Dem campaign chief vows no litmus test on abortion

[fskimospy]

Doesn't matter why it's happening, it's happening and it's a damn shame.

There is no party to defend the most inherent idea of liberalism in the US anymore, individual freedoms and rights.

What parties in the western world do you consider to be liberal parties then? It hardly seems like any party in the UK would qualify, for instance.

 

[J.Wilkins]

What parties in the western world do you consider to be liberal parties then? It hardly seems like any party in the UK would qualify, for instance.

Any party that stands for individual rights, the most basic of all rights being the right to your own body. I'm not aware of any party in the UK apart from UKIP and BNP that do not qualify.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Can't disagree, it's shameful that we must regress.

 

[fskimospy]

Any party that stands for individual rights, the most basic of all rights being the right to your own body. I'm not aware of any party in the UK apart from UKIP and BNP that do not qualify.

From my understanding Labour's official platform is pro-choice but they do not expel people for being anti-abortion. As far as I can tell they are identical to the Democratic Party in this respect. The Tories just made a deal with the anti-abortion DUP in order to stay in power so they are if anything, worse.

As far as other civil liberties go, both Labour and the Tories are big fans mass CCTV recording of all citizens despite them having committed no crime and being suspected of no crime, the Terrorism Act of 2005 was a civil liberties monstrosity, yet there was Labour, pushing it. In the not-so-distant past Labour was looking to hold people for three months without even charging them with anything. In the US any party that advocated for mass videotaping of citizens would be run out on a rail.

So no, UK parties are not exactly bastions of civil liberties.

 

[J.Wilkins]

From my understanding Labour's official platform is pro-choice but they do not expel people for being anti-abortion. As far as I can tell they are identical to the Democratic Party in this respect. The Tories just made a deal with the anti-abortion DUP in order to stay in power so they are if anything, worse.

As far as other civil liberties go, both Labour and the Tories are big fans mass CCTV recording of all citizens despite them having committed no crime and being suspected of no crime, the Terrorism Act of 2005 was a civil liberties monstrosity, yet there was Labour, pushing it. In the not-so-distant past Labour was looking to hold people for three months without even charging them with anything. In the US any party that advocated for mass videotaping of citizens would be run out on a rail.

So no, UK parties are not exactly bastions of civil liberties.

First of all, this litmus test is regarding who can run for primaries, right? That means that the party platform itself is not necessarily pro choice. This is not true for neither Labour nor Tories and CERTAINLY not true for the lib-dems.

Second, CCTV violates peoples rights on what grounds? What basic human right does this violate?

 

[fskimospy]

First of all, this litmus test is regarding who can run for primaries, right? That means that the party platform itself is not necessarily pro choice. This is not true for neither Labour nor Tories and CERTAINLY not true for the lib-dems.

2016 Democratic Party platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured.

The party is unequivocally pro-choice.

Second, CCTV violates peoples rights on what grounds? What basic human right does this violate?

I guess this shows how different the UK and the US are. Civil libertarians in the US view mass government surveillance without cause as a massive violation of the basic right to privacy that all humans enjoy. I guess parties in the UK aren't as protective of those liberties. That's their business of course, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking UK parties are bastions of civil liberties.

 

[J.Wilkins]

2016 Democratic Party platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Old information given that this change is quite new, is it not?

The party is unequivocally pro-choice.

How can it be unequivocally pro-choice and still accept a leader of the party to run that is anti-choice?

I guess this shows how different the UK and the US are. Civil libertarians in the US view mass government surveillance without cause as a massive violation of the basic right to privacy that all humans enjoy. I guess parties in the UK aren't as protective of those liberties. That's their business of course, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking UK parties are bastions of civil liberties.

Libertarians are very rarely for civil liberties apart from when they are directly affected which tells the story of how useless that lot is. Why are you confusing liberalism and libertarianism (or rather the fucktarded Trump supporting lot of libertarians in the US? Weren't Palin some sort of leader for them at one point?)?

Again, what fucking liberties? Are you going to keep playing dumb on this or explain to me how you think CCTV is a violation of any liberties?

 

[fskimospy]

Old information given that this change is quite new, is it not?

No, it is the currently active Democratic Party platform. In addition, there have been anti-abortion Democrats as part of the party for as long as I'm aware of anti-abortion being a thing. It's not remotely new.

How can it be unequivocally pro-choice and still accept a leader of the party to run that is anti-choice?

