Author Topic: Women's March  (Read 9337 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13774
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #210 on: January 26, 2017, 10:40:49 AM »
Also, I think part of the reason why people take the characterization of marchers as potentially loose women with questionable morals to task is because it seem like an attempt to de-legitimize the group as a whole.  By convincing oneself that they're sluts (in the absence of any proof that they are), then one can pretty much dismiss the entire thing with a wave of the hand, as though their viewpoints and purpose are not important because "Hey, she blew some guy!".  It reminds me of how defense attorneys in rape trials sometimes try to paint the victim as the town doorknob, as if that somehow changes things.

Now some would say "But you're trying to do the same thing by bringing up the grabby comment!".  To that I say that a greater majority of the things that HE HIMSELF has said, tweeted, done, etc. (sexually related or not) should be more than sufficient to drive someone to question anything to do with his presidency.  Those things aren't imagined scenarios like the "But she might have blown a guy!" scenario.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Women's March
« Reply #211 on: January 26, 2017, 10:48:57 AM »
Thanks for that post, Coz.

I've been tracking backward through the thread to try and figure out what y'all are talking about. I couldn't for the life of me figure out how we knew the relative frequency of sexual activity for the marchers.

The conversation makes more sense now.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13774
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #212 on: January 26, 2017, 10:50:46 AM »
I couldn't for the life of me figure out how we knew the relative frequency of sexual activity for the marchers.

We don't.  But for some reason, it needs to be called into question for, well... reasons, I guess.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #213 on: January 26, 2017, 10:51:28 AM »
Also, I think part of the reason why people take the characterization of marchers as potentially loose women with questionable morals to task is because it seem like an attempt to de-legitimize the group as a whole.  By convincing oneself that they're sluts (in the absence of any proof that they are), then one can pretty much dismiss the entire thing with a wave of the hand, as though their viewpoints and purpose are not important because "Hey, she blew some guy!".  It reminds me of how defense attorneys in rape trials sometimes try to paint the victim as the town doorknob, as if that somehow changes things.

Agreed.  Also, I don't see why # of sexual partners has anything to do with women's rights other than they have the right to have sex with whomever and it shouldn't make them any less of a person.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13774
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #214 on: January 26, 2017, 10:53:12 AM »
Exactly.  I've had it with as many women as would have me, because it's fun and it feels good.  Some people do it because they want to create little monsters.  At it's base level, it feels awesome, so why should anybody pass judgment on how many times someone's done it and with how many people?  Do we pass judgment on the number of people we've gone to dinner with?  Or shared a beer with?  Or gone to the carnival with?

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9431
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Women's March
« Reply #215 on: January 26, 2017, 10:53:26 AM »
Well, "she" or any other person running for president that didn't make it don't have as much potential to alter my way of life, IMO, that's why I question the relevance, but again, my way of looking at things, I guess.
I understand. I'm just saying that some people men or woman choose to condemn others and see them as evil or whatever without considering they have done and said the same things. I know its different because he's the leader of our country. I'm just pointing out that many have a different standard for someone else's sin than they do for there own.

I hope my post a few posts up clears up any misconception of my feelings.

For someone to say, I'm the reason these woman march in general bothers me. I'm someone that I believe gets misinterpreted a bit because of my delivery but I'll say this again..

1. I love and respect woman. I am very loving to my wife. She has always viewed me as a gentleman and someone who has great respect for woman. Its the reason she fell in love with me. I'm not the "hey honey, get me a beer!" kind of guy. I'm the "hey honey, is there anything I can get you?" type of guy.

2. I DON'T consider a woman having casual sex a slut or a whore. When I said cheapen themselves I mean't a woman that is hammered and wants to blow me in the parking lot because I'm the lead singer. They deserve better that that. IMHO.

