Klobuchar

[UCFBS]

PREFACE: Figured I'd start a thread specifically at her. She's 'too new' to 'know any dirt' so far. We'll see if that continues, as she's going to gain fanfare. She could be another Clinton '92.

• https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/amy-klobuchar/

So ... the left is really splitting into 2 camps ...

• 'radical' Sanders -- 'radical' versus past Democratic candidates, let alone Republicans), and ...
• 'moderate' Klobuchar -- 'radical' for a '20 Progressive, but very, very amenable in generaion

What I agree with her on (from my Isolationist Libertarian views) ...

• Criminal justice reform / legalization / wipe records
• Supports nuclear power (common sense)
• Supports charter schools (yes, against the left)
• Always require paper ballots

What is amendable ...

• 2 years public CC/trade school free -- need to see the plan
• Increase corp taxes, but lower than before '17 -- common sense to keep under pre-'17 levels
• Min 30% rate on top 2 income tax brackets -- need to see the plan (don't undercut charity)
• Pro-choice, w/limitations -- don't like limits**, but amenable

What is debatable (could go either way) ...

• ACA, but opposes Medicare-for-All -- want to hear her plan
• Immigration reform tied to Security -- want to hear more (even Trump compatible)

What is utterly dumbfounding (especially as an Isolationist Libertarian) ...

• Slash defense, but keep troops deployed?! Ummm ... oxy-moron

And what I expect to cater to the MIM (mass ignorant mob) ...

• Fund infrastructure though wealth taxes -- ala Greece et al.
• AWB = BCG200 -- Ban all cartridges/gun designs 200 years old

**NOTE: As always -- I trust women to know better for their bodies, and self-defense advocates to know better with their weapons, more than the government's laws and police. Laws are just designed, incrementally, to limit people from being able to exercise their Constitutional rights, and they are Unconstitutional.

 

[ChrisKnight06]

I agree! Protecting babies from being murdered is def because we don't trust women.

 

[UCFBS]

I agree! Protecting babies from being murdered is def because we don't trust women.

Most American women will make the right decision on their own. I cannot say the same about the US gov't on so many things.

Those American women who don't make the right decision will still make the same decision if it's illegal. So it's best to have a legal option with regulated medical options.

Same with self-defense. I trust the individual American, not the government, most.

Passing laws to outlaw abortion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And until it 'flips,' from a supermajority of Americans supporting abortion, to a supermajority of Americans against it, this will be the case.

So, civics-wise, it's WRONG to try to prevent people from exercising their Constitutional rights. So anyone who argues for the government to make it illegal through any means necessary are actually UNCONSTITUTIONAL in argument.

Hence why I'm Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. I'm Pro-Choice civics-wise, Pro-Life when it comes to my friends and family.

 

[btbones]

Most American women will make the right decision on their own. I cannot say the same about the US gov't on so many things. Those American women who don't make the right decision will still make the same decision if it's illegal. So it's best to have a legal option with regulated medical options.

Same with self-defense. I trust the individual American, not the government, most.

This sounds libertarian . Is that your chosen ideology ?

 

[firm_bizzle]

She's has a Hillary feel. I can't describe it.

 

[UCFBS]

She's has a Hillary feel. I can't describe it.

Ahhh, no.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Thank God we have a Libertarian here to codify the mass slaughter of the unborn and destruction of the protection they should enjoy under the Constitution

 

[UCFBS]

Thank God we have a Libertarian here to codify the mass slaughter of the unborn and destruction of the protection they should enjoy under the Constitution

In a nutshell ... yes. Until a supermajority of Americans feel otherwise, and can pass the REQUIRED Constitutional Amendment to overturn the civil right ... yes.

Be Pro-Life, but recognize it's Pro-Choice, civics and supreme law-wise. That's the responsible thing to do as an American, or none of our civil rights will matter.

 

[Crazyhole]

In a nutshell ... yes. Until a supermajority of Americans feel otherwise, and can pass the REQUIRED Constitutional Amendment to overturn the civil right ... yes.

Be Pro-Life, but recognize it's Pro-Choice, civics and supreme law-wise. That's the responsible thing to do as an American, or none of our civil rights will matter.

I wonder how many of the 70 million aborted children would agree with this take.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I wonder how many of the 70 million aborted children would agree with this take.

AS A LIBERTARIAN, I am sure BS will respond with 16 paragraphs and 60,000 words that no one will bother to read

 

[sk8knight]

AS A LIBERTARIAN, I am sure BS will respond with 16 paragraphs and 60,000 words that no one will bother to read

It’s not about rights of an unborn child to him because he has created a rational separation where the unborn child is not an entity in law until it leaves the mother’s body. So you will never change his mind on abortion legislation without convincing him that the child is a legal entity and that society has a responsibility to that child.

