Listen, I generally don’t call people idiots, but you are one. Eugenics is not a “shitty” belief. Homeopathy is a shitty belief, idiot. Eugenics is EVIL. Clearly, you have never done a modicum of research into what it actually is. It is the belief that certain groups of humans are less than good and deserve to be…

You are totally right and raise a good point - by today’s definition, Sanger probably wouldn’t even be regarded as pro-choice, since she clearly believed in pushing certain groups towards abortion. That’s not supporting choice. Another totally valid argument.

Can we stop with this “nobody is perfect!” crap? Hot take: there is a difference between “not being perfect” and “advocating for an evil worldview that promotes the elimination of those you believe to be beneath you.” Please, knock it off with that idiocy before you try again.

That is genuinely the whitest thing I’ve heard in a long time, and I mean that.

I think there is a difference between talking about somebody and celebrating them. One is factual, one is a matter of opinion. What I think is that we need to be careful when we talk about these people to be factual, but not laud those who held abhorrent views. And yes, I believe that Sanger held views that were…

Absolutely it does. But we don’t hear that much about it - and that’s a travesty, because it’s equally as important. But I suspect that is because the predominant voices of the pro-choice movement - white women - have never been discouraged from reproducing, so they worry about it less.

Do you really not see the difference between “acknowledging the not-so-great parts of a person’s history” vs. “celebrating that person for beliefs grounded in discrimination?”

Well, I think that’s parsing hairs a bit. I’ve seen pro-choice people argue that Sanger was not a racist, she was just ableist and classist. But at the time, such a distinction would not have been made. The lower classes that Sanger railed against were predominantly comprised of POC, or of people regarded as POC at…

Disagree. Marx was at heart a theorist who worked in abstract theories and ideas. Sanger did not - she was an activist who built something that still exists today on the back of her eugenic ideas. Do you really not see that difference? If anything, Marx’s personal behavior lends itself to a critique of his ideas, but…

The difference is that Ghandi’s offensive views were not intrinsically tied up in his activism for independence. Sanger’s WERE. Sanger’s pro-choice views were partially (if not nearly all) informed by her view that there were “certain classes” of humans (the poor, the disabled, the non-white) who were simply “less…

Um...did you read the Politico article I cited multiple times above? It states, citing sources within the party, that Pudzer’s perceived softness on immigration was the primary reason for his defeat, as Republicans want a nominee who will aggressively pursue businesses hiring illegal aliens.

Mattis won’t last. He’s allegedly already threatened to walk once, due to the fact that Trump has been appointing the Joint Chiefs of Staff - people who would serve under Mattis - without any input.

Except...he still won. And no, you can’t state with any kind of certainty that the Comey letter put him over the top. You can’t really cite polls because it’s generally accepted fact at this point that the polls were egregiously wrong on a variety of factors. So you’re basing that entirely off presumptions that we…

Dude, again - MATH. The Dems total 48, the Republicans total 52. I don’t know if you know, but 52 is a greater number than 48. Even WHEN Dems vote as a block, they come up short. If you’re stuck there, I think you might be beyond the help of anybody on this particular site.

Uh...because of numbers, dude. Democrats number 48, Republicans, 52. The Dems CANNOT stop the nominees, even if they all vote as block. The only way to defeat a Trump nominee is to get at least 3 Republicans to oppose them - that’s IT. Basic math. The Democrats are a non-issue, because they simply have no means to…

Acosta is certainly better in that he has extensive government experience, but I think its a little early to decide if he’s “better” ideologically, since he has not yet been subject to confirmation hearings.

That’s a horrible statement, but it’s true - I don’t think anybody in the WH cared one bit that Pudzer (probably) beat his wife. I doubt the vast majority of Republican Senators cared. But they sure cared that he employed an immigrant in his house, or that he promoted hiring them in his restaurants. That’s a sad…

Except that same article cites his immigration stance as the primary reason as to why his support waivered (in that it did not go far enough). So...still yeah, not seeing a point here.

Except the opposition had JACK to do with this, as I pointed out before. Republicans tanked Pudzer. If you struggle with that, I don’t think you can really get what I’m saying overall.

Uh...you are aware that the Senate is the end-all-be-all for this, right? The House gets no say in the Cabinet, right? If he had lost the support of at least 3 Republican Senators, that’s what toasted him. And the article clearly states that Republicans pulled out over his (perceived lax) immigration views.…