Total posts: 5,890
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We are not giving Russia anything but the costly headache and responsibility of protecting the ethnic Russian speaking Donbas from fanatical western aligned Maidan nationalists.And that really doesn't have to cost America a dime to pass that cost onto Russia.
Ok, you're a moron.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Any change causes some chaos. If you are a progressive, chaos is baked into your ideology!It's only bad when Trump does it.
This is so incredibly stupid.
No, all changes do not create chaos. Changes can be implemented with precision and planning to avoid that, but that takes competence.
What's different about Trump are two things;
A) The scale of this chaos. Look at how the stock market has plunged and how uncertain business leaders are across the country. Nothing about that is normal.
B) More importantly - the fact that Trump's chaos is entirely self inflicted and therefore unnecessary. Even if you agree with his goals, a competent president could have done this so much better. This is either because he's such a moron he can't figure out how to do basic things, or because he has some nefarious reasons which he is hiding behind a veil of incompetence.
Either way, this is not rationally justifiable. Perhaps if you would get off your intellectual ass and concern yourself with something other than owning the libs you would understand that instead of writing these vapid and childishly ignorant posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Im very okay with admitting this isnt a war worth 150 billion in American dollars to continue.
Right, so given that all wars cost money, and that this particular war is entirely about stopping or at the very least not rewarding Russia from invading Ukraine, the original point not only still stands but is affirmed; You're ok with rewarding Russia for invading Ukraine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
When that support weakens and Ukraine's defenses break, the conflict will end through force rather than diplomacy.
It's not diplomacy when the country being invaded decides to make concessions to the country invading it. That's called surrender.
If you don't believe in defending against hostile takeovers just say that, but stop dishonestly pretending you're some kind of peace advocate while people like myself who think we shouldn't empower and encourage global bullies are warmongers.
You're ok with rewarding Russia for invading Ukraine. Look in the mirror and say it loud and clear. Then maybe we can have an honest discission about it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.“All good” might be an overstatement. More like it is the reality of the situation.
Yes, and that should bother you if you're a SGC. But what you're doing here is using it to make your point which is a basic failure of logic. Two wrongs don't make a right, so if you believe in small government you can't use the wrong of the federal government involving itself in the first place to justify the federal government involving itself afterward.
This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.I will just copy/paste what I have already written earlier:
Why? I've already responded to all of that and you have nothing to say in response except to repeat your original point which has been addressed multiple times already.
SGCs didn’t cry foul then, but you believe they should cry foul now?
Yet again, approving and denying a state program are two very different things. You are not inserting yourself into the process when you approve. You are asserting yourself inn the process when you deny. The latter deserves now scrutiny for obvious reasons.
I've already explained this, let me know when you're ready to engage in the conversation instead of hissy repeating the same thing.
A few actual SGCs have chimed in on this in this thread. What is your feedback on their views?
See my responses to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You are kind of side stepping another SGC principle in that less federal funding always equates to a smaller federal government.
You clearly didn't read the post you are quoting. I talked about that at length. Read it and try again.
SGC's were very upset when a lower court forced taxpayers to continue funding USAID 2 billion dollars after it was exposed where all the funds were actually going.
This is just further demonstration of the central point of this thread. If you believe in the principal of SGC then you wouldn't need to have been lied to about where the money was going to suddenly care. If you only care afterwards then the principal has nothing to do with the size of government, that's just the excuse you give when you don't like what the government is doing and would rather argue some vague principal than your actual position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Americans overwhelmingly (over 74%) want that war to end
So do the Ukrainians genius. Here's a crazy thought; if you want the war to end, then blame the guy trying to invade another country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
It seems ludicrousto have to argue my position, but maybe I am living in an informationbuble, shielded from the good arguments that might exist in defenseof the White House treatment of Zelensky.
You're not, the entire thing is beyond absurd. TDS is little more than a clear pronouncement of projection. The real derangement is dealing with a US President who thinks the obstacle to peace is an ungrateful president of Ukraine and not the guy who is literally invading his country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Literally every state constitution in the union includes a clause that says the state constitution is subject to the US constitution,…Yes, it’s called one of the major outcomes of the Civil War.
Aka "subject to federal approval".
According to my logic, or simply “logic,” a federal subsidy means that the federal government is involved by the very nature of a federal subsidy. Again, I don’t see why this is such a problem for you, both ethically and conceptually.
Because the argument does not pass the logic sniff test. We're not talking about legal technicalities, we're talking about basic principals. You're arguing that the presence of federal subsidies makes anything the federal government does here ok because they're already involved, but if you really believe in states rights and small government the very fact that the federal government is involved in the first place would be part of the problem.
NY is a donor state so it doesn't need the federal government to subsidize anything, just let NY keep it's own money and let them handle their own problems. That's what small federal government means.
When Obamacare was passed, SGC's called it a "government takeover of our healthcare system". Red states all throughout the country refused to take part in certain provisions even though it meant turning down federal funds for their constituents. In other words, they would rather let some portion of their constituents die than take federal money. The reason? Because, they argued, those funds came with "strings attached". In other words, they argued that the federal government was using subsidies to expand it's reach and power over the states. And that's real bad.
But here, that's ok I guess. If federal subsidies are involved then it's all good.
That's a stunning reversal. Hence this thread.
Rather than seek to understand, you would rather presume what SGCs believe and call them hypocrites for not falling in line with your presumption.
The only presumption I've made is that SGC's believe what they profess to believe.
To me, that means “all of New York is saved [from the undue burden of governmental price gouging]”
I've explained in detail why this isn't price gouging and even GP chimed in to explain how it's different. You pretend as if there's something wrong with me when I tell you you're disingenuous but this is yet another example of you repeating yourself over and over again without even acknowledging that your claim has been rebutted multiple times.