The issue then is whether he supports all of the other contradictions in government, like additional charges for violent assaults against a pregnant woman, mandatory prenatal care for “safety net” mothers, legislative barriers against presenting women with pro-life information when they’re going through their decision-making process, etc.

 

[DaShuckster]

It’s not about rights of an unborn child to him because he has created a rational separation where the unborn child is not an entity in law until it leaves the mother’s body.

A government certainly shouldn’t be dealing in legal rights until the fetus is viable. With today’s medical technology, that time frame has been growing shorter.

But on the other hand, when the government feels the need to insert itself earlier, it implies the mother’s rights are secondary. That is some serious sexist sh*t!

 

[Crazyhole]

A government certainly shouldn’t be dealing in legal rights until the fetus is viable. With today’s medical technology, that time frame has been growing shorter.

But on the other hand, when the government feels the need to insert itself earlier, it implies the mother’s rights are secondary. That is some serious sexist sh*t!

Would you be ok with a ban on abortions after 20 weeks?

 

[DaShuckster]

Would you be ok with a ban on abortions after 20 weeks?

I’m sick and tired of this never ending back and forth. My point is that until “whatever pre-determined date the medical community agrees upon as normal viability,” the government needs to keep its nose out of a woman’s life and life choices.

 

[Crazyhole]

I’m sick and tired of this never ending back and forth. My point is that until “whatever pre-determined date the medical community agrees upon as normal viability,” the government needs to keep its nose out of a woman’s life and life choices.

I asked because that's now the point of viability.

 

[DaShuckster]

I asked because that's now the point of viability.

Then you got your answer.

 

[Crazyhole]

Then you got your answer.

Not really. Yes or no would have been an answer. Are you saying that since the medical community agrees that 20 weeks is the point of viability you're ok with banning abortions after that point?

 

[UCFKnight85]

I’m sick and tired of this never ending back and forth. My point is that until “whatever pre-determined date the medical community agrees upon as normal viability,” the government needs to keep its nose out of a woman’s life and life choices.

There are millions of people who are alive purely because of a machine or a medical device. They are "non viable" if you removed those. Should we let people just kill them too?

 

[UCFWayne]

she will drop out after super tuesday

 

[UCFBS]

I wonder how many of the 70 million aborted children would agree with this take.

Probably not many. But that's how our US Constitution works.

It’s not about rights of an unborn child to him because he has created a rational separation where the unborn child is not an entity in law until it leaves the mother’s body.

NO! INCORRECT! I have NEVER made this argument.

SIDE NOTE: I only said that a baby outside the woman's body is NOT protected by Roe v. Wade -- an argument by me against Democrats, like those in Virginia, NOT Republicans.​

MY POINT: 2/3rds of Americans believe in legalized abortion.

Until you guys get 1/3rd to flip, so 2/3rds are against legalized abortion, and the required 2/3rds of the country to overturn Roe v. Wade via Constitutional Amendment ...

It's the supreme law of the land. Accept it. Stop playing BS games or rationalizing why anyone who respects the Constitution is evil.

If you don't, then you are arguing an Unconstitutional viewpoint. Simple as that, you don't respect civil rights.

 

[Crazyhole]

Probably not many. But that's how our US Constitution works.

NO! INCORRECT! I have NEVER made this argument.

SIDE NOTE: I only said that a baby outside the woman's body is NOT protected by Roe v. Wade -- an argument by me against Democrats, like those in Virginia, NOT Republicans.​

MY POINT: 2/3rds of Americans believe in legalized abortion.

Until you guys get 1/3rd to flip, so 2/3rds are against legalized abortion, and the required 2/3rds of the country to overturn Roe v. Wade via Constitutional Amendment ...

It's the supreme law of the land. Accept it. Stop playing BS games or rationalizing why anyone who respects the Constitution is evil.

If you don't, then you are arguing an Unconstitutional viewpoint. Simple as that, you don't respect civil rights.

So it only should be a right if 2/3rds if the people around you agree? That goes completely against the declaration of independence and as a libertarian you should know that. Either a right is inherent or it isnt, public opinion doesnt determine that.

 

[UCFKnight85]

So it only should be a right if 2/3rds if the people around you agree? That goes completely against the declaration of independence and as a libertarian you should know that. Either a right is inherent or it isnt, public opinion doesnt determine that.

He only says he’s a LIBERTARIAN to make himself feel special and beg us to read his drivel

 

[Crazyhole]

He only says he’s a LIBERTARIAN to make himself feel special and beg us to read his drivel

He makes a lot of good points even if they are long winded, but this position is completely antithetical to what libertarianism is. How do you not acknowledge the right of life unless 2/3rds agree you should have it, when the basis of our country is founded on that being an inherent right? Either you believe it is or you dont, and falling back on the 2/3rds argument tells me he doesnt.