My comments were about judgments, and the double standards we all have, man or woman.
So if I'm still painted as the reason march I don't feel that way. I'm not going to change my view to please others.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline jsbru

  • Posts: 959
Re: Women's March
« Reply #216 on: January 26, 2017, 11:24:43 AM »
And the stock market is almost all driven by CONSUMER CONFIDENCE of FUTURE PROFITS.   If investors think that GE's number is risky because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to go all Draconian on environmental regs, or labor laws, or healthcare, the stock is going to go down (or at a minimum stay static).  Which is what happened in '08.   If investors think that GE's number is accurate, or even a little conservative, because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to promote a business friendly environment, the stock is going to rise.  We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since.  I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real.  This is fairly well documented.

Also, the stock market crashing in 2008 was pretty clearly due to a massive bubble that was going to pop no matter what.  Consumer confidence was an effect, not a cause of that.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you are really, really grasping at straws here to blame something on Obama, when it happened due to events that were set in motion even before Obama became a Senator.
“The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3049
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #217 on: January 26, 2017, 12:11:57 PM »
That's a good question. I feel the same way you do, I have no problem with the law that's on the books in the US, meaning women can get abortions as they wish (personally I'm against abortions but I don't think I have the right to tell a women what they can and can't do), but having taxpayer money fund that for women in other countries doesn't fly with me. I'm totally okay with the US not doing that.

Here lays the issue though - clinics that perform those abortions are similar to Planned Parenthood - that is only one of several different services they provide and a tiny part of their overall business. You can't really separate funding for abortion from funding mammograms, pelvic exams, STD testing, etc.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #218 on: January 26, 2017, 12:21:46 PM »
You can't really separate funding for abortion from funding mammograms, pelvic exams, STD testing, etc.

Why not?  Not asking to start an argument, curious why can't we do that?  I ask because people don't seem to have issues with funding mammograms, pelvic exams, STD testing, etc. but some people (not me) have issues with funding abortions so why can't these be funded separately?

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20630
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Women's March
« Reply #219 on: January 26, 2017, 12:31:21 PM »
Planned Parenthood seems to do just fine at separating the federal money to keep it out of the abortion side of the business. I haven't heard any complaints to the contrary. Seems to me that it's essentially about image. Planned Parenthood are abortion providers so they can get no federal funding. Other services be damned.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Women's March
« Reply #220 on: January 26, 2017, 12:34:35 PM »
I think it has more to do with the U.S. shouldn't tell an organization what the best practices are for their clients or country. We're not there, we don't know. The only thing we have to decide is if we will help fund them or not.

Trump decided that we won't fund them unless they live by our rules. That causes great heartburn in a large portion of the population in and out of the States, and has for some time.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #221 on: January 26, 2017, 12:37:19 PM »
Planned Parenthood seems to do just fine at separating the federal money to keep it out of the abortion side of the business. I haven't heard any complaints to the contrary. Seems to me that it's essentially about image. Planned Parenthood are abortion providers so they can get no federal funding. Other services be damned.

What about separating planned parenthood from the abortion part and the non abortion part to form two different entities?  Just thinking of ways to make everyone happy (clearly not going to happen on this case, but just thinking aloud). 

I think it has more to do with the U.S. shouldn't tell an organization what the best practices are for their clients or country. We're not there, we don't know. The only thing we have to decide is if we will help fund them or not.

But if the government funds it, don't they in some way have a right to tell an organization what to practice?  I'm for planned parenthood, but trying to see both sides here.  If it were a private business, the investor will certainly have a say in what the business does.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40294
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Women's March
« Reply #222 on: January 26, 2017, 12:38:29 PM »
Do you, as a taxpayer, have any say on what is done with the money you pay in income taxes?
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #223 on: January 26, 2017, 12:42:46 PM »
Do you, as a taxpayer, have any say on what is done with the money you pay in income taxes?

Only as much as who I vote for, which technically means yes, but the reality is very little to none.  But that's not an apples to apples comparison.  I don't have a choice on paying my taxes.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #224 on: January 26, 2017, 12:43:25 PM »
Regarding whether or not the "government" when providing monies to run clinics - what about the VA?  What about Medicare recipients?