Back to the main point of this thread...
Even accepting your premise, that's still irrelevant. This is, once again, a local solution to a local problem. If you believe in small government it is not the job of the president of the United States to "save" residents of a city from the governing solutions of their local elected leaders.
That's the point, if you can't address that point then just admit that. Federal subsidies has nothing to do with this.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's all they have to do. Trump is in the process of fucking everything up so bad people will flock to the alternative no matter what it is.
Created:
Not with JoeBiden. A failed presidency. If any of that myth you've described occurred
I haven't said a word about Joe Biden or anything that happened during his administration.
And we saw last nought how pathetically DEmocratds will work with Trump. Couldn't even applaud the list of ordinary people heroes Trump presented last nights. Woke is dead, and we saw it last night. So, what "work with."
Not a single word of this has anything to do with anything I said, so I'll take that as a concession.
That aside, I'm sure you aren't complaining about democrats unwillingness to work with republicans after what the republicans have done the past 15 years. This is the same party that normalized the filibuster, and denied Obama an SC seat pretending to care something about an election year only to cram an SC pick at lightning speed two weeks before an election one cycle later.
Democrats aren't responsible for this political climate, so if you actually care about this point your ire at those who are responsible.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Clinton worked with Congress to decide where to cut, then worked with the agencies to make it happen.How does Congress know the details of employment in another branch's agencies; none of whom work for thecongressional branch, do they?
No, that's not how it works.
Working with Congress is the first step in a normal, rational process. You begin with the big pictur, figure out what direction your organization is going in, then you pass that direction down the chain. You have a review process where people who actually know what they're talking about can best guide you on what specific cuts needs to be made and they pass that direction down. So when it's time to pull the trigger and fire people you know who you're firing, what will be lost, and are prepared to absorb the impacts of those losses.
This is common sense.
That shows very clearly, that they literally do not know what the people they are firing even do.Neither, apparently, do the employees. DOGE asked them to justify their employment; to describe their productivity [what the do and how they do it]. That is an ability of its own, to know what and how job performance is conducted, and iight to be knowledgeable to every employee, or they are not worth their income. Period. How do they deserve in income outa of my pocket and yours if they cannot describe their job description and duties? As you say:That's just blatant incompetence....on the part of the employees, not DOGE.
Right, so Musk fires the people who safeguard our nuclear weapons before realizing he fired the people who safeguard per nuclear weapons, and that's the fault of the people who safeguard our nuclear weapons, not Musk.
Got it.
They have yet to show a single shred of evidence that anything they've cut is because of fraud,USAID, just for one example. Condons for Gaza? Really?
No, not really.
https://apnews.com/article/gaza-condoms-fact-check-trump-50-million-26884cac6c7097d7316ca50ca4145a82
And that list of frauds just in USAID is legion.
It doesn't matter how many frauds you list when they're just made up. The fact that you thought the condoms to Gaza story was real speaks to the problem. They're just lying to you and you don't seem bothered by it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Having the US fall by annexing Canada?
Having the US fall because it is so incompetent it can't even figure out what it should be focusing on. We have real world problems we could be addressing. Whether we should be annexing Canada is not one of them.
so imagine his delight as he watches our collective IQ sink to the bottom of the Potomac.I don't know about your IQ, but mine is 142.
Great, now use that 142 to Google the definition of "collective".
We are a country now that can't even agree on who won the prior electionIt was Biden.
Great, now tell the president and the 70 million Americans he seems to have convinced otherwise.
I've had the belief for about a decade, but Trump allowed me to express it with weight behind it.
You continue to prove my point. That's exactly what Trump does. And while you might think annexing Canada is a great idea and are glad Trump is empowering you, he's also empowering conspiracy theorists, racists, and ignoramuses.
You said yourself that Biden won in 2020. Are you not bothered that half the country actually believes that election was stolen? And do you really believe that would be the case if not for Trump?
Without him giving voice to and normalizing the stupidest people among us and the stupidest ideas imaginable, none of these things are even up for discission.If you don't like debating ideas, then get off of DART.
Have you seen any of my posts on this site? What on earth makes you think I don't like debating ideas?
I don't like the fact that all there is to debate are stupid ideas. We're getting to the point, and many would say we're way past the point, where we as a country even can debate anymore. We live in totally different planets.
It is beyond irritating to the point that even I sometimes feel the need to give up because the absurdity of Trump supporters is so bad it's like trying to argue with my dog. He is by far the most prolific liar in the history of American politics, yet they believe he's the real truth teller. He's the most thin skinned child we have ever seen and yet they think he's the embodiment of strength and manlihood. He's a literal criminal and they think he's a victim. He's an autocrat who they think is here to save our democracy. He's a Manhatten billionaire and they think he's the voice of the little guy.
I had no intention of going on that long but it all kept coming to my head because it runs so deep. That's what is stopping or ability to debate. We used to be able to work on algebra, now we're back to 2+2. It's appalling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Your view is more common; but don't act like it's out of the Overton window. It's not. Overton windows shift.
That's exactly my point. In fact it's the single biggest reason I oppose Trump so vehemently. The guy is a flat out moron, and now he's literally making this country dumber. As little as a few weeks ago the idea of the US annexing Canada was so stupid it wasn't even worth thinking about let alone talking about, now here we are.
We are light years away from marginal tax rates.
What would Putin care if the US annexes Canada?
Putin's interest is watching the US burn, so imagine his delight as he watches our collective IQ sink to the bottom of the Potomac. We are a country now that can't even agree on who won the prior election, whether we should annex our strongest ally, whether our premier law enforcement agency is actually a deep state cabal that must be dismantled, whether our federal workforce exists, etc. A country that can't even figure these things out will stand no chance over the long run. All of this is because of Trump. Without him giving voice to and normalizing the stupidest people among us and the stupidest ideas imaginable, none of these things are even up for discission.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Well Trump said so, so now let's all pretend this is a perfectly normal and rational proposal to debate.