The party does not require every member to agree with every single aspect of its platform, much the same as UK parties. That in no way changes the fact that the Democratic Party is emphatically pro-choice. The fact that they are discussing whether or not to exclude people from the party who do not share that view should show how much of a bedrock principle it is.

Libertarians are very rarely for civil liberties apart from when they are directly affected which tells the story of how useless that lot is. Why are you confusing liberalism and libertarianism (or rather the fucktarded Trump supporting lot of libertarians in the US? Weren't Palin some sort of leader for them at one point?)?

Again, what fucking liberties? Are you going to keep playing dumb on this or explain to me how you think CCTV is a violation of any liberties?

Libertarians <> civil libertarians. Civil libertarians are people who aggressively promote civil liberties while libertarians reject most if not all government intervention of all types. As for what liberties, I already told you what liberties, did you not see the words 'right to privacy'? Before you start swearing at other people it's important to actually read what they write.

Again, maybe in the UK you guys don't value all the same liberties we do in the US. That's your business. I imagine from the perspective of a lot of Americans though any party that is fine with mass government videotaping of citizens without cause is shit for civil liberties. I don't think US parties are good on civil liberties either but then again I'm not the one in a glass house throwing stones.

 

[J.Wilkins]

No, it is the currently active Democratic Party platform. In addition, there have been anti-abortion Democrats as part of the party for as long as I'm aware of anti-abortion being a thing. It's not remotely new.

So... The representative of the party does not need to adhere to the platform at all? Are you saying that they removed the litmus test that was never there and this is what? Sucking up to the Evangelicals?

The party does not require every member to agree with every single aspect of its platform, much the same as UK parties. That in no way changes the fact that the Democratic Party is emphatically pro-choice. The fact that they are discussing whether or not to exclude people from the party who do not share that view should show how much of a bedrock principle it is.

So nothing changed, nothing what so ever but they decided to make a statement nevertheless? Is it a party of retarded people?

Libertarians <> civil libertarians. Civil libertarians are people who aggressively promote civil liberties while libertarians reject most if not all government intervention of all types. As for what liberties, I already told you what liberties, did you not see the words 'right to privacy'? Before you start swearing at other people it's important to actually read what they write.

Again, maybe in the UK you guys don't value all the same liberties we do in the US. That's your business. I imagine from the perspective of a lot of Americans though any party that is fine with mass government videotaping of citizens without cause is shit for civil liberties. I don't think US parties are good on civil liberties either but then again I'm not the one in a glass house throwing stones.

Don't give a fuck what they are, they are either liberals or they are not. If you have actual liberals by another name there (not the ones promoting anarchy or any other group like that) then great.

Perhaps you just don't understand the word I'm using? Go look it up, liberals, not libertians.

I don't care about American "liberties" (what liberties?) I care about human rights and you don't have those.

 

[agent00f]

So... The representative of the party does not need to adhere to the platform at all? Are you saying that they removed the litmus test that was never there and this is what? Sucking up to the Evangelicals?





So nothing changed, nothing what so ever but they decided to make a statement nevertheless? Is it a party of retarded people?



Don't give a fuck what they are, they are either liberals or they are not. If you have actual liberals by another name there (not the ones promoting anarchy or any other group like that) then great.

Perhaps you just don't understand the word I'm using? Go look it up, liberals, not libertians.

I don't care about American "liberties" (what liberties?) I care about human rights and you don't have those.

Worth mentioning this guy is a huge fan of the Israeli right's plan to pen up and starve out Palestinians. He and roflmouth probably have a lot to talk about.

 

[1sikbITCH]

I assume you are a woman? Because I have no idea why someone would be a single issue voter on something that literally has zero impact on them.

I am a white male and I am mostly left leaning but generally middle of the road. Single issue for me this time around was voting against the white power assholes, and that issue doesn't affect me. I don't have to be black or Arab or Hispanic or gay to know what's right and wrong. Trump is a racist and bigot and likely made this election a single voter issue for many who might have otherwise chose the GOP nominee over Clinton.

And likewise many others became single issue voters and voted Trump just to stop Hilary because they didn't want to elect a rich crook who didn't have their interests at heart. Haha glad we dodged that bullet but that's another topic.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I am a white male and I am mostly left leaning but generally middle of the road. Single issue for me this time around was voting against the white power assholes, and that issue doesn't affect me. I don't have to be black or Arab or Hispanic or gay to know what's right and wrong. Trump is a racist and bigot and likely made this election a single voter issue for many who might have otherwise chose the GOP nominee over Clinton.

