HassleCat
HassleCat's JournalSo long and thanks for all the fish
Somehow I posted this in the Welcome & Help.
Time to go. It's been fun, but I don't belong here. I posted something objecting to a drone strike against a terrorist, and I got an incredibly bloodthirsty reaction. Of course my post was hidden within minutes. I find it truly disturbing that so many people on DU could so easily subscribe to the notion we are entitled to designate human beings as Bad Guys and execute them without due process. I'm sure not all DU people agree with that, nor the drone wars conducted to facilitate it, but I am shocked (yes actually shocked) that so many people enthusiastically subscribe, unquestioningly and unconditionally, to the drone wars. I am also shocked that so many people are so eager to hide posts with which they disagree. Thank you. Take care. Try to show some respect for each other. Vote Democratic
So long and thanks for all the fish
Time to go. It's been fun, but I don't belong here. I posted something objecting to a drone strike against a terrorist, and I got an incredibly bloodthirsty reaction. Of course the post was hidden within minutes. I find it truly disturbing that so many people on DU could so easily subscribe to the notion we are entitled to designate human beings as Bad Guys and execute them without due process. I'm sure not all DU people agree with that, nor the drone wars conducted to facilitate it, but I am shocked (yes actually shocked) that so many people enthusiastically subscribe, unquestioningly and unconditionally, to the drone wars. I am also shocked that so many people are so eager to hide posts with which they disagree. Thank you. Take care. Try to show some respect for each other. Vote Democratic.
Is this a good idea?
I'm reading the Seattle Times, and they have an article by Denise Grady of the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/13/health/uterus-transplants-may-soon-help-some-infertile-women-in-the-us-become-pregnant.html?_r=0
It explains how uterus transplants will begin. The will take the uterus of a recently deceased woman, and put it into a woman who doesn't have a uterus. It is described as very risky, since the developing fetus will be exposed to the anti-rejection drugs the mother must take. It must be enormously expensive, although I don't see any mention of that, ad it doesn't say anything about insurance coverage. Some medical ethics guy from John Hopkins say it's OK, and they're already doing them in Sweden.
I have one question. Is this a symptom, or a cause, of our broken medical system? Many low income women cannot get adequate prenatal care, but we devote enormous resources to making sure women with money can have children. Is it simply a question of making money? It's kind of like the old, "If we can send a man to the moon..." If we can transplant a uterus, we can ensure adequate prenatal and pediatric care for low income families. Or maybe we can't. I don't know.
What is a Real Democrat?
Here on DU, we have a broad cross section, I'm guessing. I noticed two posts that caused me to wonder about the diversity of opinion among Democrats, and whether there are certain issues on which one must hold a particular view to be a Democrat, some kind of line one must not cross.
One post seemed to exhibit a very bloodthirsty attitude about capital punishment. It expressed joy that one person was executed, and included the fervent desire to see another person executed. I know Democrats who support capital punishment, but with many reservations. Personally, I think Real Democrats oppose capital punishment under all circumstances, but I guess the line is drawn differently for others. Where is the line on this issue? Are there any of you who think we should execute more criminals? If so, why? And how does this square with calling yourself a Democrat?
The other post I noticed proposed it was a good idea for the Indian government to expel Greenpeace because opposition to development is a bad idea, and development is a good thing in poor countries. It has always been my impression that Democrats opposed headlong development because it (1) exploits the poor, (2) promotes oligarchy, (3) causes environmental damage, (4) leads to slums, disease outbreaks, sanitation problems, etc. What say you, DUers? Can I still call myself a Democrat if I advocate unfettered development in poor, overcrowded nations? Where is the line on this issue?
On edit: The reason I ask is because every Democratic candidate says something like, "I stand for the values, principles and policies that have defined our party..." and then they usually go on to mention some examples. What are those values, principles and policies? The Republicans seem more ideologically pure. They kick you out if you show even the tiniest shred of humanity. But we seem receptive to just about anything., as a couple responses have indicated.
How do the candidates feel about charter schools?
I oppose them, and feel they should be eliminated, or at least denied federal money. Do the candidates support or oppose charter schools? Here's a link to a post indicating how Clinton feels about them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110725871
Sanders should give up, say Clinton supporters
Here is a post from (name deleted) on the Clinton board. http://www.democraticunderground.com/110725254
------
"bernie sanders has to realize by now he is creating a Republican Campaign Commercial
..if he strikes too hard against Clinton" as to the investigation. "He's walking a fine line in trying to draw a contrast to Clinton, but he has to do something to get his numbers up".
NPR just now, speaking with MSNBC Kate Snow
Personally I believe we are witnessing the last gasp of a dying political campaign. He has no chance of winning more than one Primary State, at best & on a really good day.
Bets are that he goes home after Feb 8, 2016.
------
Does he have a point? One fault they share with us is that they leap to the conclusion everything said about their candidate is an attack. In both cases, these attacks are seen as useless because Clinton has already won. We say she should just relax and not say anything bad about Bernie because she believes she has it in the bag. They say the same thing, but add we're just giving the Republicans more ammo to fire at Hillary in a futile attempt to convince people they should support Bernie over Hillary.
Well, we're both wrong. We have primaries so political candidates can criticize each other and persuade voters to support them, not their opponents. As long as Clinton and Sanders keep it fair and factual, they should point out each other's shortcomings. Clinton should ask Sanders why he supported indemnifying gun makers from certain lawsuits. Sanders should ask Clinton why she favors capital punishment. And so on.
In regard to this specific issue, the OP reflects the hyper-sensitivity of supporters, theirs and ours. Sanders said the investigation into Clinton's emails should continue, and that is correct. He was speaking of the FBI investigation, not the Gowdy Circus, which he already called out in a very public way. So it's not an attack. Everybody should just relax and accept the primary campaign for what it is. Politics.
On edit: I deleted the name of the OP author because it might be considered a "call out." It certainly is not, and I have no attention in "calling out" anyone, ever. I assumed I should give credit to the person who wrote the OP, but others advised me it does not work that way. Thank you. I get it.
A question just for fun
Here on DU, we have supporters of the various Democratic residential candidates. Some of them are really effusive in their praise of a chosen candidate, and some are unintentionally funny when they say stuff that amounts to, "My candidate is the most wonderful human to ever walk the earth, and I have proof!" Sometimes they stand logic on its head, which is only funny if you understand logic. So I am wondering if anyone has noticed any particular gems. If you have examples, please submit. I do ask one favor, since this is just for fun. Please omit the candidate name and any reference to gender. "I support ... for president because (he or she) once made a life size statue of Grover Cleveland from belly button lint." You get the idea.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Mar 17, 2015, 12:56 PMNumber of posts: 6,409
