Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910

So basicly Trumps make an executive order to prohibits giving U.S. funding to international nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion

Was the march all for nothing?

On Monday, surrounded by other white men

And done.

Yes, this executive order has far-reaching consequences and should definitely be discussed at length, but GOOD CHRIST ALMIGHTY. The SPIN.

I've just begun doing research on this, but it looks like the Mexico City Policy is one of those things that gets removed or reinstated depending on who the president is. It's practically a tradition at this point, a way for the president to prove he's really a liberal or conservative. Ho hum.

Can these people go one second without revealing their obvious anti-white, anti-male agenda?

WIKIPEDIA:
The policy was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1984[2], rescinded by Democratic President Bill Clinton in January 1993[3], re-instituted in January 2001 as Republican President George W. Bush took office, rescinded on January 23, 2009, three days after Democratic President Barack Obama took office[4] and re-instated on January 23, 2017, as Republican President Donald Trump assumed the office.[5]

"It seems women might be interested in this policy, too"

There are women who are pro-life, for the record, on whose interests Trump would be acting upon.

It's strange how you have some sort of dichotomy is painted where all the pro-lifers are men and all the pro-choicers are women, and also the narrative that "old white men" are legislating the bodies of women.

Newsflash: senators and representatives are elected by their constitutents-- both men and women-- to represent their interests on the federal stages that are Congress and the House of Representatives. If you're not winning in Congress or the House, chances are (read: it is certain) that your views are not-- as per our model of legislation-- held by the majority of citizens, which is invariably comprised of both men and women.

(Also, I feel like this could have gone in the Politics General. As is, this isn't really a call to debate, since there's no posed proposition to debate. At least, it could just be moved into General.)

Tumblr is leaking

Newsflash: senators and representatives are elected by their constitutents-- both men and women-- to represent their interests on the federal stages that are Congress and the House of Representatives. If you’re not winning in Congress or the House, chances are (read: it is certain) that your views are not-- as per our model of legislation-- held by the majority of citizens, which is invariably comprised of both men and women.

There is a few problems with this

1) You assume that people agree 100% with their voted in congressmen's stances and not just a majority or didn't just plain vote against the other guy. It is very unlikely that your personal political views perfectly line up with the people who are running to represent you and thus you have to give up on representation on certain issues (even if they are important to you)

2) You assume that enough people actually know what their voted congressmen's stances are and didn't just vote for their political party in order to back up their presidential choice, or because they've been a republican all their life and they always vote republican.

3) You assume that congressmen don't just vote with the rest of their party themselves.

4) You assume that congressmen don't lie their way to their seat or change position mid term. A person who pushed for an anti-gay bill might have completely hidden their stance or lied about it to get votes from the other side of the political spectrum.

5) That the person who is currently holding their seat is even being run against, or that the people who are running both hold the same stance on that particular issue. Hard to vote pro-choice if your only options are both pro-life.

6) That people aren't apathetic toward a particular issue. There there are more people in Party A that supports an issue than people in Party B that are against it, but party B gains control due to other issues being voted for instead, Party B gets control over said issue despite holding a minority view on it

In other words, it is very easy and even common to have a congress hold a majority view that is against the majority view of the people. You are assuming our voting system is a lot simpler than it actually is.