Republicans are not excluding r@pe from their ban, so your support is moot.

Timing and partner reasons are mostly financial too. That's where the 75% comes from.

That mostly of them COULD be prevented is probably true. That's not reality though. Women get pregnant unintentionally, and the reason can be an argument for who pays for it, but not for it being illegal.
Do you think having children should be punishment, for being stupid?

I sort of agree that careless people need to pay for their own abortion,
but look at it this way: the people who cannot pay for it are in the worst position to take care of a child.

Why do you want all those unwanted children, being raised by stupid people,
in desperate financial need? Don't you think your country has enough losers?

You are complaining about your drugs problem, but that is not a supply problem, that is a demand problem. And your idea of putting more losers on this earth
is creating the demand.

Interesting. Stress, anxiety and depression are at least very unhealthy.

I know that Jehovahs can enter your property, without it being trespassing,
that was the whole argument. I'm explaining the slippery slope argument to you, because you didn't understand it the first time, and it's going right over your head again.

I am arguing against pharts argument "where do you draw the line?",
saying "oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125, abort abort abort!"
The "line" that we draw is the law. The same law that defines the limit between Jehovahs entering your property and trespassing, which you specified.

So, there could be al law that keeps abortion legal, but excludes the reason that it's IQ would be lower than 125, or whatever other nonsense phart makes up.
We we talking about abortion for a fetus that develops without a brain, like the woman from the article that phart shared. Do you you have an opinion on that?

Do you think that every fetus with abnormalities or genetic diseases should be born, even if they are sure to live like a vegetable or will likely die immediately after birth? That's what Republicans are enforcing now, so your primitive thinking about who funds it, is a bit unsatisfactory for all those women who must deliver a baby that has no chance at a normal life, and the parents who have to care for it, the rest of it's life (if it dies young) or the rest of their life (if it doesn't die young).

We are talking about abortion being legal or not, not if it is funded with tax-dollars.
It was YOU who said that elective procedures shouldn't be funded by tax-dollars. That includes joint replacement and other serious medical procedures.

But, since we are talking about money. Do you understand the energy, time and MONEY that a severely disabled child costs? With your broken healthcare system, a child like that is unaffordable. If parents cannot meet that burden, is your government stepping in? Are you OK with your tax-dollars funding all those severely disabled people, because Republicans took away the CHOICE to abort them?

Is it a false equivalence to compare abortion with joint replacement and other serious medical procedures? It fucking well isn't, when Republicans are excluding abortions for DEAD fetuses. The total abortion ban has already caused 59 deaths of women with abnormal or death fetuses, and the ACPM estimates potentially 210 additional maternal deaths per year in certain states as a result of abortion bans. That makes abortion more important than a joint replacement, in a lot of cases. How can one function, when they are DEAD?

No, pregnancy is not 100% preventable. Many girls and women get r@ped. Republicans in some red states are already banning abortion for r@pe victims.
Do you think every fertile female should be on anti-conception, in case they get r@ped? Also, anti-conception is not 100% effective. The end result is that many women get pregnant unintentionally, without any fault of their own.

Let's throw insulin into that mess. Who is grasping at totally unrelated medical ... , here? (it's not even a procedure)
I think it should be either 100% covered by insurance or funded by taxes.
With your attitude, I expect you don't.

Again, no one was talking about who pays for abortions, until YOU did. We were talking about abortions being allowed by law, or not. Most abortions can be performed with some pills. I am fine with people paying for them out of pocket.

In 75% of the cases, abortions in the US are performed because the woman
is not financially secure enough to take care of it. So, if you don't like abortions,
maybe start thinking about solving that. Even giving birth itself sets people back on average $2,743. Do you think giving birth is an elective procedure?

And even if some women are getting pregnant due to their own stupidity, do you think that those dumb-asses should be parents? How about having people wait with parenting, until they have some idea that they are up to the responsibility?
Why do people like you always support ideas that fuck up your country?
It's very clear that you don't have an IQ limit for abortions. DAMN!