At what point is it ok for the government to tell physicians and other health care providers what a treatment plan for a patient is?

If the government were to regulate Viagra for ED?  What about requiring vasectomy for men who have fathered a dozen children out of wedlock and isn't paying child support?  Where do you all want that line to be drawn?  How about the government requiring you to donate a kidney because you are the only match for a patient on dialysis and it would be more cost effective in the long run?

Are people aware, for example, that birth control can be prescribed for numerous other medical treatment reasons than just preventing unintended pregnancies?

Please gentlemen.  Please tell me exactly where that line is going to be drawn by our elected officials.  Will it be ok with you that it applies to women being told what they can do with their bodies?  What about when it comes to yours?

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13774
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Women's March
« Reply #225 on: January 26, 2017, 12:45:28 PM »
As I've seen said on Facebook lately, you'll never see an Oval Office full of women signing documents that intend to govern what men can do with their own bodies.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #226 on: January 26, 2017, 12:50:40 PM »
Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20630
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Women's March
« Reply #227 on: January 26, 2017, 01:02:21 PM »
How about the government requiring you to donate a kidney because you are the only match for a patient on dialysis and it would be more cost effective in the long run?
Well I think that's a fucking swell idea.   :lol

Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?
Perhaps so, but it didn't seem to actually have anything to do with the meat of her point. Seemed mostly superfluous to me, albeit perhaps a bit argumentative.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #228 on: January 26, 2017, 01:11:38 PM »
Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?

Not trying to be argumentative, but isn't that exactly what is happening?  Pregnancy isn't without risks to life.  I know women who have died in childbirth.  I can get the stats if people are curious about it.  But it happens.  I have a friend who has an underlying health condition that is incompatible with pregnancy.  She has been told that getting pregnant and attempting to continue the pregnancy would be a certain death sentence for her AND her unborn fetus.  She is married.  She has another child (which is how she almost died before) who was born extremely premature and almost died himself.  So since we know abstinence and sterilization are the only 100 percent effective method at preventing pregnancy she is living in fear that any even protected sex will result in her becoming pregnant.  She is catholic, so sterilization is frowned upon in her culture.  She is pro-choice but she would struggle with having to terminate a pregnancy.  Her husband doesn't want her to die.  Her living child doesn't want to lose his mother.  So they just opt to not have sex?

So our government can impose laws that restrict her access to safe, affordable birth control.  And now it seems to want to take away her option of terminating a pregnancy should that birth control fail if that was the choice she, her husband's, and her doctor felt was the best option for her.  I'm sorry but when did any politician get to the place where his medical training trumps (pun intended) her physician's?

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4454
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: Women's March
« Reply #229 on: January 26, 2017, 01:14:33 PM »
Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?
Perhaps so, but it didn't seem to actually have anything to do with the meat of her point. Seemed mostly superfluous to me, albeit perhaps a bit argumentative.
My post wasn't aimed at Harmony, per se, other than just because she used that language and, as I often see happen in these kinds of debates, the posts following it seem to just fall in line and assume that since the "we can't tell X group what to do with their bodies" card was invoked, it is a sacred cow that shuts off an avenue of discussion.  That's all.  Hopefully, that makes sense.  I don't even really have an ax to grind against the argument myself either.  Just an observation about where discussion seems to go once certain rhetoric gets invoked.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #230 on: January 26, 2017, 01:16:01 PM »
Regarding whether or not the "government" when providing monies to run clinics - what about the VA?  What about Medicare recipients?

At what point is it ok for the government to tell physicians and other health care providers what a treatment plan for a patient is?

If the government were to regulate Viagra for ED?  What about requiring vasectomy for men who have fathered a dozen children out of wedlock and isn't paying child support?  Where do you all want that line to be drawn?  How about the government requiring you to donate a kidney because you are the only match for a patient on dialysis and it would be more cost effective in the long run?