Vladimir Putin is laughing his ass off at the ROI on his 2016 investment.
Created:
Posted in:
What is pivotal here is the presence of a federal subsidy, making the program “subject to federal approval.”
Literally every state constitution in the union includes a clause that says the state constitution is subject to the US constitution, so according to your logic the very concept of states rights and small federal government doesn't exist since it's all subject to whatever the federal government says.
This will be news to all those small government conservatives.
If Trump’s tweet is “genuinely” pivotal to your argument, you should have incorporated it into your syllogism
He literally said in his tweet that "all of New York is SAVED". I don't understand why you need that in a syllogism to understand that that has absolutely nothing to do with the reason the government is in a position to deny the program.
You pretend you're arguing in good faith but this just isn't serious.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
RFK supports vaccines. Actually read his books he has a nuanced position in these things.
Let me guess... he's not against vaccines, he just questions whether they're safe and effective.
Am I close?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Clinton did much the same thing. What was your beef, then?
What Clinton did isn't remotely comparable to what this administration is doing.
Clinton worked with Congress to decide where to cut, then worked with the agencies to make it happen.
This administration is just firing people and asking questions later. It's happened at least 6 or 7 times now that they fired a whole group of employees, only to figure out afterward that they actually need these people and scrambled to hire them back. That shows very clearly, that they literally do not know what the people they are firing even do. That's not defendable, that's not excusable. That's just blatant incompetence. It's the epitome of somone not knowing what they are doing.
given the waste and fraud going on in government. We need to eliminate3 that waste and fraud, no mater what percentage it represents.
They have yet to show a single shred of evidence that anything they've cut is because of fraud, and the cuts they've been publicly boasting about are either objective lies, wild exaggerations, or gross mischaracterizations. They have repeatedly posted the $ amount of cuts on their website only to have to downgrade it after realizing they added too many zeros. Again, that's blatant incompetence. Either that or they're just lying about that too figuring the correction will get far less attention than the initial lie which is almost always the case.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
So now you are arguing about what happens to your body vs what your body does?
I've been arguing this since the start of our conversation. Thank you for joining me.
So this violates the definition i presented
No, it falls perfectly in line with the definition you provided, as I've explained in detail now at least 3 times.
but i am willing to humor the fact that idiots don't understand the philosophical definition of bodily autonomy and are using it wrong.
It is irrelevant if the proponents of the bodily autonomy are getting the definition "wrong", this is what they're talking about. Again, if you're going to argue that someone else is inconsistent in what they believe, you need to work with what they actually believe, not the version of their beliefs you made up.
What happens to your body is something that you should be able to control? While the government controlling what you do does not violate your autonomy.Am I understanding this correctly?
For the most part. This gets far more nuanced though.
Yeah cool. I brought up mask mandates not store policies. Are you conflating the two?
No
Yes it is okay for a store to prevent this. It doesn't violate bodily autonomy because you can choose a different store. It would be wrong for the government to pressure stores to have this mandate though in the eyes of anybody who both knows what bodily auto only is and who believes it Trump's consideration for the life and health of others to the point of murdering a child to ensure bodily autonomy
Well first of all, this conversation excludes a fetus being considered a person, so that's irrelevant to what we're talking about.
Second, part of why your inconsistency argument fails is because it is based on absolutes. That is, the idea that if you believe in bodily autonomy then you believe it trumps everything, all the time, no exceptions. No right works this way.
Mask mandates are not a violation of bodily autonomy, but there are some practical overlaps. Would it be a violation of bodily autonomy to pin someone down and force a mask over their face? I'd say yeah. Are there circumstances where that would be warrented? Yes conceivably. Is giving someone no practical alternative but to wear a mask similar to pinning them down and forcing it on their face? Yes similar, but not the same. Again, the difference is that even though the alternatives are impractical, there are still alternatives. A true violation of bodily autonomy like rape, forced pregnancy, etc. there is no alternative. There is no other choice.
Even if you go so far as to call a mask mandate a violation of BA the saying "the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else's nose" still applies. And keep in mind, that saying presumes that the other person's nose is in that person's space. It does not apply to someone who is say, breaking into your house. This is another key difference to why BA advocates side with the mother. The baby may not have broken in, but it's definitely in the mother's space.
There's nothing inconsistent here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Your P1 might be true as a stand-alone claim, but not in the context of issues such as this one. That is because this issue involves a federal subsidy, and even small government conservatives, to my knowledge, don’t have a problem with federal intervention when federal subsidies are involved.
Ok. I just don't take this explanation as genuine, I take it as an ad hoc. Again, Trump made clear why he was intervening and it's not for any reason that gives the federal government the power to step in.
Seeing as how the federal government does indeed have a say in a matter such as this, it is common, acceptable, and not a breach of protocol for an incoming administration to reassess the decisions of a previous administration. Therefore, it is not uncommon, unacceptable, nor a breach of protocol for the Trump Administration to reassess Biden’s approval (via his DOT). Again, no violation of state sovereignty.
Again, this is a meaningless tautology. 'The government can step in here, so if they do there's no violation of state sovereignty'. This argument can be used to justify every federal encroachment of state sovereignty there's ever been. For decades we heard repeatedly when it came to abortion is that it should be left up to the states, that it was a violation of state sovereignty to force every state to allow it, gay marriage as well. Well the SC had the constitutional authority to decide otherwise, so no violation.
I don’t know enough about the motives behind the current DOT’s disapproval other than it appearing to be over price gouging concerns
I've already explained why the price gouging argument fails.