What Trump wants to do, is replace Maduro with some friend,
who takes your bribes and sells out his people, by selling off
the rights to the oil to some American oil company.
The Venezuelan people will get nothing, because
the American oil company and it's shareholders will
take everything. That's what your country always does,
when it goes into some country, 'to fix the place'.

The drugs story is just an excuse to take take their oil.

Remember how Trump said "I would have taken the oil" about Iraq?
The US had no fucking reason to attack Iraq, but Trump wanted
to take their oil, to pay for your war against an innocent country.
That speaks a lot about his morality and his intent with Venezuela.

The US doesn't want to fix the place, but to rob it blind.

Thanks, and back at you.

Being pure materialist would be shutting your brain for anything miraculous.
I've had personal experiences that felt like making brain contact. In my head, I said something to another person, and they reacted to it. I'm very sure that I was completely silent. It just happened only 2 times in my life, both women. That makes it very likely just a coincidence. Still, I'm not just dismissing it as evidence, it's just very weak evidence.
I would need much more, to be convinced.

And that's my attitude towards everything, from the purely materialistic up to the fully spiritual and religious. My confidence in an idea is entirely dependent on the confirmation of the idea. I can switch my idea of something on a dime, if you provide me stronger evidence for the alternative, than I have for my original idea. A few years back, I switched my idea on the 'big bang'. The idea I held was that the whole universe was once concentrated in a point, smaller than an atom and almost infinitely dense.
Then someone told me that there is good evidence that the universe is infinite. Something finite cannot grow into something infinite, unless it grows/grew at infinite speed. We observe the universe growing at a finite speed, so it has been infinite all along. Everything we can see still was concentrated in a much denser state, but just
not in one tiny point, but everywhere.

In no way do I think that I understand everything. It's not needed to have opinions.
I have opinions on what I understand and have justification for, and if I don't have justification, I don't have opinions on the matter.
Having an opinion on something, because of a lack of knowledge or understanding,
is called 'the god of the gaps argument'. Unless science finds some evidence for
non-material concepts, it means those concepts are an ever receding pocket
of scientific ignorance.
(Borrowed from Neil deGrasse Tyson, who borrowed it from someone else)

It's the damn union that should make sure their compensation is fair, without them needing a $10K bonus.
If their job IS providing safety, then when are they 'going beyond the call of duty'?

Here is an assessment of ChatGPT:

Overall Assessment

Yes, there is strong evidence that many TSA agents are serious about safety and do their job diligently. The high rate of firearm detection, combined with TSA’s public statements about security priorities, supports that view.

But no, the picture is not totally unblemished:
- There are genuine risks in how TSA handles internal misconduct (per the OIG report).
- There are serious policy and legal concerns around discrimination (e.g., transgender screening).
- There are tensions between security and operational efficiency.
- Labor unrest could erode performance or morale going forward.

That last sentence leads me to believe that they might deserve a raise, instead of a one time bonus. A bonus can be a good temporary motivation, but it doesn't attract new personnel. If they deserve $10K, better raise their wage by $5K-$8K and add a bonus program for achieving goals of $2K-$5K.

It seems like he didn't.

He should have known to not be friends with people who challenge you to do stupid things.
They just want to have a laugh at your expense.

This one was hard work from about 29 minutes in.
I had to listen to it several times, to get some idea what he was talking about.

Although these ideas about perception of time and progress are interesting to know
some basics about, I think it's mostly useful to understand perception of reality, but not
to understand reality itself. I don't agree with his 'Absolute Idealism', I'm very much a 'Materialist'. I think reality is doing perfectly fine, if there are no conscious creatures perceiving it. I agree that there are interactions between events that have non-linear effects, but that doesn't mean that time is non-linear. I'm sure that Hegel was smarter than me, but intelligence can also result in them perceiving patterns that only live in their minds. He also lived in a time, when science hadn't yet demolished many metaphysical delusions.

[For people who think this term 'Idealism' means the belief in and pursuit of high or noble principles, goals, and values, and 'Materialist' describes a preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, wealth, and physical comfort, with a corresponding lack of interest in spiritual, intellectual, or ethical values; NO, the philosophical terms have completely different meanings, than how these terms are commonly known and used.]

only registered users can see external links

Colombia’s role is much larger, especially in production, while Venezuela
plays a more limited but still significant transit (and potentially processing) role.