Are people aware, for example, that birth control can be prescribed for numerous other medical treatment reasons than just preventing unintended pregnancies?

Please gentlemen.  Please tell me exactly where that line is going to be drawn by our elected officials.  Will it be ok with you that it applies to women being told what they can do with their bodies?  What about when it comes to yours?

I certainly don't want the government telling a doctor how to do his job, that's not really the point that I was trying to make, but moreso that the government, if funding something, has a right to have a say in what they are funding whether it be abortions or building roads, not influence the doctor's practice or tell the road builders how to build a road.  Let those people do the jobs that you are asking them to do.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Women's March
« Reply #231 on: January 26, 2017, 01:20:01 PM »
I think it has more to do with the U.S. shouldn't tell an organization what the best practices are for their clients or country. We're not there, we don't know. The only thing we have to decide is if we will help fund them or not.

But if the government funds it, don't they in some way have a right to tell an organization what to practice?  I'm for planned parenthood, but trying to see both sides here.  If it were a private business, the investor will certainly have a say in what the business does.

Just to be sure, we're talking about the so called "Gag Rule," right? I maybe wrong, but my understanding is that it only applies to foreign health care providers that the U.S. provides funds too. Mind, not all of their funding. I personally don't think it's good practice to tell them how to best use the funds.

Planned Parenthood is a domestic organization and of course the government should have input into how the funds are used. As such (and again I may be wrong) but PP policy is not to use a dime of Federal funds for abortion. That's what donations are for.

I think it's a mistake to use the private business comparison. But even if we do...I own stock in NVidia should we the stockholders be telling the company how best to build graphics chips? I don't think so.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: Women's March
« Reply #232 on: January 26, 2017, 01:20:07 PM »
Regarding whether or not the "government" when providing monies to run clinics - what about the VA?  What about Medicare recipients?

At what point is it ok for the government to tell physicians and other health care providers what a treatment plan for a patient is?

If the government were to regulate Viagra for ED?  What about requiring vasectomy for men who have fathered a dozen children out of wedlock and isn't paying child support?  Where do you all want that line to be drawn?  How about the government requiring you to donate a kidney because you are the only match for a patient on dialysis and it would be more cost effective in the long run?

Are people aware, for example, that birth control can be prescribed for numerous other medical treatment reasons than just preventing unintended pregnancies?

Please gentlemen.  Please tell me exactly where that line is going to be drawn by our elected officials.  Will it be ok with you that it applies to women being told what they can do with their bodies?  What about when it comes to yours?

I certainly don't want the government telling a doctor how to do his job, that's not really the point that I was trying to make, but moreso that the government, if funding something, has a right to have a say in what they are funding whether it be abortions or building roads, not influence the doctor's practice or tell the road builders how to build a road.  Let those people do the jobs that you are asking them to do.

But cramx3 when you take away legitimate treatment options - prescribing the pill to treat endometriosis for example, which is MUCH more cost effective than surgery with FAR less risk of complications - from doctors because you don't like the idea of (beware extreme rhetoric ahead to make a point!) sluts having sex without consequences, that is essentially what you are saying you don't want to happen.  They can't do the jobs you are asking them to do.  You are asking them to do their jobs with one hand tied behind their back.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #233 on: January 26, 2017, 01:31:22 PM »
Regarding whether or not the "government" when providing monies to run clinics - what about the VA?  What about Medicare recipients?

At what point is it ok for the government to tell physicians and other health care providers what a treatment plan for a patient is?

If the government were to regulate Viagra for ED?  What about requiring vasectomy for men who have fathered a dozen children out of wedlock and isn't paying child support?  Where do you all want that line to be drawn?  How about the government requiring you to donate a kidney because you are the only match for a patient on dialysis and it would be more cost effective in the long run?

Are people aware, for example, that birth control can be prescribed for numerous other medical treatment reasons than just preventing unintended pregnancies?