You have given me no reason to believe that you know any more about any impropriety involved than I do. You merely have speculation, extreme bias, and a Trump tweet (as shocking as that is) to motivate your accusation.
My accusation is mostly based on Trump's own words. That's not bias, it's basic logic.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
We are talking about mandates here not personal choice.
The mandates you are referring to only apply within a given circumstance and the individual has the option to not partake in it.
You don't want to wear a mask, don't go into the store. You don't want to stay pregnant... Don't exist?
Those are not remotely the same.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If I had to steelman your position from the facts gathered in this thread I would guess you are saying that pregnancy causes a lot of stress and hardship on a woman's body and that it's a lot of work to carry a pregnancy to term and essentially makes the woman a slave to the fetus, while mask mandates are a small inconvenience on the human body and do a lot for public health.
This is not what I've been arguing. It's barely even close.
I've made my position clear many times in this thread, yet all you seem to have heard is one part of one post where I went into depth on the stress caused on a woman's body, and even then I was making that point for a very different reason.
This thread is not about understanding a position but in checking logic.
That's all I've been arguing as well.
The problem is you cannot properly assess the logic of an argument if you do not understand its premises, and the premises that you are basing your inconsistency argument on is wrong. That's what I've spent pretty much the entirety of this thread pointing out.
So no, I'm not arguing that involuntary pregnancy is worse than a mask mandate, I'm arguing that it's different.
If the argument is to allow abortions because of bodily autonomy than we already are acknowledging that bodily autonomy is more important than human life.
The question isn't which one is more important. The question is which one trumps the other in a particular circumstance.
I gave a definition for from a source who was pro choice but I could have pulled similar definitions from other places the point was to show what bodily autonomy truly means without getting bogged down
So again, it all comes back to this. I have explained to you repeatedly why the definition you gave does not match to the way you are using it, and it is specifically the error which you are making that you are then using to allege an inconsistency in the bodily autonomy argument.
The distinction is not that hard, it is the difference between the choice you have over what happens to your body vs what you are allowed to do with your body.
Pregnancy is happening to your body.
Putting on a mask is something you do with your body. Exposing your genitals to children is something you do with your body. Stabbing someone else is something you do with your body. None of those are the same as the former.
If you think you are refuting anything I've said, refute the difference between these two things, or show me how the bodily autonomy argument does not rely on this distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The topic of this conversation isn't whether the government has the right to cancel the program, we're talking about whether it is right. So repeating over and over again that the program was subject to federal approval does nothing to address the topic of this thread.Maybe if you could construct a syllogism or even a polysyllogism making your case clearly. So far, you have hollow accusations and ipse dixit (ie “because I say so”) fallacy.
I've laid it out step by step multiple times in this thread. But if P's and C's is what it will take then here it is;
P1: Conservatives champion the principal that the federal government should be small and allow states to figure out solutions to their own problems
P2: A president of the United States deciding that it is his role to impose his will with regards to an American city's local affairs is a blatant violation of the principal of P1
C1: Conservatives should be against the actions described in P2
C2: Conservatives failure to reconcile the contradiction between P1 and P2 is hypocrisy
Your objection to this argument is to claim P2 is not a violation of P1 because the solution imposed by the state in question was "subject to federal approval". This argument fails because "subject to federal approval" is a legal technicality, not an assessment of whether an action aligns with a stated principal. The former is irrelevant to this thread, the latter is what this thread is actually about.
The courts will decide if this was proper procedure or not. Not you or me.
The purpose of discussing issues such as this in a debate forum is to provide and defend your opinion. If all you're going to do is appeal to legal authority then you have nothing to contribute to this thread, and as far as I am concerned only further demonstrate my point. I somehow suspect that if a democratic president decided to assert himself into a red state's local affairs in this way you would have very strong opinions about it, but on this you have nothing.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The central purpose of this thread is to argue that those who rely on bodily autonomy as an argument for legalizing abortion are inconsistent because they don't believe in bodily autonomy in other situations.Wrong. I narrowed it down to a specific group of people by listing the exclusions.
So you don't even know what your own thread is about.
You did not exclude anyone, you talked about who the argument applies to based on other beliefs they may hold. You said the only people being consistent here are libertarians and your two examples of people who typically rely on bodily autonomy to justify their stance on abortion were COVID (masks and vaccine mandates) and forceful taxation.
Your thread (at least at the outset) is exactly what I just described.
You are conflating something that is not bodily autonomy,I have the definition we are working with for this thread and if people who use the bodily autonomy argument and intend a different definition than they need to use a different definition.The expanded definition you gave above is not even a definition.
The "expanded definition" I provided came directly from your own source.
Again, you posted a definition but do not understand the definition of the words within it. This is like me posting a definition of a cat as a "four legged animal...", then saying this definition applies to a table, and when I'm corrected in that a table is not an animal I just keep repeating that I posted the definition as proof that I'm using it right.
So for the third or fourth time now, making decisions about one's own body does not mean deciding how that body can be used against other people. Consistent with the English language, the link that you provided explained very clearly that making decisions about ones body is in regards things that happen *to* their body and saying it should not happen unless consented to first. That's what pro choice advocates are talking about, so your mask and vaccine mandate examples are not comparable.
What exactly does bodily autonomy encompass? It’s the right to fully informed and consensual decision-making:Describing what it encompasses it's transitioning to a descriptive definition but a prescriptive definition was already given
They're explaining to you what their own definition means.
There's no greater tell that someone is engaging bad in bad faith conversation than the usage of someone else's words while completely disregarding what the person who used them actually meant. You pretend to be interested in understanding but clearly all you're after is a "gotcha".
You are essentially defining it in a way that removes strict lines and makes the definition fuzzy which all but makes the word meaningless.
I am applying it in a way that makes clear what the people who actually use this term, the people who's position you are sitting here criticizing, means.