The US just wants to end the Maduro government, because he nationalized, restricted and weaponized the oil exports to your country, because the US was extorting them. The US doesn't want their oil at a 'reasonable price', but very cheap. In response, of Maduro nationalizing THEIR oil, the US tried to force regime change for your buddy Juan Guaidу. To push Venezuela on their knees, the US sanctioned their oil. Because that doesn't work like you hoped, Trump has made up this lie,
that Venezuela is somehow the worst offender when it comes to drugs cartels
in South America.

It's a repeat of the US attacking Iraq, in relation to 9/11.
Why waste a reason to attack who you want to attack, even if it's false.
It's easy to sell a lie to Americans, because they don't inform themselves.
Then there are people like you, who want to believe Trump's lies and ignore him
when he runs his mouth, and tells you his real intentions.

That's you understanding the exact reason for why Trump is making up these lies.
How about your principle of not taking what doesn't belong to you?

Why are Americans stupid enough to take poison?
I can get that poison easily, but I don't.
What about people's personal responsibility?

By the way, it's nonsense, because those boats don't even have the range to reach you.
They are are being targeted thousands of miles away from the U.S. mainland.

"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."
Read again what you wrote, because your either intending to say:
"Categorizing unprotected harmful speech as part of “free speech” opens the door to people's rights being violated."
or "Categorizing “free speech” as part of “harmful speech” opens the door to the censorship of opinions.."

I know what you mean, and I agree. That is not the limits of freedom of speech
that I'm talking about.

"There is no need to limit protected speech, no matter how offensive or how much it bothers you, as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others."

"There is no need to limit protected speech" Exactly!
Why are you arguing against something that I'm NOT saying?

"as long as it does not threaten harm or violate the rights of others." Exactly!
You are agreeing with my exact position on the matter.

I am definitely NOT denying that cancellation exists.
And indeed (attempted) homicide is the most extreme version of cancellation.

According to your first amendment, the law is responsible for protecting free speech,
but ALSO to protect people when their rights WERE violated by the speech of someone else, primarily through civil lawsuits for specific types of "unprotected" speech, such as defamation, harassment, or true threats.

The law in my country is very much similar, and I fully support it.

When Trump is using his FCC Chairman, Brendan Carr, to put pressure on ABC and
its parent company, Disney, to take action against Jimmy Kimmel, which led to the temporary suspension of Kimmel's show in September 2025, for speech that DIDN'T threaten, harm or violate the rights of anyone, that was clear censorship and a clear violation of the First Amendment.

If Jimmy Kimmel was doing defamation, then the victim has a right to start a civil lawsuit against him. However, the president is not just a private citizen. Government officials are protected against defamation, but they face a much higher standard of proof, compared to private individuals when they sue someone for speech related to their official conduct.
Trump would have clearly lost a civil lawsuit against Jimmy Kimmel, so he decided to cancel him, using his FCC Chairman. Trump has admitted this and shows clear intent
of doing more like it to lots of others.

There is someone holding an "Abolish ICE" sign.
They are probably also anti-fascism, but is that a reason to call them 'Antifa'?

There is no organization called 'Antifa'. There are many people protesting against fascism.
At some point in history, millions of people died fighting against fascism.
Your whole country was against anti-fascism once. What happened to you?

True, but I said "If murder is illegal", not "If homicide is illegal".
That was exactly in line with my meaning.

It's a slippery slope argument. Here is an example:
"If trespassing is illegal, then why are Jehovah's Witnesses not arrested?"
Reverse logic: "If listening to music is legal, then why can’t people
blast it at airplane-engine volume in the middle of the night?"

Why don't you want your tax dollars to fund elective medical procedures?
The only difference between emergency care and elective medical procedures
is that an emergency is needed to prevent the patient from dying right-now,
while elective medical procedures can be scheduled in advance, because
the life of the patient is not in immediate danger.