Please gentlemen.  Please tell me exactly where that line is going to be drawn by our elected officials.  Will it be ok with you that it applies to women being told what they can do with their bodies?  What about when it comes to yours?

I certainly don't want the government telling a doctor how to do his job, that's not really the point that I was trying to make, but moreso that the government, if funding something, has a right to have a say in what they are funding whether it be abortions or building roads, not influence the doctor's practice or tell the road builders how to build a road.  Let those people do the jobs that you are asking them to do.

But cramx3 when you take away legitimate treatment options - prescribing the pill to treat endometriosis for example, which is MUCH more cost effective than surgery with FAR less risk of complications - from doctors because you don't like the idea of (beware extreme rhetoric ahead to make a point!) sluts having sex without consequences, that is essentially what you are saying you don't want to happen.  They can't do the jobs you are asking them to do.  You are asking them to do their jobs with one hand tied behind their back.

Just to make sure we are clear here, I don't want this.  I am for planned parenthood.  I believe it's good overall.  I am pro-choice.  I am fine with the government funding abortions, I don't think it's good for anyone to have children born into situations that are not desirable.  Having said that, I also can see some points from the other side of the fence.  Some people flat out believe abortion is murder.  I can't argue with that belief even if I don't believe it.  Regardless of those beliefs, I am pretty firm about abortions for health issues / rape.  I am speaking mostly from thoughts/ideology than what I actually prefer. 

If the government were to take away say abortions from planned parenthood, but let planned parenthood continue operating for everything else they do, in the scenario we are speaking of, then if someone wanted an abortion on their own will (not through rape or health issues) than theoretically they wouldn't go to planned parenthood because they wouldn't in this theoretical scenario be able to perform one so the doctor would not be handicapped.  However if someone went to planned parenthood for other needs like you mentioned and it turns out they need an abortion for health reasons, then they can get one funded by the government and the doctor would do his job.  Of course the person wanting the abortion for personal reasons would then need to pay themselves.  Part of me understands that thought process, but as I said, I personally don't think it's the best.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Women's March
« Reply #234 on: January 26, 2017, 01:38:48 PM »
If the government were to take away say abortions from planned parenthood, but let planned parenthood continue operating for everything else they do, in the scenario we are speaking of, then if someone wanted an abortion on their own will (not through rape or health issues) than theoretically they wouldn't go to planned parenthood because they wouldn't in this theoretical scenario be able to perform one so the doctor would not be handicapped.  However if someone went to planned parenthood for other needs like you mentioned and it turns out they need an abortion for health reasons, then they can get one funded by the government and the doctor would do his job.  Of course the person wanting the abortion for personal reasons would then need to pay themselves.  Part of me understands that thought process, but as I said, I personally don't think it's the best.

I'm missing something here, isn't that currently the way it works?!


Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18287
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Women's March
« Reply #235 on: January 26, 2017, 01:41:55 PM »
If the government were to take away say abortions from planned parenthood, but let planned parenthood continue operating for everything else they do, in the scenario we are speaking of, then if someone wanted an abortion on their own will (not through rape or health issues) than theoretically they wouldn't go to planned parenthood because they wouldn't in this theoretical scenario be able to perform one so the doctor would not be handicapped.  However if someone went to planned parenthood for other needs like you mentioned and it turns out they need an abortion for health reasons, then they can get one funded by the government and the doctor would do his job.  Of course the person wanting the abortion for personal reasons would then need to pay themselves.  Part of me understands that thought process, but as I said, I personally don't think it's the best.

I'm missing something here, isn't that currently the way it works?!

Well that was in regards to Harmony's comment about holding back doctors.  If this is the way it works now, which I guess it is after Trump signed his order, than I am not sure how it's holding back doctors.  Just changing dynamics of planned parenthood (which I disagree with).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #236 on: January 26, 2017, 01:47:47 PM »
We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since.  I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real.  This is fairly well documented.