And likewise many others became single issue voters and voted Trump just to stop Hilary because they didn't want to elect a rich crook who didn't have their interests at heart. Haha glad we dodged that bullet but that's another topic.

Compared to Sanders or Trump Hillary was purer than the fresh snow and even when you take on all the bullshit endured she is seemingly guilty of none of the things that people still say she's guilty of.

People are STILL regurgitating shit they read on abc.com.co which was a Russian propaganda site. To me it proves that some people cannot be proven wrong by being shown that they are wrong, they cannot be proven wrong by a team of scientists, they cannot be proven wrong, period.

The believe that their decided reality is what the world forms around and they can never be wrong, they will actually create a reality of their own to avoid it.

 

[fskimospy]

So... The representative of the party does not need to adhere to the platform at all? Are you saying that they removed the litmus test that was never there and this is what? Sucking up to the Evangelicals?

This was a discussion of whether to institute a new litmus test, not get rid of an old one.

So nothing changed, nothing what so ever but they decided to make a statement nevertheless? Is it a party of retarded people?

Nope, the question was whether to change something, not whether to not change something. I think you might be the one who doesn't understand what's going on here.

Don't give a fuck what they are, they are either liberals or they are not. If you have actual liberals by another name there (not the ones promoting anarchy or any other group like that) then great.

Perhaps you just don't understand the word I'm using? Go look it up, liberals, not libertians.

I don't care about American "liberties" (what liberties?) I care about human rights and you don't have those.

Like I said, the UK isn't exactly bursting with human rights these days either. You don't have to care about US civil rights, but when you come from a place that videotapes everyone wherever they go and tried to pass a law to lock people up for three months without charges you have to expect people aren't going to take you that seriously when you talk about civil liberties.

 

[J.Wilkins]

This was a discussion of whether to institute a new litmus test, not get rid of an old one.

Got it, my mistake and my apologies for misunderstanding that part. However, can the democratic party have an elected representative that does not adhere to the party platform?

Like I said, the UK isn't exactly bursting with human rights these days either. You don't have to care about US civil rights, but when you come from a place that videotapes everyone wherever they go and tried to pass a law to lock people up for three months without charges you have to expect people aren't going to take you that seriously when you talk about civil liberties.

You keep saying things and asserting them but the only example you ever gave you have failed to defend. Perhaps you are really really stupid but your assertion that it is somehow a violation of privacy to be on camera in a public venue isn't supported by US laws or UK laws that I am aware of.

Again, tell me how in the fuck CCTV violates any rights.

Jesus christ, you live in a halfway theocracy violating the constitution at every turn and basic human rights every day and you whine "you have CCTV and it's a violation because I said so".

Could you be more pathetic?

 

[fskimospy]

Got it, my mistake and my apologies for misunderstanding that part. However, can the democratic party have an elected representative that does not adhere to the party platform?

Sure, political parties in the US do not exert central control over candidate selection like parties in the UK do. Much like the UK though, not every party member endorses every aspect of the party platform.

You keep saying things and asserting them but the only example you ever gave you have failed to defend. Perhaps you are really really stupid but your assertion that it is somehow a violation of privacy to be on camera in a public venue isn't supported by US laws or UK laws that I am aware of.

Again, tell me how in the fuck CCTV violates any rights.

It's definitely not a violation of UK laws as you guys are some of the most recording-happy people on the planet, haha. More generally though it's not about what's legal in the US, it's that the US population would be unlikely to ever accept the government engaging in mass video recording of that sort due to privacy rights concerns. It violates your privacy by creating a permanent record the government can mine at any time for possible violations.

Again, YOU might think that's just fine but apparently people in the US take that sort of civil liberty more seriously than people in the UK.

Jesus christ, you live in a halfway theocracy violating the constitution at every turn and basic human rights every day and you whine "you have CCTV and it's a violation because I said so".

Could you be more pathetic?

What's up with all the weird and pointless personal insults? If you want me to start insulting you I can! Let me know, I'm pretty good at it.

As I have already explained to you twice, I imagine many people in America would consider mass video recording of the population to be a gross invasion of privacy. It's also not the only civil liberties violation I mentioned. As I already said, Labour supported jailing people for three months without charges based solely on the government's say-so. That's a pretty horrendous violation of civil liberties. There are plenty more where that came from.