The next examples are all elective medical procedures:
- Hip replacements
- Knee replacement or reconstruction surgery
- Most hernia repairs
- Cataract surgery
- Gallbladder removal (when not emergent)
- Heart bypass surgery (when not done during an active crisis)

What makes it better for you, to fund these medical procedures through
for-profit insurance, instead of tax-dollars? Do you think that you will never
need an elective medical procedure?

You don't have to be a socialist, to not believe Trump's lies.

You can be to the right of fucking Dzjengis Khan,
and still know that Trump is a filthy pe.do.
You wouldn't care, but you would still know.

Oh damn, I just described you.

Just ask ChatGPT: "Why can a domesticated cow not survive in the wild,
but a domesticated pig can?"

Cows are bred to give huge amounts of milk. No calf can ever drink that much.
A high-producing dairy cow would die within a few days to a week, if not milked.
Pigs are bred for meat, not milk. We only bred them to have large litters and grow fast. They can eat almost anything, so they are pretty successful in nature. Feral populations will actually establish fast, and can develop into an invasive species.
It's actually nature/evolution that is limiting the reproduction rate of e.g. wild boars, because an invasive species would kill nature, which would then kill itself.

You could say that we created cows to be losers and pigs to be winners.
However, too many winners will collapse the ecosystem.
(which is very much what humanity is doing too)

What we don't see is the contrast in color between the clothes of the woman
and the street, because the video blurs her. Either the cop is blind as a bat,
or she was hard to see.

It looks to me like a failure from everyone involved.
Reportedly people urged her to not keep laying there.
If she didn't want to or couldn't get up, at least
stand in front of her, so she doesn't get run over.
Or put your own car in the way, to keep her safe.

The presenter is at least correct to say that this should be investigated.
Police has the tendency to never take responsibility. That should be changed.

They might have given it a sedative.

They were accountable long before your side started attacking them.
Even if the claim itself is true, and lots of them were not,
it's still only a tiny fraction of the money.

The investigation reportedly lasted 11 months and involved the United States Secret Service, the Ohio Investigative Unit (which enforces SNAP fraud laws in Ohio),
and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food & Nutrition Service.
That's looking with a microscope, and they only found $100k that they can point to
as fraud. Congratulations on wasting this huge effort on peanuts, while every single billionaire is scamming the taxpayer consistently for billions.

A judge found Trump and his companies liable in a years-long scheme of inflating
asset values (for banks/insurance) and ordered a penalty of $355 million.
A review by House Judiciary Committee Democrats found that Trump’s pardons,
by canceling restitution payments owed to victims, could cost victims and ultimately taxpayers about $1.3 billion.

You couldn't care less. You only care if some poor people might have received
a couple of dollars too much.

Or it shows that they are running so low on supplies,
that they are using soup cans for munition.
You can take whatever you want from it.
That's why anecdotes like this are useless to understand the complete picture.

Russia Might Soon Run Out of Money for the Ukraine War
only registered users can see external links

Russia to Sell Debut Yuan Bonds as War-Driven Deficit Widens
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links

It's a dirty job, but I love them for caring.

The effect of AI in the US is now measurable.
This video shows a gap between rising profits and declining employment:
only registered users can see external links

True, if you are able to learn how to use AI, it CAN be an opportunity.
Are the people who are losing their jobs able to learn how to use AI?
An economy needs working people, to pay for products, that the economy produces.
If the least intelligent half of the people don't have jobs anymore,
how are the more intelligent half of the people going to care for them?

Even though this might be educational, it's too political for me to comment on here.

There are many projects like that, being organized all over the world.
There are several regreening organizations at work.
They make their money from donations and views on YouTube.
Here are some that I know and watch:

Planet Wild: only registered users can see external links
Mossy Earth: only registered users can see external links
Leaf of Life: only registered users can see external links
Justdiggit: only registered users can see external links

Their videos are great. They give me some hope, with every video.
I'm thinking about donating to one of them, I just haven't decided which one,
how much, and if I want to get a paid subscription.

Woman Asks Churches If They Will Feed Starving Baby — The Response is Shocking
Short: only registered users can see external links
Long: only registered users can see external links

only registered users can see external links

She was denied by 26 churches, but the one mosque she called immediately agreed.
It's already picked up by Islamic channels to show how they are better than Christians.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Pretty damn smart, from a public relations standpoint, isn't it?