That's actually not true.  As soon as Trump started to look like the winner, the futures market tanked and even bottomed out, hitting the downside limits.

The markets rebounded the next day, though.

ok, so only one of you can be right here,  this is fascinating  :corn   

He's wrong; they tumbled through the night, hitting their low just before midnight, but the election wasn't called then.  It wasn't called until about three hours later, at which time the market had trended back up (but not positive).    In other words, once it was clear that the convention wisdom - the assumptions under which people were making investments prior to close - was dead wrong, markets swung.   Markets do not like uncertainty, and "wrong conventional wisdom" is the definition of "uncertainty".  Once it was clear that TRUMP WON, meaning, the uncertainty was removed, it didn't go anywhere but up.

"At 11:55 p.m. ET, stocks hit their nadir, as we had S&P 500 futures falling 5%, hitting limit-down and halting trading below this level until the next morning.

At 1:40 a.m. ET, shortly after the AP called for Trump to win Pennsylvania in a move that very-nearly sealed the election, stocks were off their worst levels with Dow futures down 660 points, or 3.6%, S&P 500 futures were down about 91 points, or 4.3%, and Nasdaq futures were down 229 points, or 4.8%.

Near 2:30 a.m. ET, when the Associated Press called the election for Trump, Dow futures were down about 520 points and S&P 500 futures were off 3.4%."

BEFORE Trump was the winner, when things were up in the air, people PANICKED (like they did when there was uncertainty in 2008).   The S&P500 dropped 5%, which is where trading can't go below that amount (it doesn't halt ALL trading, just trading below that limit).   At 1:40, when Trump won Pennsylvania, the S&P500 was only down 4.3%, meaning it WENT UP 0.7% with Trump's victory.   Later that night, when Trump won the election, the S&P500 was off 3.4%, meaning it WENT UP 1.6% with Trump's victory.   It was the uncertainty, NOT Trump's winning that started the initial tumble.  When the smoke cleared after it was clear Trump would win, it went back up again.  And has continued ever since. 

"The Mexican peso also got crushed, falling as much as 13% against the US dollar to as low as 20.71 after having rallied to as high as 18.16 earlier in the evening. The peso has largely tracked the fortunes of Hillary Clinton throughout the campaign and that story is not changing on election night.  As of around 1:40 a.m., the peso had recovered some losses and was off about 10% against the US dollar. A Reuters poll released last week indicated currency strategists saw potential for a 10% slide in the peso’s value were Trump to win."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/live-markets-react-to-election-day-212748067.html

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6172
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: Women's March
« Reply #237 on: January 26, 2017, 01:56:33 PM »
If the government were to take away say abortions from planned parenthood, but let planned parenthood continue operating for everything else they do, in the scenario we are speaking of, then if someone wanted an abortion on their own will (not through rape or health issues) than theoretically they wouldn't go to planned parenthood because they wouldn't in this theoretical scenario be able to perform one so the doctor would not be handicapped.  However if someone went to planned parenthood for other needs like you mentioned and it turns out they need an abortion for health reasons, then they can get one funded by the government and the doctor would do his job.  Of course the person wanting the abortion for personal reasons would then need to pay themselves.  Part of me understands that thought process, but as I said, I personally don't think it's the best.

I'm missing something here, isn't that currently the way it works?!

Well that was in regards to Harmony's comment about holding back doctors.  If this is the way it works now, which I guess it is after Trump signed his order, than I am not sure how it's holding back doctors.  Just changing dynamics of planned parenthood (which I disagree with).

I'm pretty sure no federal dollars have been used to fund abortions [edit]domestically[/edit] since the 1990's. Maybe earlier. Here's a fact check article from 2011 that lays out how it works. http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

The International PP has been different until the resent signing by the President, or so I understand.