And no, it is not meaningless. There is an obvious and significant difference between deciding whether your body can be used as an incubation chamber to create another human being, and being told you cannot enter into a store without wearing a mask. The fact that you have to play these absurd word games to try and conflate them is disingenuous at best.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
free transit would be a start. If you are so desperate to get people to take a train or subway, how about you make admissions to the subway free? How about you clean the subway system to ensure that people are safe while riding the subway.
And how do you propose cleaning the subway system upon many other fixes the system desperately needs after wiping away the billions of dollars the MTA takes in every year in fares?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
New York can do whatever it wants with its transportation as long as we aren’t paying for it. That’s my take.
You aren't paying for it. NY is one of the country's top donor states, and most of that comes from NYC. So NYC is actually subsiding you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It is unfortunate that you spent this much of your precious free time not addressing anything I said in the post you’re responding to.
Complete and total bullshit.
You downplayed my argument as mere hair splitting, so I responded with 2 sets of contrasting examples explaining the significance (the opposite of hair splitting) followed by reemphasizing how the same logic of those two examples applies to the example at hand.
8 paragraphs in response to your one sentence talking point rebuttal all for you to tell me I didn't respond to what you said. That's absurd.
Regarding improper procedure, I already addressed that in post 40 and 43.
No, you really didn't. Your response was to simply point to "subject to federal approval" as if that ends the conversation. It doesn't, because you're appealing to something you yourself don't believe.
The topic of this conversation isn't whether the government has the right to cancel the program, we're talking about whether it is right. So repeating over and over again that the program was subject to federal approval does nothing to address the topic of this thread.
If Biden had tweeted his approval over his DOT approving congestion tolls, that would mean what to you exactly?
Well, if he ended the tweet with "long live the king" I would have definitely taken issue with that.
Putting on my small government states rights hat, I would not have been the least bit concerned over the Biden administration approving the program because approval means allowing the state to carry out its own solution to its own problem. It's when you deny it that there is legitimate concern, depending on the reason why you denied it. For an extensive dive into why that is, see my last post.
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)Yet you are crying foul over this possibility and wondering why small government conservatives aren’t calling this out.
No. You didn't read the example. Note the bold.
Price gouging doesn’t qualify as an improper use of federally subsidized roads?
The toll into NY from Jersey and into Queens from the Bronx was up to $16 the last time I crossed them. The congesting pricing toll in lower Manhatten is $9. This is a terrible argument.
Also that's not even price gouging. Price gouging is when you inflate the cost of something as a means of exploiting people for profit. A state charging high tolls in a particular area to raise money for it's public transportation system is entirely different.
You conflate prosecutorial independence with a regulatory approval matter. It is simply laughable.
You are the one who asserted that the structural hierarchy of an agency reporting to a president means there is no difference between that agency making a decision and the president making that decision himself. So all I did was adopt that same logic to the justice department. If the logic holds then it doesn't make a difference whether we're talking about prosecutorial independence because according to your stated argument there is no such thing.
I’m trying to make sense out of your gripe here. It’s like pulling teeth getting you to state your argument in a clear and consistent manner
My gripe is that republicans are hypocrites. This example is a clear indication of that.
Not hard to understand.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
The words don't mean what I think despite the fact I literally looked up the definition to confirm I was in fact not crazy.
You read the definition, saw what you wanted, then made no real effort to check if what you saw was actually there.
If you had bothered to read your own source you would have noticed that they went on to explain clearly what they were talking about. Here's some of it:
"Bodily autonomy is essential for achieving justice and freedom; it is the freedom to choose if, when, and how to have children, and is a fundamental human right.
What exactly does bodily autonomy encompass? It’s the right to fully informed and consensual decision-making:
- Having full access to the information, options, and resources needed to make informed choices about reproductive healthcare, because we know that full consent to care cannot be given without having all the facts. This includes (but is not limited to!) options for contraception, abortion care, pregnancy care, childbirth options, childcare, emergency contraception, gender affirming care and fertility treatments.
- The ability to decide what happens *to* your body and when, including no physical contact without consent, no invasive medical procedures without consent, no interactions with armed agents of the state (like police!), and safe and empowered intra-communal interactions.
All of this aligns with exactly what I said. Making decisions about ones body means deciding what happens to your body, not what you get to use your body to do to someone else.
We are at a stand still because you failed to understand some points I made.
I don't think it's me who doesn't understand. Let's recap;
The central purpose of this thread is to argue that those who rely on bodily autonomy as an argument for legalizing abortion are inconsistent because they don't believe in bodily autonomy in other situations.
My point from the start is that what you are calling bodily autonomy in order to make this argument is wrong. You are conflating something that is not bodily autonomy, attributing it to bodily autonomy advocates, then using this false attribution to claim they believe in it on this issue but not others.
To put that more simply:
BA advocates believe in position X
You are falsely attributing to them position XY
Then you are claiming because they don't accept Y elsewhere, they are inconsistent.
Wrong. They never asserted Y, you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
This is merely hair splitting
The difference between a political decision and a procedural decision is not hair splitting. The basis of the decision is the very thing that often determines whether it is proper or not.
A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because they're the best suited for the job - Proper.
A manager decides to award a contract to Party A because their spouse owns the company so they can benefit personally - Corruption.
A federal judge rules against Party A because their position is found to be in violation of the constitution - Proper
A federal judge rules against Party A because he belongs to an advocacy group and thought this would be a great opportunity to advance his cause - Improper
This isn't hair splitting.