However, are many Christians not donating to their church, so they can do CHARITY?
Why are they not helping a mother in need to feed her baby then?

Russians have always been creative and efficient.
Is that a reason to celebrate them in this conflict?
What's the intent of this video?

"oh this baby may have a iq lower than 125" abort abort abort!"
Really? Do you think that people are thinking that, about their pregnancy?
You have strange ideas about people.
If there are people like that, I very much think they shouldn't have children.

But, let me answer your slippery slope fallacy, with a whataboutism.
If murder is illegal, how can people still defend themselves?

The answer: Because we "draw the line" with LAWS.

You may rest easy by killing people in boats, who are drugs smugglers at worst, without a day in court. Those are living and thinking people, the unborn are not.

Your ideas are forcing women to carry and give birth to a child like that,
and then have parents or society care for a vegetable 24/7 for it's life.

The Pentagon cannot account for a 61% of its $3.5 trillion in assets.
Is that an argument for not funding it anymore?

I think Elon knew he was at the limit of breaking the law too much,
that even he cannot be forgiven for.

MAGA men already getting DESPERATE for dates
only registered users can see external links

".. you just lie a lot .."

An analysis of Tucker Carlson interviewing Ted Cruz.
only registered users can see external links

If Tucker is motivated to do a good job, he's a damn good interviewer.

Do you think she has a life worth living?

How about knowing early in the development of the zygote/fetus, that the child
will end up like this, and giving the woman the choice to end that pregnancy?

You're not making mistakes, you're INTENTIONALLY lying to yourself.

My country had its fastest development, when it was the most socialist.
My country had the biggest accumulation of problems under right-wingers.
It's the Dutch voters who should learn from their mistakes.

Your country had its “The Golden Age of Capitalism”, “The Postwar Boom”,
roughly from 1945 till 1973. That was actually your MOST SOCIALIST period.
Your economy grew rapidly because of very left-leaning policies.

This was the time when:
- Wages rose along with productivity, so the middle class flourished.
- Unions were strong and represented a large share of workers.
- Income inequality was historically low.
- The government invested heavily in public infrastructure, education, housing,
and science (e.g., the GI Bill, Interstate Highway System, and NASA).

1) High Taxes on the Wealthy
The top marginal income tax rate was over 90% during the 1950s under Republican president Eisenhower.
Corporate taxes were also much higher than today.
These taxes funded public infrastructure, education, and research.

2) Strong Labor Unions
Over one-third of workers were union members in the 1950s.
Unions negotiated better wages, pensions, and working conditions.
Collective bargaining helped distribute productivity gains fairly.

3) Massive Government Investment
The federal government financed housing for veterans, college education (GI Bill), scientific research, and public works.
These policies expanded the middle class and built national wealth.

4) Regulation and Antitrust Enforcement
Industries like banking, transportation, and energy were tightly regulated.
Antitrust laws prevented monopolies and protected small businesses.
This created a competitive but stable capitalist system.

5) Social Safety Nets
Expansion of Social Security, unemployment insurance, and public healthcare programs (later including Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s).
These reduced poverty and stabilized consumer demand.

6) Progressive Consensus
Both major parties (Democrats and Republicans) largely accepted the New Deal consensus — the idea that capitalism should be managed to serve broad social welfare, not just corporate profit.

Your MAGA hats, Make America Great Again, are referring to your most SOCIALIST period in history, and dumb-asses like you are unable to LEARN FROM IT.

Sure, because Trump is the anti-war president.

Good way to get that Nobel Peace Prize, General Bone Spurs!

She still has some brain matter, although it isn't a lot.
I don't think it's possible to live without any piece of brain.

I'm all for democracy run. If people don't like it, they can only blame themselves.
The only problem is making people see the consequences of what they voted for.

Yes, because it's apparently very expensive. So, who are going to be the janitors, groundskeepers, pest control, handymen, cooks, dishwashers, waiters, stockers, delivery drivers, public transit drivers, garbage collectors, police, security guards, lifeguards, nurses, etc, who all take care of those old people, when young people cannot afford to live there. Do they all need to commute from the next state?
Maybe an economy can survive on just service jobs, from old money paying for it,
but people don't want to drive several hours per day to those jobs. When the service people leave, the old people leave too. They are not taking care of themselves.

