2024 Presidential Election thread

[pfife]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

if a shooting occurs in the national forest, the county or state police have full authority to use all their police powers to apprehend, and prosecute that crime. They don't share it with the FBI. The limitation is not on the police powers of the locals, it's on what they enforce. Rules and regs that are a matter of specific relevance to the operation of the forest - who can take out timber, who can be in the forest campground and when, are enforced by the rangers - but those are not matters of local law, so the locals would have nothing to do with enforcement of those those things. That is the sense in which jurisdiction is shared. I will stand by my statement that the locals have full police powers in the nat forest to enforce local/state statutes.

But we are not discussing law enforcement - we're discussing who has the jurisdiction to make the rules that are to be enforced, specifically abortion policies on federal lands.   You seem to be using who can enforce the laws & regulations as a proxy for who can make the laws & regulations - which may be appropriate in some cases but your article clearly stated who has the jurisdiction to make laws and regulations:

Quote

Perry: Millions of acres of national forest lands are considered to be proprietary jurisdiction. To help protect the valuable national resources found within, Congress has given the Department of Agriculture, through the U.S. Forest Service, power to enact regulations to control use and protect those national forest lands. There are laws found in the Code of Federal Regulations that require visitors to national forests to obey standard rules of behavior, for example to avoid damaging public property, and to get permits before taking or altering any natural features found in the forest.

 

Note that it doesn't say states have full authority - which is what you claimed.  

Furthermore, whether there's an abortion clinic in the forest is relevant to the operation of the national forest. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

The government could just subsidize a bus ticket to Canada or Chicago instead of pop up abortion clinics in the middle of Lake Superior or a post office. 

Why either/or?  Why not both?

Oh that's me being for women's choice again. 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

The government could just subsidize a bus ticket to Canada or Chicago instead of pop up abortion clinics in the middle of Lake Superior or a post office. 

there you go. People need to get a grip. Many states, probably states representing more than half the population of the country, will end up as jurisdictions where various levels of abortion will be legal. All of this craziness being tossed around in the end goes away and the practical question is how to set up systems to get women who need abortion to where it is legal. 

[Motown Bombers]

Where would doctors be licensed? Is a doctor practicing out of a post office or VA hospital licensed by the state? If he/she is licensed by the state, would they be open to prosecution if abortion is illegal in that state? Couldn't the state revoke their medical license? If a doctor is licensed in say DC, can they practice in Michigan?

[pfife]

Who pays the subsidy for the bus ride to Chicago or Canada?

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

there you go. People need to get a grip. Many states, probably states representing more than half the population of the country, will end up as jurisdictions where various levels of abortion will be legal. All of this craziness being tossed around in the end goes away and the practical question is how to set up systems to get women who need abortion to where it is legal. 

Who pays the subsidy?

[Motown Bombers]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

there you go. People need to get a grip. Many states, probably states representing more than half the population of the country, will end up as jurisdictions where various levels of abortion will be legal. All of this craziness being tossed around in the end goes away and the practical question is how to set up systems to get women who need abortion to where it is legal. 

Companies are paying for their employees to travel to other states for an abortion, seems like the easy solution is to have Medicaid or WIC or whoever pay to have women travel for an abortion. 

[pfife]

It is current federal law that the federal government cannot fund abortions.   Would the proposed subsidies be in violation of this current law?  Will the law be repealed? (no)

Is it the state government that is going fund the subsidies?  That won't pass the state legislature so it would have to be the Governor.  I'm not sure that's possible for her to do.  

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, pfife said:

It is current federal law that the federal government cannot fund abortions.   Would the proposed subsidies be in violation of this current law?  Will the law be repealed? (no)

Is it the state government that is going fund the subsidies?  That won't pass the state legislature so it would have to be the Governor.  I'm not sure that's possible for her to do.  

probably going to need NGOs to fill that space.

[pfife]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

probably going to need NGOs to fill that space.

Seems like a not viable government policy to me....  sounds like a familiar refrain....  oh well

[Motown Bombers]

If pop up abortion clinics are placed in national forest some 200 or so miles from where half the population lives, how are they going to get there? A quick check of Amtrak shows tickets to Chicago are $32. Far as I know, there is no Amtrak train to Manistee National Forest so transportation would somehow need to be arranged which would cost more than $32. 

[pfife]

If I were that person I'd prolly go the $32 route.  If I lived in Mesick I'd go the national forest route. 

But they could also drive to the further place too if they wanted to and had the means.

What government is paying the subsidies you proposed?

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, pfife said:

If I were that person I'd prolly go the $32 route.  If I lived in Mesick I'd go the national forest route. 

But they could also drive to the further place too if they wanted to and had the means.

What government is paying the subsidies you proposed?

Were abortion services free in Red states where they were legal before Dobbs? Were they just massively fudging the Hyde amendment?

Edited July 1, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

Mesick has a population of about 400 people, and assume a little over half are female. Of those, about 30% are child bearing age but we'll round up to 40% and call it 80. Construct a federally funded abortion clinic for about 80 women in the middle of Trump country where likely most of them won't even want an abortion. 

[pfife]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Were abortion services free in Red states where they were legal before Dobbs? Were they just massively fudging the Hyde amendment?

I don't know if they were free or not.

[pfife]

13 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Mesick has a population of about 400 people, and assume a little over half are female. Of those, about 30% are child bearing age but we'll round up to 40% and call it 80. Construct a federally funded abortion clinic for about 80 women in the middle of Trump country where likely most of them won't even want an abortion. 

Better than no clinics at all.  But I'm coming from a pro-choice perspective - are you?

Also who said federally funded clinic?   Your links clearly stated Warren said Planned Parenthood should open the clinics on federal land. 

  

9 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

There are numerous sources that quote her as saying national parks. I also never said she didn't say national land. 

Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | WUTV (wutv29.com)

Elizabeth Warren suggests Planned Parenthood set up 'outposts' in national parks | KPIC

 

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by pfife

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think helicopter parents are better than the opposite extreme.  I think a good balance of support and  freedom is the best.  Come to think of it, that is how I feel about liberals and conservatives as well.  

I agree that the right balance of freedom and support helps a child grow up best, although I don’t think freedom is what comes to mind when people contemplate helicopter parenting.

[Tiger337]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I agree that the right balance of freedom and support helps a child grow up best, although I don’t think freedom is what comes to mind when people contemplate helicopter parenting.

Helicopter parenting is too much support.  Neglectful parenting is too much freedom  which I think is  more dangerous.  The idea is to find the right balance.  

[chasfh]

51 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Helicopter parenting is too much support.  Neglectful parenting is too much freedom  which I think is  more dangerous.  The idea is to find the right balance.  

What constitutes support does change with the generations. The idea of supporting kids by mentoring them to deal with the world as best-practice parenting is a relatively new thing in the history of the world. The people of our parents’ generation grew up with Depression and war, so to them, the goal of being a parent was to support your kids by always having a job, always having a roof over  their heads, always keeping them sufficiently fed. If they accomplished that, that made them good parents. Anything beyond that, kid, you can figure it out like I did.

Before that, it was even more stark: Happy 12th birthday, son. Time to quit school and starting helping the family. Happy 16th birthday, daughter. Here’s a nice boy from down the road for you to marry. Now take this paltry dowry and get out.

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

What constitutes support does change with the generations. The idea of supporting kids by mentoring them to deal with the world as best-practice parenting is a relatively new thing in the history of the world. The people of our parents’ generation grew up with Depression and war, so to them, the goal of being a parent was to support your kids by always having a job, always having a roof over  their heads, always keeping them sufficiently fed. If they accomplished that, that made them good parents. Anything beyond that, kid, you can figure it out like I did.

Before that, it was even more stark: Happy 12th birthday, son. Time to quit school and starting helping the family. Happy 16th birthday, daughter. Here’s a nice boy from down the road for you to marry. Now take this paltry dowry and get out.

Yes, parents have been more supportive of children with each generation.  This can go too far, but I think there is more good than bad in giving support.  

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Yes, parents have been more supportive of children with each generation.  This can go too far, but I think there is more good than bad in giving support.  

You gotta watch out for what I call free range kids. My sister-in-law raises my nephew who is 9 like this. I asked what is his bedtime when he came for a sleepover. She said he just goes to bed when he is tired. What does he eat? White rice with brown sugar or mcdonalds chicken nuggets and fries. Thats all he eats..............

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

You gotta watch out for what I call free range kids. My sister-in-law raises my nephew who is 9 like this. I asked what is his bedtime when he came for a sleepover. She said he just goes to bed when he is tired. What does he eat? White rice with brown sugar or mcdonalds chicken nuggets and fries. Thats all he eats..............

All due respect to your sister-in-law, that approach sounds to me less like freedom and more like neglect.

[Tigeraholic1]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

All due respect to your sister-in-law, that approach sounds to me less like freedom and more like neglect.

They let him make HIS own choices. The kid also plays Fortnite 10-15 hours a day....

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

They let him make HIS own choices. The kid also plays Fortnite 10-15 hours a day....

Ask him what he wants to be when he grows up. What are the chances he says Twitch star?

[chasfh]