A president of the United States determines that a traffic program is an improper use of federally subsidized roads - Procedural and therefore Proper (setting aside why the hell would a president involve himself personally in this decision, especially after it has already been made and the program already took effect)
A president of the United States decides to cancel a city's traffic program because he decided the program was not best for the city even though the local officials who were elected to deal with these very problems determined otherwise - Political and therefore Improper (if you believe in states rights and small government)
This isn't hair splitting, and if it were Biden personally interfering in a red states affair's in this exact way you wouldn't need me to write a 20 paragraph thesis to get it.
based upon your apparent ignorance of the fact that the head of the DOT is a cabinet level position who serves “at the pleasure of” the POTUS.
If it were proven that Biden was in regular contact with Jack Smith and personally instructed him to file charges against Trump would you have any issue with that, or would you be lecturing all the right wingers on how the DOJ servers at the pleasure of the president?
Allow me to clarify which hair is which: when I say “your position” on this matter, I mean the position which you impute to small government conservatives— which is YOUR opinion regarding how conservatives should view the matter
If I am wrongly interpreting how conservatives have been appealing to states rights and small government all these years, the way to address that is to explain how conservatives view the matter and explain how these two things are different. You haven't even attempted to do that, all you've done is strawman my arguments and now claim I'm misrepresenting the right.
The whole point of creating this thread is to give those small government conservatives the floor to explain it. Still waiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It used to be you could simply say you were against fraud waste and abuse without submitting a resume with infinite references.
Waste fraud and abuse is a stupid phrase. Everyone is against that so by proclaiming yourself to be a champion of it you're strawmanning your position at the outset.
It's also stupid because waste is categorically different from fraud. Waste is any money spent on anything you disagree with. So when Elon Musk wipes out US AID he claims he got rid of waste fraud and abuse, because he thinks it's a waste to pay for foreign aid. That's a debate worth having, but conflating the alignment of government spending with your values and getting rid of fraud is disingenuous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Ok. So, because Biden had already approved the toll program, Trump should not be getting involved. Is that your position?
No.
First of all, we have agencies that handle that. You know, as in people who do this for a living and therefore understand what's actually involved in these decisions. There is no reason whatsoever that the President of the United States would be personally involved in any of this, and there is no evidence Biden had anything to do with it.
So no, "Biden" didn't approve anything.
My position is; the fact that the federal agency that handles this approved it gives us good reason to believe the program met the criteria that would have otherwise caused it to be denied.
If that's the case, then Trump's personal involvement is clearly best explained as political.
If it's political, then that is a blatant contradiction to the "states rights" and "small government" principals republicans have been claiming to champion and using to attack democrats over for decades.
If his involvement was not political that would have been fine, but we have absolutely no reason to believe that and every reason to believe it was in fact political.
You are actually going so far as to argue that if your ideological opponents do not fall into line with your position, they must have a flaw in their character.
No. No. No.
What I'm arguing is that my ideological opponents do not fall in line with their own stated position. That's what hypocrisy means, and I've repeated that point over and over and over again in this conversation.
You did get the last part right though. A hypocrite is someone who does have a flaw in their character, that's why the word carriers weight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The Trump Administration is actually required to be involved in the NYC toll program approval process.
This is false. The federal government (as in the entity) needed (past tense) to be involved in the approval process. It was, and it past the test that was required. That's done, we're beyond that.
If you already know the above to be the case, then I really don’t know what point you are trying to make.
I don't think you are trying to understand it, it is really really simple.
You believe in small government and states rights correct? If not, this thread doesn't apply to you.
If you believe in these principals, then a president of the United States stepping in and deciding that he knows better than an American city what is best for their traffic problems is an issue for you.
That's it, that's all.
What you are doing though is excusing this by making false arguments.
The federal approval process was granted already, that shows that Trump's position is based entirely on politics. The very thing small government states rights conservatives are trying to keep it of the picture.
In fact, the very fact that Trump involved himself personally already tells us this is political. Do you seriously think an NYC traffic program rises to the level of concern that it calls for the president's personal involvement? Of course not.
And if all of that wasn't convincing enough, Trump made it clear by telling us why he did it.
You cannot argue this wasn't political. Therefore if you believe in keeping the federal government out of a state's business, you would take issue with it. You wouldn't be excusing it. That's called hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I literally gave you a chance at logic and you failed
Says someone who has demonstrated over and over again that they do not understand how logic works. Most recent example; favoring an argument from ignorance fallacy over Occam's razor.
If you think me saying that new York has rats and people are in a rush in New York is an insult than maybe the problem is with you.
I didn't say anything about being insulted. I specifically pointed to the fact that you turned the whole conversation to me personally. Insulting or not, that's still an ad hominem. For someone who claims to care about logic, that should mean something. If you have no arguments left just admit that or move on. I couldn't care less what you think about NYC.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I just know dude is failing to logic and thinks he has an IQ of 135 based on online tests. What makes the claim even more dubious is that he is Puerto Rican and has also willingly decided to live in New York. No gun to his head he just like rats running across his feet, dealing with impatient assholes and working 2 jobs to afford an apartment in the ghetto. There's literally roads out of the city and he is like "nope going to continue to live in a blue area because I bet red areas are worse than this"
lol
You triggered bro? You should speak to someone about that. Sincerely. You really need to find out why you can't have a discussion with people you disagree with without turning to them personally. Especially when you don't even know anything about them.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even a person of slightly above average IQ knows 2016 Trump was objectively way worse for the country than 2025 Trump.
So you don't even know what objective means. Noted.
Created:
-->
@Sunshineboy217
He might as well sign an executive order disbanding Congress and deeming all further presidential elections null and void.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Wow— that’s a lot of words you’re saying to still not be addressing this:Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.
You have to be trolling, I don't see how this is serious.
I addressed it in about 5 different ways. This has nothing to do with the point of the thread and I just finished explaining why. I then moved on to explaining what the thread is actually about and why this example supports my point.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what point you think you just made? Oh, no of course not. Why explain when you can just pretend you made a point and move on.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
You were confused by a common philosophical thought experiment.
