germany should send us something.

Well, the parts of North and South America that got American intervention in real life aren't sending the US cards. Christ, the US is under a president who wants more torture in Cuba.

Maybe the US can torture a wall out of its neighbours?

[thegreekdog]

I wonder what would have happened at the end of World War Two if the United States did not get involved in Europe and then didn't sit on France. Probably we'd be talking about communist Europe. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying the United States probably helped ensure the rest of Europe didn't come under the influence of the Soviet Union.

In any event, I think the countries in Europe owe a nice thank you to the United States. Perhaps a card on June 6th or something may be appropriate. I mean, at least Germany should send us something.

Well, the parts of North and South America that got American intervention in real life aren't sending the US cards. Christ, the US is under a president who wants more torture in Cuba.

Maybe the US can torture a wall out of its neighbours?

Yeah, we didn't do a great job during the Cold War. This is why I question our foreign policy decisions.

"Shit, we have to avoid communism/Muslim theocracy... let's have a war."
War is won. X thousand Americans killed in the name of whatever the f*ck.
"We installed a democratically elected president."
"Great, is he going to only take orders from us?"
"Yes."

Fast forward 10 years.

"Shit, they don't like us."
"I wonder why."
"Excellent."