As I said earlier the US is not great on civil liberties but the UK isn't very good either. The fact that you were willing to declare that the US no longer had any parties committed to liberalism because of something you didn't understand and then decided to ignore some pretty gross civil liberties violations in your own country indicates some myopia when it comes to this issue.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Sure, political parties in the US do not exert central control over candidate selection like parties in the UK do. Much like the UK though, not every party member endorses every aspect of the party platform.

I don't know if you are stupid of just doing your best to pretend that you are? I've been very clear about "party representative" as the candidate chosen to represent the party and not some random member. You're saying that a party representative, as in the one chosen to run for general election can just ignore the party platform and that is OK but what the fuck is the point of having a platform then if it's not representative for the elected officials representing the party?

It's definitely not a violation of UK laws as you guys are some of the most recording-happy people on the planet, haha. More generally though it's not about what's legal in the US, it's that the US population would be unlikely to ever accept the government engaging in mass video recording of that sort due to privacy rights concerns. It violates your privacy by creating a permanent record the government can mine at any time for possible violations.

Again with the weaseling. You have red light cameras so it's not against US laws either and you have yet to explain how it is in violation of any forms of human rights.

A better man would have said "it's not against any rights but some of our more extreme elements that I don't even agree with are saying it is and I'm going to use that as a defence because quite frankly, I got absolutely nothing else".

Or shut his fucking mouth when he had nothing to say.

But you are a Trumpist American (doesn't matter if you voted for him or not, you are exactly the same type of person, you'll keep going no matter how wrong you know you are because admitting you are wrong is not an option but keeping on keeping on always is) and this is all you can do.

 

[Blackjack200]

More generally though it's not about what's legal in the US, it's that the US population would be unlikely to ever accept the government engaging in mass video recording of that sort due to privacy rights concerns. It violates your privacy by creating a permanent record the government can mine at any time for possible violations.

Again, YOU might think that's just fine but apparently people in the US take that sort of civil liberty more seriously than people in the UK.

I used to believe that but I'm not sure I do anymore. It seems like there's more surveillance than ever in the US, and I don't hear a peep about it except sometimes from the ACLU or the EFF or similar orgs.

 

[J.Wilkins]

I used to believe that but I'm not sure I do anymore. It seems like there's more surveillance than ever in the US, and I don't hear a peep about it except sometimes from the ACLU or the EFF or similar orgs.

Considering that there are MORE CCTV cams in the US than in the UK it's not even close to be true either. The difference is that private entities are allowed to spy on you as much as they want in the US whereas in the UK that is not the case but we do have CCTV's in the known spots instead of a cop in every corner or ten times the amount driving around shooting people left and right (and yes, in comparison this is actually true).

But I suppose having all those cop killings and entire departments fired because of corruption without further criminal indictments is a sign of liberty.......... As long as you don't have CCTV's monitoring which you still do by private entities and for traffic crimes but not major crimes.

 

[Blackjack200]

Considering that there are MORE CCTV cams in the US than in the UK it's not even close to be true either.

We have like 5 times as many people. I don't think either one of our countries is covering themselves in glory WRT privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters#Abuses

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know if you are stupid of just doing your best to pretend that you are? I've been very clear about "party representative" as the candidate chosen to represent the party and not some random member. You're saying that a party representative, as in the one chosen to run for general election can just ignore the party platform and that is OK but what the fuck is the point of having a platform then if it's not representative for the elected officials representing the party?

Okay then, insults it is! How fun.

The party platform is representative of the elected officials representing the party generally, but not every representative adheres to every part of it. This is not novel or interesting as the document is 51 pages long, single spaced. It would take a truly stupid person to think that you could ever have a party with thousands of elected representatives who all agreed on every aspect of a 51 page document outlining their view for the structure of an entire country. You appear to be that truly stupid person.

It should be immediately obvious to everyone who is not quite so truly stupid that representatives in your own country don't agree on every aspect of their party platforms. A very quick search turned up Labour MPs like Rob Flello who are anti-abortion, so the exact thing you seem so baffled by in the US is true in your own country but you were too dumb to realize it. Maybe stop talking about US politics for a bit and go take a civics class on your own country you fucking poseur.

Again with the weaseling. You have red light cameras so it's not against US laws either and you have yet to explain how it is in violation of any forms of human rights.

This is an extremely stupid argument. What constitutes a violation of civil liberties and what is legal are two totally different things. When countries violate civil liberties, they usually do so exactly by MAKING something that violates those liberties legal. lol. This is not a "US vs. UK" debate, this is a "UK parties suck when it comes to civil liberties too" debate.

A better man would have said "it's not against any rights but some of our more extreme elements that I don't even agree with are saying it is and I'm going to use that as a defence because quite frankly, I got absolutely nothing else".

Or shut his fucking mouth when he had nothing to say.

Nah, a better man would do what I'm doing, which is trying to educate a desperately stupid individual about a political system he has decided to criticize but has no understanding of. It's very telling, by the way, that you keep deleting references to other egregious civil rights violations that UK parties are in favor of, probably because you've 'got absolutely nothing else'. lol.

But you are a Trumpist American (doesn't matter if you voted for him or not, you are exactly the same type of person, you'll keep going no matter how wrong you know you are because admitting you are wrong is not an option but keeping on keeping on always is) and this is all you can do.

Trying not to choke on the irony here. Only one of us keeps deleting the parts of the other person's posts that they can't answer. Only one of us was confronted with a request to stop pointless insults and responded with sputtering rage. Which one of us sounds more like Trump to you?

 

[J.Wilkins]

We have like 5 times as many people. I don't think either one of our countries is covering themselves in glory WRT privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters#Abuses

More per capita and WAY more per capita at that as you allow private entities to monitor public grounds almost automatically and for fucks sakes.... Monitoring ALL private calls but "we don't listen in on ones that do not have code words" NSA bullshit? Are you fucking kidding me?

Just fucking stop.

 

[fskimospy]

We have like 5 times as many people. I don't think either one of our countries is covering themselves in glory WRT privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters#Abuses

I think he came ready and really excited to argue that the UK was better than the US when it comes to civil liberties but seems terribly confused by the idea that people in the US might say 'we suck but you aren't great either.'

Strangely his response to that seems to be just to pretend that didn't happen and to keep with his preferred argument.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Okay then, insults it is! How fun.

The party platform is representative of the elected officials representing the party generally, but not every representative adheres to every part of it. This is not novel or interesting as the document is 51 pages long, single spaced. It would take a truly stupid person to think that you could ever have a party with thousands of elected representatives who all agreed on every aspect of a 51 page document outlining their view for the structure of an entire country. You appear to be that truly stupid person.

Ah, that is clear as mud then. So the representative does represent the party but not their ideas even though they are supposed to but they don't necessarily have to but they should and they don't....

Perfectly reasonable for a moronic party of fucktards in the nation of the people who will happily allow executions of innocent people to continue.

It should be immediately obvious to everyone who is not quite so truly stupid that representatives in your own country don't agree on every aspect of their party platforms. A very quick search turned up Labour MPs like Rob Flello who are anti-abortion, so the exact thing you seem so baffled by in the US is true in your own country but you were too dumb to realize it. Maybe stop talking about US politics for a bit and go take a civics class on your own country you fucking poseur.

Every aspect? We're talking about the basest of human rights here, the right to your own body. Once that is gone, so ever EVERY other right. You're desperately trying to spin this into something completely different.

And again you moronic twit of a child, we are talking about the one up for representative of the party nation wide. Yes there will be fucktards here and there (the labour party is socially conservative, fiscally progressive to the point of everything to everyone at this point) but not even fucktarded Labour or fucktarded Tories would put forth an anti-choice candidate.

I delete the parts of your posts that are so fucktarded that I don't want to make you suffer through what the obvious reply from an intelligent human would be.

You're welcome for that.

Also, It's kinda sad that now that Hillary who was a great candidate was defeated you are looking for a Trump little to represent the democratic party... but as long as your party wins the policies don't matter, right?

'MURICA!

 

[Blackjack200]

I think he came ready and really excited to argue that the UK was better than the US when it comes to civil liberties but seems terribly confused by the idea that people in the US might say 'we suck but you aren't great either.'

Yeah, I think 9/11 and post 9/11 terrorism is used to justify most of this stuff. I do think that it was a little worse in the US in the early aughts, but after the last few attacks in Europe, it's pretty bad over there too.

Strangely his response to that seems to be just to pretend that didn't happen and to keep with his preferred argument.

He's been here like two months and has more than 750 messages, and if the sample I've seen are representative, most of them are turds.

 

[Blackjack200]

And again you moronic twit of a child, we are talking about the one up for representative of the party nation wide.

For a Brit you suck at insults.