Offline axeman90210

  • Official Minister of Awesome, and Veronica knows my name!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11587
  • Gender: Male
  • Never go full Nick
Re: Women's March
« Reply #238 on: January 26, 2017, 01:59:54 PM »
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I thought things were pretty clearly swinging towards Trump by 11-11:30pm EST on election night. There were a couple states farther west that were a ways away from reporting, but it seemed pretty clear based on their initial numbers and also the way Trump had overperformed polls in the other swing states that Hillary was a long shot.
Photobucket sucks.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #239 on: January 26, 2017, 02:02:44 PM »
Now some would say "But you're trying to do the same thing by bringing up the grabby comment!".  To that I say that a greater majority of the things that HE HIMSELF has said, tweeted, done, etc. (sexually related or not) should be more than sufficient to drive someone to question anything to do with his presidency.  Those things aren't imagined scenarios like the "But she might have blown a guy!" scenario.


Good analysis, but the last part isn't as black and white as you make it out.  Most of the things he himself said/tweeted are just as much imagined scenarios.   There was no married woman that came forward and said "THAT'S ME!" (though press wags made hay that it was Nancy O'Dell).   There was no confirmed association between anything that he said to Billy Bush and any specific accusers.  "marginalization" is "marginalization", whether it's a group or an individual, unless based on actionable intel, and we're not there yet. 

The parallels far outweigh the differences.   We're talking about the "marginalization" of both entities.  Presumably one who knows how that feels wouldn't want to inflict it on others. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #240 on: January 26, 2017, 02:08:40 PM »
Exactly.  I've had it with as many women as would have me, because it's fun and it feels good.  Some people do it because they want to create little monsters.  At it's base level, it feels awesome, so why should anybody pass judgment on how many times someone's done it and with how many people?  Do we pass judgment on the number of people we've gone to dinner with?  Or shared a beer with?  Or gone to the carnival with?

Excellent post, but I have to ask:  if so, why pass judgment on someone who puts it out there and let's the OTHER person, married or not, make the decision?   Short of ACTUAL p**** grabbing - which we're not talking about, we're talking about WORDS now, and speculation - why is there judgment about whether someone is willing to compromise their marriage for that "good feeling"?  If anything, there's an empowerment there, the thought that a woman can decide for herself independent of artificial constraints like a government piece of paper.   To the extent she is faithful (and i believe her to be) my wife isn't faithful to me BECAUSE WE'RE MARRIED, she's faithful to me because early in our relationship we pledged to be monogamous.   I can be (and I know people who are, though it isn't me) completely in love, completely happily married, and not at all faithful.   So why judge him on that artificial standard, but not those women (or vice versa)?   

(And no, "higher standard" doesn't apply, because Kennedy had more women than you, me, and Trump combined. We - and that includes Jackie - didn't hold him to any standard but his own.)

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #241 on: January 26, 2017, 02:16:20 PM »
And the stock market is almost all driven by CONSUMER CONFIDENCE of FUTURE PROFITS.   If investors think that GE's number is risky because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to go all Draconian on environmental regs, or labor laws, or healthcare, the stock is going to go down (or at a minimum stay static).  Which is what happened in '08.   If investors think that GE's number is accurate, or even a little conservative, because the likely new administration (even if it is just party) is going to promote a business friendly environment, the stock is going to rise.  We saw this as immediately as midnight on election night, as the moment that things started to swing for Trump, the futures market LIT UP, and stocks have been climbing ever since.  I won't say it's "automatic" like flipping a switch, but it is pretty immediate, and it is real.  This is fairly well documented.

Also, the stock market crashing in 2008 was pretty clearly due to a massive bubble that was going to pop no matter what.  Consumer confidence was an effect, not a cause of that.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you are really, really grasping at straws here to blame something on Obama, when it happened due to events that were set in motion even before Obama became a Senator.

You're entitled to your opinion, on both paragraphs.  I stand by my assertions.  I'm not a beginner in this regard (I hold an MBA from a top 10 business school, and have actually had this conversation with a professor of mine, formerly of the Federal Reserve Bank, and recognized by the Wall Street Journal for his accomplishments in international finance.).  Is it definitively provable? No, but the simplistic common wisdom that "it all happened before January 20-whatever, 2008, so therefore it's all Bush's fault, and Obama's just in to clean the mess" is just not accurate.   

The bubble self-regulated about 12 times in the decade or so before the crash, all the while consumer confidence was at high levels.   It crashes the 13th time, AFTER consumer confidence began to tail off, before cratering in the early years of Obama's tenure, while he's pushing national healthcare while the economy burns.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #242 on: January 26, 2017, 02:21:37 PM »
Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?

And to that point, the government dictates healthcare ALL THE TIME.  Is something covered or not?  Is something eligible for flex spending or not?   Is that coverage considered "experimental technology" or not?  Will that drug get approved by the FDA or not?   

Let's not at all pretend that the government lets men do whatever they want, women most things, but when it comes to abortion all of a sudden gov'mint says "no can do, Thelma and Louise".   I'm with you in the sense that Viagra gets approved because it sells but the cancer drug that helps 1000 people languishes in approval hell, but that's not a "gender" issue, that's a free market issue.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #243 on: January 26, 2017, 02:26:06 PM »
Personally, I think couching the debate in terms of "telling [x group] what they can do with their bodies" is misleading and really just shuts down any ability to discuss what the issues actually are.  The government can and does tell people what they can and cannot do.  And what they can and cannot do is always with their bodies.  Can we discuss the issues without resorting to going off on a meaningless tangent that really does nothing but confuse the issues even further?

Not trying to be argumentative, but isn't that exactly what is happening?  Pregnancy isn't without risks to life.  I know women who have died in childbirth.  I can get the stats if people are curious about it.  But it happens.  I have a friend who has an underlying health condition that is incompatible with pregnancy.  She has been told that getting pregnant and attempting to continue the pregnancy would be a certain death sentence for her AND her unborn fetus.  She is married.  She has another child (which is how she almost died before) who was born extremely premature and almost died himself.  So since we know abstinence and sterilization are the only 100 percent effective method at preventing pregnancy she is living in fear that any even protected sex will result in her becoming pregnant.  She is catholic, so sterilization is frowned upon in her culture.  She is pro-choice but she would struggle with having to terminate a pregnancy.  Her husband doesn't want her to die.  Her living child doesn't want to lose his mother.  So they just opt to not have sex?

So our government can impose laws that restrict her access to safe, affordable birth control.  And now it seems to want to take away her option of terminating a pregnancy should that birth control fail if that was the choice she, her husband's, and her doctor felt was the best option for her.  I'm sorry but when did any politician get to the place where his medical training trumps (pun intended) her physician's?

One, as a man living in a house with three women on birth control, what are the restrictions on access to safe affordable birth control?

Two, abortion is NOT illegal, it is regulated, like driving a car.  Even when there have been states that have attempted to limit abortions further, I am not aware of one credible proposal that didn't have an exception for rape, or imminent danger to the mother.    I'm full on, 100% pro-choice, with no exceptions, but even then, the abortion has to be performed in a prudent, safe, and reasonable manner.   

I'm not at all clear how that translates into a politician "trumping" the doctors (and yes, I hate that I can't use that word without baggage anymore). 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13151
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: Women's March
« Reply #244 on: January 26, 2017, 02:29:24 PM »
Maybe my memory is faulty, but I thought things were pretty clearly swinging towards Trump by 11-11:30pm EST on election night. There were a couple states farther west that were a ways away from reporting, but it seemed pretty clear based on their initial numbers and also the way Trump had overperformed polls in the other swing states that Hillary was a long shot.

They were moving more in that direction than people thought, but unless and until either Pennsylvania or Michigan fell - and Michigan didn't until what, two days later? - it was still Hillary's election to lose.  The analysis was such that she basically needed ONE state of the four or so swing states to lock up the election as of midnight.