I wasn't confused by the thought experiment genius. I was confused by your attempt to apply it to the bodily autonomy argument. That's what the word "here" means. Read my one sentence again. Note how the English language works.
And again, it wasn't even confusion, it was an opportunity to show that you do in fact know how to read, presented by me pretending I'm the one who doesn't understand rather than assuming you are yet again, strawmanning people who use this argument even though you were just explained in detail why your premise is wrong. That's how's an open mind works, not that you would know anything about that.
I got it from a pro choice choice advocacy group
And you are interpreting it terribly wrong, as I've already explained. You're response; 'nuh uh!'
You also seem to fail at understanding basic Aristotelian logic.You actually seem incapable of examining the form of an argument and keep resorting to trying to defend a specific conclusion which is irrelevant to the process.
And yet you couldn't provide a single example or explain how you arrived at this conclusion. Instead you just leave it out there as a declaration of my inferiority for which you do not need to justify.
*Yawn*
There is certain distortions and biases that do not appear once you meet a certain IQ threshold though, which is why if you see them you can gauge the natural limits of a person's reasoning ability.
My god dude.
IQ has absolutely nothing to do with bias. At all. Please stop lecturing me and everyone else about things you clearly know nothing about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
Even if the DOT approved, that would still constitute federal involvement in the matter. What you don’t seem to realize is that the federal government’s involvement is actually REQUIRED— that is what “subject to federal approval” means.You just see it as “wrong” because the federal government’s requisite involvement isn’t going the way you wish.
I've explained my position on this in pretty fine detail, you seem to have forgotten the entire conversation.
Again, I'm not arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to do this.
Again, I have taken no position on whether I am in favor of NYC congestion pricing.
Again, this thread has nothing to do with any objections I have to the program, this thread is entirely about right wing hypocrisy concerning so called states rights and small government principals.
Again, the reason the federal government has a say in this is because some of the roads included in NYC's program received federal subsidies, so their role here was about ensuring states were not abusing those subsidies. They reviewed the program and they approved.
If Trump had come out and say that the program is an abuse of federal funds, then, even though we both know that would be complete bullshit cause Trump couldn't care less about that, at least then you'd have some kind of argument. But you don't because Trump was explicit:
"CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED"
That is Trump's declaration. So what we have here is a president of the United States deciding that it was his role, not local elected leaders, to step in and decide what was best for their city's traffic issues.
This is the epitome of everything you guys claim to be against.
And yet here people like you are, continuing to make excuses. This is why I do not take the political right seriously.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Give Trump time. He might still end those subsidies to New York after DOGE audits the MTA and finds out where all the money went. Then Hochul can do whatever she wants.
Funny how MAGA cultists revere in delight over the prospect of Trump removing all federal subsidies from blue states. It's almost like they have no principals at all and all this argumentation is just a game aimed at retaining power since their ideas are unpopular and self defeating.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
So... Might makes right?Dramatic much?
No, logic much. It's a tired rhetorical response that Trump defenders turn to all the time; rather than stick to the topic of what *is* right they change the argument to "he *has* the right...". No one here said he didn't, the point of the thread was about how this is a blatant violation of long stated right wing principals, so I find it amusing how right wingers continue to defend it rather than just admit they think it's wrong and have to play all these games instead.
So, not a big deal, but big enough to trigger melodrama and binary thinking.
It has nothing to do with size. "Unjustly killing another person is wrong" is either consistent with your moral principals or it's not. It doesn't become "more consistent" when applied to genocide vs one sick old person.
The scale of a wrong can only be determined after you figure out what the wrong is.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
No offense but that is really sad. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of maybe having some sort of mental block, but it appears you IQ is definitely below 120.
lol
Yep the usual I can expect from you, once you've ran out of substantive arguments you turn to attacking the person you're talking to because you can't handle the reality that you've been cornered.
The reason you lost me is because I had just finished explaining how the definition was both wrong and irrelevant as it is nothing more than a strawman, and you continued by arguing without adjusting anything. Rather than assume you are that dense or dishonest, I provided an opportunity for you to clarify. You talked about IQ scores instead, as if that's the only marker of intelligence.
But since you are so obsessed with this, my IQ is 135. I've gotten that exact score twice, the last time it gave me a categorical breakdown. I was in the 98th percentile in I believe two categories, the 99th percentile in every other category except one. My computational speed was ranked in the 33rd percentile, so that dragged my score down considerably.
That matches to my lived experience, I am normally slow to understand at first and then catch on after that. Within weeks or months of every new job I get I end up being the one everyone else goes to for understanding. That's because I can't make sense out of it unless I understand completely, I never accept anything at face value.
This is why your criticisms of me are so stupid. Not only because they contradict everything everyone who knows me knows about me, but they contradict everything I've demonstrated over and over again on this site. You can criticize me for a number of things, just believing whatever I'm told with no deeper understanding is not one of them. I'm not the one who quits conversations once my one or two talking points has been exhausted.
Your projection is staggering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Maybe stop taking federal money and then you can pay for your own roads.
Maybe stop saying stupid things like this
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
It is “subject to federal approval.” Therefor, the federal government can also disapprove without it constituting overreach.
So... Might makes right?
If it is hypocrisy as you claim, I don’t think this is a (mole)hill that limited government conservatives wish to die on. Trump is pursuing smaller government in just about every other respect for this to register.
The point is not that this is a big deal nationally, it's just as obvious to a violation of stated right wing principals as it gets. If you was a right winger see nothing wrong with this, that's fine. I am just not interested in hearing you argue states rights ever.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
If they refuse to provide reasoning than it's fair to assume the worst.
Again, this is literally an argument from ignorance fallacy.