Ghostbusters!

No, because cows suck at wild animals and buffalo suck as domestic animals.
Humanity should just learn to live within the means nature sets for us.

Most cows are not 'gene modified' directly, but are just the result of hundreds of years of selective breeding. It made them great milk and meat factories, but they would die off very quickly back in nature. If humans all disappeared one day, all the cows would die off very quickly. For some races, in 90% of the cases, if there is no vet to winch out the calf at birth, both the mother and the calf will die. They are bred that way.

Most people don't like goat milk and goat meat is even less popular, so I don't think society is going to shift away from cows, any day soon.

I'm not agreeing with many people on the left, that we should go back to a pasture with 1 cow per acre, because there are 8 billion people on Earth. What we need to do is find a balance between poisoning nature to death and starving ourselves, which prioritizes animal friendliness. We shouldn't be cruel to animals, but we should accept that it is impossible to live from nature, like we did 10,000 years ago, with 8 billion people.

I want progression and innovation to make society sustainable for the world. I don't want to go back to pre-historic times and I also fight against the denialism against the reality that we are destroying ourselves, by destroying the nature that supports us.

Wealth taxes are not a left-wing policy.
only registered users can see external links

Neither the left, nor the right, are addressing the real problem.

How about ever having a president like that?
only registered users can see external links

Probably only going to happen in the movies.

They cut down 10,000 trees, to save a forest.
only registered users can see external links

There are forests all over the world, planted by people for wood and coal,
that have turned into a "green desert". Nothing lives there, besides trees.

Are you thinking that there is something 'natural' about cows?

The "green movement" hates the BIO-INDUSTRY, not the cows.
It's not the differences between the animals that matters, it's the differences
between how they are living.

Bisons are a wild animal, that lives in harmony with nature. Did you even watch the video? They explained about what Bisons do, to improve nature, all over the video.
The modern cow is an over-engineered animal that ruins nature. It produces 10 times
the amount of milk, and therefore also emits much more waste.

Those Bisons are a few hundred individuals, in an incredibly large area, that has very few nutrients in the soil. Everything they drop and let fly gets absorbed by that area of nature, because it needs it. Cows live at best on a pasture that is saturated by nutrients, and they are living there in populations that are thousands of times denser.

The Netherlands has a problem with cows, because we have way too many of them for such a small country. That creates a massive pollution problem. Austria, for example,
a country famous for their Alp-milk, doesn't have the same problem with pollution from cows, because they have 1/8th the number of cows, in a country twice the size.
At that scale, nature is still able to process it.

You're not wrong, but how are you proposing that "Florida built it's economy on manufacturing"? That's you saying to not let the economy run by the laws of capitalism, ruled by billionaires, who are thinking only in short-term profits, but by it's government taking control. Isn't that against the principles you are always supporting?

It's not just due to tourists staying away, as it looks like,
the state is finding out what happens when young people
are not able to afford living there anymore.

Florida Business Owner FURIOUS After Tourism PLUMMETS
And DESTROYS Her Business
only registered users can see external links

BREAKING: Florida’s Job Market COLLAPSE in 2025
only registered users can see external links

$12.5B Paradise MELTDOWN - Florida’s Tourism Industry Is on the Verge of Total Collapse
only registered users can see external links

Florida Is Facing the Biggest Collapse in U.S. History
only registered users can see external links

Florida’s Tourism Collapse: Florida’s Economic Disaster Explained in 10 Minutes
only registered users can see external links

Floridians are hurtling towards economic disaster
only registered users can see external links

The U.S. Released Hundreds of Bison Into the Desert...
What Happened 10 Years Later Is Shocking
only registered users can see external links

China Buried Tons of Dead Plants Under the Desert Sand
and 10 Years Later It Changed Everything
only registered users can see external links

How Refugees are turning the edge of the Sahara green.
only registered users can see external links

A good example of solving multiple problems at once.