Democrats are moving the goal posts, shifting from Russia to Racism

[Jet Cash]

Do they annoy you because you think they're racist?

Or because they call other people racist?

They annoy me because they are pushing their own images and attempting social recognition without believing in the principles.
Stopping the reference to "black" people just slows the acceptance that it doesn't matter. what colour their skin may be. I'd far rather that they placed emphasis on their behaviour and contribution to society. Of course it is all carefully orchestrated by the anglophone empire builders, who need social unrest and discontent to push their ambitions.

[1713568208]

1713568208

[1713568208]

1713568208

[1713568208]

1713568208

[BADecker]

Focusing on racism only increases it. Once average democrats figure this out, they will be in greater chaos than ever.

The only thing that makes sense is that democrat leaders are really republican infiltrators.

[TwitchySeal]

Do they annoy you because you think they're racist?

Or because they call other people racist?

They annoy me because they are pushing their own images and attempting social recognition without believing in the principles.
Stopping the reference to "black" people just slows the acceptance that it doesn't matter. what colour their skin may be. I'd far rather that they placed emphasis on their behaviour and contribution to society. Of course it is all carefully orchestrated by the anglophone empire builders, who need social unrest and discontent to push their ambitions.

I haven't heard suggest we stop calling black people 'black people'.

You know the term 'people of color' does not refer specifically to black people right?  It just means 'people that are not white'.

[BADecker]

Do they annoy you because you think they're racist?

Or because they call other people racist?

They annoy me because they are pushing their own images and attempting social recognition without believing in the principles.
Stopping the reference to "black" people just slows the acceptance that it doesn't matter. what colour their skin may be. I'd far rather that they placed emphasis on their behaviour and contribution to society. Of course it is all carefully orchestrated by the anglophone empire builders, who need social unrest and discontent to push their ambitions.

I haven't heard suggest we stop calling black people 'black people'.

You know the term 'people of color' does not refer specifically to black people right?  It just means 'people that are not white'.

Besides, "black" is easier to remember than "Van Dyke brown."     

[Spendulus]

....we seem to be shifting away from discrimination based on skin colour, and moving towards a language based differentiation....

Indeed.

Pro-trump language, for example?

[BADecker]

Time to kick the UN out of the United States... and imprison the Dem leaders as traitors.


United Nations now targeting free speech on a global scale, under the banner of fighting “hate speech”

To most Americans, the United Nations is an innocuous organization that serves as a global forum for countries to work out their differences while providing services like disaster relief, peacekeeping, health care, and others.

In reality, the U.N. is primarily staffed by representatives from authoritarian regimes and elitists who seek to transform the organization into the central hub of a “New World Order” and global government.

Part of that effort involves limiting the right of free speech in as many countries as possible — especially in the United States, whose Constitution still serves as a model for empowering the individual over government.

And like the Left in America, U.N. officials are seeking to curb expression and the free exchange of ideas by claiming to fight “hate speech.”

[Rmcdermott927]

I’m by no means a trump fan, but I agree with you.  I don’t know what happened before the last election but both parties shifted and almost became fringe parties.   It became more clear than ever that the 2 party system is ultimately broken.  I didn’t know who to vote for because all viable candidates were way too far left or right for me to even bother voting. 

I don’t want open borders, and I don’t want higher taxes.  But I also think women should have a say in what they do with their uterus and think war should be avoided at all costs.   What do I do now?

[Spendulus]

I’m by no means a trump fan, but I agree with you.  I don’t know what happened before the last election but both parties shifted and almost became fringe parties.   It became more clear than ever that the 2 party system is ultimately broken.  I didn’t know who to vote for because all viable candidates were way too far left or right for me to even bother voting. 

I don’t want open borders, and I don’t want higher taxes.  But I also think women should have a say in what they do with their uterus and think war should be avoided at all costs.   What do I do now?

Go for Trump. That's easy to see. Doesn't at all mean you are a "trump fan."

I don't know, maybe he's acquired some fans by now. If so they are deserved. For me I guess I saw his approach to be interesting conceptually, and to have merit in many situations.

Do they annoy you because you think they're racist?

Or because they call other people racist?

They annoy me because they are pushing their own images and attempting social recognition without believing in the principles.
Stopping the reference to "black" people just slows the acceptance that it doesn't matter. what colour their skin may be. I'd far rather that they placed emphasis on their behaviour and contribution to society. Of course it is all carefully orchestrated by the anglophone empire builders, who need social unrest and discontent to push their ambitions.

I haven't heard suggest we stop calling black people 'black people'.

You know the term 'people of color' does not refer specifically to black people right?  It just means 'people that are not white'.

I've heard both asserted as improper. People that want to control you, want to control your language. It doesn't matter what it was, control means to tell you to change it.

[PopoJeff]

I’m by no means a trump fan, but I agree with you.  I don’t know what happened before the last election but both parties shifted and almost became fringe parties.   It became more clear than ever that the 2 party system is ultimately broken.  I didn’t know who to vote for because all viable candidates were way too far left or right for me to even bother voting.  

I don’t want open borders, and I don’t want higher taxes.  But I also think women should have a say in what they do with their uterus and think war should be avoided at all costs.   What do I do now?

 I get where youre coming from..  but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses?  
   Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment.
   The thing that is getting spun, is they dont want tax dollars being spent on it.  Which I agree with.
 You do you, just dont expect me to pay for it.

 The govt funds Planned Parenthood, not the NRA.

The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow.  They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them.
And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans.

[TwitchySeal]

The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow.  They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them.
And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans.

I might be off on a couple details but pretty sure the current laws (the Hyde Act mainly) don't allow for federal funding to cover abortions unless it's to save the womans life, or due to incest or rape.  And no, you can't just tell the doctor "I was raped".  You have to report it to the police and then have Medicaid send the waiver to planned parent hood at least 48 hours before the abortion.

Planned parenthood 'federal funding' is just another way of saying they accept patients with Medicaid (to be on Medicaid you can't make more than ~$17k a year) and offer a discount to Women not on Medicaid that don't have private insurance coverage.

I can't find any exact data.  But it seems like federally funded abortions are extremely rare.  Some doctors have said that in most cases women choose not to report it and just pay for the abortion or have their rapists/family members child.  TECSHARE would probably point out that some of them were probably lying to try and get a free abortion from his tax dollars, and he'd probably be right.   In most of these cases though "not letting men cum in them" wouldn't "correct their own issues".

The vast majority of abortions at Planned Parenthood are paid for out of pocket or through private health insurance, and abortions make up less than 4% of PP total services.  You could argue that they likely prevent far more abortions than they give.  (They also give out free condoms)

Planned Parenthood Services for 2017:

48.7% STD Testing
27.1% Contraception
13.4% Other Women's Health Services
6.3% Cancer Screening and Prevention
3.4% Abortion Services
1.1% Other Services

I get where youre coming from..  but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses?  
   Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment.

I think "all abortion should be illegal no matter what" crowd is a lot bigger than you think.

In 2019 (a few months after Kavanaugh was sworn in)13 states passed anti-abortion laws, knowing full well that they would be sued for passing an illegal law in hopes that the supreme court would hear the case and overrule roe v wade.  It's been decades since this was attempted.  With the make up of the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible it works.  They weren't just bible belt states either.  North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana all took a shot.

The most extreme law was passed in Alabama, it would make abortion due to incest or rape illegal.

[TECSHARE]

The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow.  They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them.
And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans.

I might be off on a couple details but pretty sure the current laws (the Hyde Act mainly) don't allow for federal funding to cover abortions unless it's to save the womans life, or due to incest or rape.  And no, you can't just tell the doctor "I was raped".  You have to report it to the police and then have Medicaid send the waiver to planned parent hood at least 48 hours before the abortion.

Planned parenthood 'federal funding' is just another way of saying they accept patients with Medicaid (to be on Medicaid you can't make more than ~$17k a year) and offer a discount to Women not on Medicaid that don't have private insurance coverage.

I can't find any exact data.  But it seems like federally funded abortions are extremely rare.  Some doctors have said that in most cases women choose not to report it and just pay for the abortion or have their rapists/family members child.  TECSHARE would probably point out that some of them were probably lying to try and get a free abortion from his tax dollars, and he'd probably be right.   In most of these cases though "not letting men cum in them" wouldn't "correct their own issues".

The vast majority of abortions at Planned Parenthood are paid for out of pocket or through private health insurance, and abortions make up less than 4% of PP total services.  You could argue that they likely prevent far more abortions than they give.  (They also give out free condoms)

Planned Parenthood Services for 2017:

48.7% STD Testing
27.1% Contraception
13.4% Other Women's Health Services
6.3% Cancer Screening and Prevention
3.4% Abortion Services
1.1% Other Services

I get where youre coming from..  but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses?  
   Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment.

I think "all abortion should be illegal no matter what" crowd is a lot bigger than you think.

In 2019 (a few months after Kavanaugh was sworn in)13 states passed anti-abortion laws, knowing full well that they would be sued for passing an illegal law in hopes that the supreme court would hear the case and overrule roe v wade.  It's been decades since this was attempted.  With the make up of the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible it works.  They weren't just bible belt states either.  North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana all took a shot.

The most extreme law was passed in Alabama, it would make abortion due to incest or rape illegal.

Are those percentages services used or funds used? The difference is very significant. Additionally as was already pointed out, Planned Parenthood is using federal funds to turn right around and contribute to political campaigns and lobbying. This needs to end.

[TwitchySeal]

The left screamed that defunding PP would be bad for women somehow.  They can correct their own issues by not letting men cum in them.
And PP isn't hurting for money, they just announced a $45mil campaign to attack Republicans.

I might be off on a couple details but pretty sure the current laws (the Hyde Act mainly) don't allow for federal funding to cover abortions unless it's to save the womans life, or due to incest or rape.  And no, you can't just tell the doctor "I was raped".  You have to report it to the police and then have Medicaid send the waiver to planned parent hood at least 48 hours before the abortion.

Planned parenthood 'federal funding' is just another way of saying they accept patients with Medicaid (to be on Medicaid you can't make more than ~$17k a year) and offer a discount to Women not on Medicaid that don't have private insurance coverage.

I can't find any exact data.  But it seems like federally funded abortions are extremely rare.  Some doctors have said that in most cases women choose not to report it and just pay for the abortion or have their rapists/family members child.  TECSHARE would probably point out that some of them were probably lying to try and get a free abortion from his tax dollars, and he'd probably be right.   In most of these cases though "not letting men cum in them" wouldn't "correct their own issues".

The vast majority of abortions at Planned Parenthood are paid for out of pocket or through private health insurance, and abortions make up less than 4% of PP total services.  You could argue that they likely prevent far more abortions than they give.  (They also give out free condoms)

Planned Parenthood Services for 2017:

48.7% STD Testing
27.1% Contraception
13.4% Other Women's Health Services
6.3% Cancer Screening and Prevention
3.4% Abortion Services
1.1% Other Services

I get where youre coming from..  but where do you think think anyone is trying to restrict women's uteruses?  
   Some far right folks can certainly be ani-abortion, but the current R administration has no qualms with abortion at the moment.

I think "all abortion should be illegal no matter what" crowd is a lot bigger than you think.

In 2019 (a few months after Kavanaugh was sworn in)13 states passed anti-abortion laws, knowing full well that they would be sued for passing an illegal law in hopes that the supreme court would hear the case and overrule roe v wade.  It's been decades since this was attempted.  With the make up of the Supreme Court, it's entirely possible it works.  They weren't just bible belt states either.  North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana all took a shot.

The most extreme law was passed in Alabama, it would make abortion due to incest or rape illegal.

Are those percentages services used or funds used? The difference is very significant. Additionally as was already pointed out, Planned Parenthood is using federal funds to turn right around and contribute to political campaigns and lobbying. This needs to end.

It's total services, not funds.  I can't find a break down of how much is actually spent on each - but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority are from out of pocket or insured patients.  You're right though, the numbers are a bit deceiving.  I thought it was total money spent, but it's actually total services.  


Claiming they are taking federal funds and turning around and using it for lobbying and campaigning isn't accurate though.  Most of the money they receive from the federal government is a reimbursement for treating patients with Medicaid (over 75%) and the rest goes towards discounts for low income patients without insurance.

In 2018 they received:

563.8m from federal government
365.7m from private insurance companies and patients paying out of picket
413.6m in private donations

They only made $533,000 in campaign contributions (all democrats though) and spent $1.2m in lobbying. That's less than 0.002 % of their total revenue of which only 34% is federal.


Here are Planned Parenthoods financials for 2019:

[PopoJeff]

27% contraception.   

There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.

[TwitchySeal]

27% contraception.  

There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.

lol.  And that doesn't even included the bucket of free condoms in the lobby.
Yeah.  They should be doing more abortions and prescribing less birth control.

[TECSHARE]

It's total services, not funds.  I can't find a break down of how much is actually spent on each - but it seems pretty clear that the vast majority are from out of pocket or insured patients.  You're right though, the numbers are a bit deceiving.  I thought it was total money spent, but it's actually total services.  


Claiming they are taking federal funds and turning around and using it for lobbying and campaigning isn't accurate though.  Most of the money they receive from the federal government is a reimbursement for treating patients with Medicaid (over 75%) and the rest goes towards discounts for low income patients without insurance.

In 2018 they received:

563.8m from federal government
365.7m from private insurance companies and patients paying out of picket
413.6m in private donations

They only made $533,000 in campaign contributions (all democrats though) and spent $1.2m in lobbying. That's less than 0.002 % of their total revenue of which only 34% is federal.


Here are Planned Parenthoods financials for 2019:


https://i.gyazo.com/f4c2231062ef36b88f753608e8cfe308.png
https://i.gyazo.com/eca2278e05ceaebc6dac1993bc96b4c5.png

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying. They support candidates, they hand out more taxpayer dollars to them knowing full well it will be kicked back to their own campaigns. This is a defacto subsidization of the Democrat party with taxpayer money.

[PopoJeff]

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

This is no different than welfare abuse.
My wife likes to watch "My 600 lb life" and "Intervention" on TV.   Guess what they have in common.  They are all on welfare, and use the welfare to buy more drugs or food.


Some PP money info:
https://www.gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-18-204R

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

Should we also be supplying cigarettes to those addicted?


Rather than the govt deciding where every tax dollar goes, it would be nice if the individual tax payer could allot where it goes.
Dedicated percentages assigned to essential services: Military funding, infrastructure, govt employee functions, etc.  maybe totaling 75% of your tax obligation. Then 25% elective services: homelessness, hunger, welfare, family planning, etc.. 

I'm tired of paying for everyone else's bad choices and lack of self control

[PopoJeff]

27% contraception.  

There are free ways. Our parent taught us, or school taught us.

lol.  And that doesn't even included the bucket of free condoms in the lobby.
Yeah.  They should be doing more abortions and prescribing less birth control.

 How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions.   I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity.

Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line 

[TwitchySeal]

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

Tons of businesses, and individuals receive money from the federal government.  You think they should have to wave their right to contribute to a political campaign or lobby congress?

Should CVS, Walgreens, and every other pharmacy all be forbidden from spending money on lobbying because they accept Medicaid to fill prescriptions?

Should the NRA be forbidden because they are paid by the government to train law enforcement officers, rent out shooting ranges to federal agencies, and have a 10 year $40k/year grant from Fish and Wild Life Services?

What about any hotel, Restaurant, or store where a federal employee spends money for their job and uses government money?

What about a student that receives a federal grant for tuition?  Should they be allowed to donate $1 to a campaign?

How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions.   I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity.

Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line  

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

I think this is a ridiculous argument.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

[KingScorpio]

racism is a big problem in the world though although racism is nowadays mostly in africa, today we are dealing with black supremacism.

africans have a massive and a huge continent, but stily they are flooding tiny europe with trouble bringing refugees. instead of building their own big continent they are acting like villains.

not to mention nazisim problems spanning from china, india, iran all over the world.

regards

[TECSHARE]

I don't care if it is $1, there is an inherent conflict of interest in an entity recieving federal support spending that money on political campaigns and lobbying.

Tons of businesses, and individuals receive money from the federal government.  You think they should have to wave their right to contribute to a political campaign or lobby congress?

Should CVS, Walgreens, and every other pharmacy all be forbidden from spending money on lobbying because they accept Medicaid to fill prescriptions?

Should the NRA be forbidden because they are paid by the government to train law enforcement officers, rent out shooting ranges to federal agencies, and have a 10 year $40k/year grant from Fish and Wild Life Services?

What about any hotel, Restaurant, or store where a federal employee spends money for their job and uses government money?

What about a student that receives a federal grant for tuition?  Should they be allowed to donate $1 to a campaign?

How the heck do you get that from what I said. No they shouldn't be doing more abortions.   I'm amazed that 27% of their expenses are spent on helping people shirk their personal responsibly, and enabling reckless behavior, or a non-necessity.

Teach them to swallow, and PP can cut 27% of their bottom line  

I get that their "Federal Funding" is mostly Medicaid. But it's still taxpayer money used to correct an issue that so bribe created themselves.

Oh, you can't afford birth control pills? Then don't screw. Make him pull out. Or take it in the butt.
Gee, how'd you get that STD?  

Not my problem.

I think this is a ridiculous argument.  We'll have to agree to disagree.

Actually, I think barring anyone receiving federal funds from contributing to campaigns or lobbying would be great for this country. The current system is an incestuous revolving door of government going to industry and back again, each step along the way finding new and creative ways to drain the US citizenry of their hard earned tax dollars. Such a policy would foster not only independence but create a clear line of delineation  preventing what essentially amounts to buying votes with federal funds. That said, this will never happen for obvious reasons.

Now  back to reality, Planned Parenthood also receives $50 to $60 million dollars a year under Title X grants, which is far different than Medicaid reimbursements. Speaking of Medicaid reimbursements, The Hyde Amendment only restricts federal funds for being directly used for abortions. States are still using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions under Medicaid. Furthermore, the federal funds, tho restricted from being used directly for abortions also frees up money that is indirectly used for abortions or to advocate for abortion for example in the form of payroll, facilities, lobbying, and campaign contributions.

Regarding PopoJeff, why is this a ridiculous argument? A refutation without substantiation is a very low form of debate. People object to taxpayer funds being used to subsidize people's bad life choices, and rightfully so. How is this argument flawed?


https://tennesseestar.com/2018/05/21/fact-check-does-planned-parenthood-get-over-500-million-a-year-in-government-funding/
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services/