The most basic principal of applying logic to explain something is that you go with the explanation that requires the fewest amount of assumptions. What you don't do is concoct an excuse that allows you to make the biggest assumption possible.
If you can't tell what's wrong with this your brain is broken.
We know that the manner in which they stopped the prosecution leaves the door open to bring them back up later if Adams doesn't comply. And we know that Adams struck some sort of deal with the administration as Tom Homan made clear publicly.That's not really evidence of his guilt.
I didn't say it was. What it does is provide us insight into what they're doing and why. This is something any rational person would consider before leaping to accusing the prosecutors of some grand conspiracy from which Trump is saving him from.
What you're engaging in is confirmation bias on steroids.
The J6ers locked up, the 75% who didn't commit police brutality ut literally in for trespassing charges at worst
Because they were trespassing
Jesus Christ man, who could have foreseeable that weaponizing the justice system would cause it to be weaponized against you?Honestly don't weaponize the justice system.
We didn't genius. Trump was prosecuted because he committed obvious and serious crimes. That's called the rule of law. That's how it works. Only in MAGAville is it weaponization to prosecute someone for committing crimes.
Let me guess, Brazil also weaponized their justice system by going after Jair Bulsonaro right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
The reason the federal government has a say in this is to ensure states are not abusing the subsidies they were given. That's where the approval process came in, and it passed that test. Trump then came in and decided that he knew what was better for New Yorkers than New Yorkers, and it appears all of the small government conservatives agreed.
We know this is what it was about for Trump because he was explicit in giving his reasons for terminating the program. It had nothing to do with ensuring proper use of federal funds, it was a naked and explicit power grab. And that's before he added in his little "long live the king" line. And let's be serious, you know damn well Trump didn't know or care anything about what the subsidies were for or what determinations were made during the approval process. He was told he could do it, so he did. Because that's the kind of person he is.
How every purported "get the government out of our business" right winger is not outraged about this is beyond me.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Yes it does violate bodily autonomy to ban stabbings
That is cartoonishly ridiculous.
All you're doing here is redefining a term to render it totally and completely meaningless, then using its meaninglessness as an argument against the position you disagree with. It is an egregiously dishonest tactic.
Going back to the actual definition, making decisions "about ones body" does not = deciding that someone cannot use their body to pick up a knife. That's just basic English, there's no point in debating that further. And even if there were it still wouldn't matter because you're criticizing the position of other people. If you're going to do that honestly then you need to use their definitions, not yours. That's how communication works.
To show an inconsistency you need to show how two similar examples are treated differently. If they're not simmilar to each other (as in they're not alike) then comparing them accomplishes nothing.What? no LOL.
Yeah you're just not speaking English. Google the definition of inconsistency, then do the same for similar and alike.
It's the same thing with solely using the bodily autonomy argument. If you find an example no matter how extreme of bodily autonomy being something they think is bad, such as thinking it's unethical to stop a stabbing, than they have to if they are arguing in good faith change their argument, even if their new argument supports the same position.
You lost me here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's not hypocrisy if he is in touch with the working class poor.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
P1 is false. Prosecutors have no obligation to provide evidence to the public until the trial. This is just one big argument from ignorance.They have done so in other high profile crimes though. Just from a cost benefit analysis, why would they hold back evidence?Shouldn't the public be able to trust the process and shouldn't there be transparency in government?
You've made my point. You're offering this as a premise towards a conclusion, but it's based on nothing more than a lack of knowledge as to why they would have proceeded in this fashion. That's by definition, an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying "I can't explain their actions, therefore I can explain their actions".
We want to keep public trust high.
lol right. That's why you guys spent 4 years claiming the justice department was weaponized by Biden despite having no evidence what so ever. That's why Trump picked a guy to lead the FBI who literally published an enemies list and publicly stated he will use the justice department to go after Trump's enemies.
You guys don't give a damn about public trust.
How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.Oh because they lack transparency.
That isn't an answer. Lacking transparency is itself a problem broadly speaking, but for that to apply the party in question would need to have some obligation to be transparent with you. They don't. The only obligation federal prosecutors have to be transparent is to the court and the defendant.
Second and far more importantly, you're ignoring everything else we know about this case. Again... The prosecutors who all resigned in protest over this went into detail laying out the overtly political nature of this request. Do you think they are all lying? And if so, to what end? Why would they throw away their career with the most coveted prosecutorial office in the country?
Meanwhile, we know exactly why the Trump administration would do this. We know Trump rewards those who curry favor with him. We know Trump is set on enforcing his mass deportations and needs the help of big city mayors to accomplish his goals. We know that the manner in which they stopped the prosecution leaves the door open to bring them back up later if Adams doesn't comply. And we know that Adams struck some sort of deal with the administration as Tom Homan made clear publicly.
No serious person would disregard all of that in favor of some contrived notion of transparency. Occam's razor makes this very clear, the only way to conclude otherwise is to ignore it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
Well we know the following syllogism is trueP1 prosecutors show evidence to the public of a crime when they are confident it is truep2- we have seen zero evidence of Mayor Adams guilt (suspiciously)C1- Mayor Adams is innocent
P1 is false. Prosecutors have no obligation to provide evidence to the public until the trial. This is just one big argument from ignorance.
I think from the standpoint of any reasonable person not entrenched in politics, we know that prosecutors do not like to bring charges unless they believe they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, so the idea that they would being charges without *any* evidence is pretty damn weak. We also know that numerous prosecutors, including some pretty hardcore right wing prosecutors resigned in protest over this so it is again, inconceivable that they did so over having no evidence.
We also know that the Trump administration is refusing to dismiss the case entirely so they could always bring it up later, as in, if Adams does not comply with Trump's immigration initiatives. So the motive for all of this is clear.
How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.
Created: