United States | News & Politics

This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so I'll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, I'm out.

banning books

I haven't seen much evidence for this.

The Florida law that I think you're referring to merely requires schools to formalize the process for what books they put on shelves. Books were removed until that process was finished, and AFAIK there's no restriction on what citizens can purchase or what libraries can carry, the only restriction is that books in schools need to be age appropriate (and I'm sure you and I both disagree with conservatives on what that means) and relevant.

What I have seen is a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and it's alarming to me that people don't seem to see past the BS.

One party is supporting child murder via inaction.

...

One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.

I think these are related, but again, it's hard to see through the rhetoric.

You can't murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless they're actually incarcerated. I'm not really sure what the first is referring to, so I'll focus on the second.

What you seem to be getting at here is the concept of positive rights. I personally reject positive rights in general, but I do think school lunches should be provided to all, but that's because we legally require attendance for enough hours that a meal break is needed. I think employers should also provide meals if they require shifts longer than 4 hours, or schedule shifts back to back with less than four hours in between. I think employees and students should be free to refuse the provided meals and receive monetary compensation instead.

However, I reject the notion of positive rights in general, and I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here.

One party supports forced birth.

This comes down to when you believe people get rights. The conservative position is that fetuses have human rights, and liberals seem to ignore fetal rights and focus on the rights of the mother.

My personal view is more nuanced:

• it should never be illegal for a woman to seek an abortion, any regulation should be on doctors
• during the first trimester when miscarriage risk is high, it's a privacy issue, so it should be nearly completely unrestricted (aside from malpractice issues like doctors urging women to get an abortion they don't want, but it's already illegal to force medication on someone)
• until fetal viability, it should be restricted to medical need, or for people who couldn't get an abortion during the first trimester for some reason (abusive relationship, legal complexities, didn't know they were pregnant, etc)
• once the fetus is viable, the state should fund an early delivery if the woman chooses to put the child up for adoption

I believe that balances the rights of the woman and the fetus. It doesn't make either side happy, but I do believe it is better than the status quo.

One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.

Both sides have a bad track record on immigration. The solution would be resolved if we just made legal immigration easier.

But I do agree, I think Trump's actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidate's position this year has been terrible.

I recall reading someone's proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:

• All undocumented immigrants need to go to the nearest immigration office to get a temporary visa after a background check
• Every year, they need to return to the immigration office to get a renewal; this can continue as long as they remain law abiding citizens
• if they get deported, it'll be a lot more difficult to get in legally

On paper that sounds fair, though I'd need to see the details first.