138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
138 points (96.0% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2425 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Wednesday night’s debate, which featured eight of the leading not-Donald-Trump candidates for the Republican nomination, spent little time on health care except for an extended exchange on abortion, covered in depth by Vox’s Rachel Cohen.
Abortion — which Fox moderator Martha MacCallum cast as a “losing” political issue for Republicans ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade — led to a contentious exchange in which former South Carolina Gov.
Transgender rights and the myriad conservative laws passed in the past few years to restrict access to gender-affirming care were referenced only obliquely in the debate but carried the same message.
More recently, most doctors have come to believe that such patients should be handled more humanely and affirmatively; permitting them to make a social gender transition (changing their name and pronouns, using a different bathroom, etc.)
“Trans advocates have pointed out that these bills fit comfortably within the larger GOP plan to seize minority power in an effort to force their preferred gender dynamics,” Burns wrote.
In one of the most striking tangents of the night, businessman Vivek Ramaswamy even advocated for reopening “mental health institutions” that have closed over the decades as the country sought to cut costs (starting in the Reagan administration) and tried — but has largely failed — to invest in more humane home- and community-based services.
The original article contains 1,667 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I’m sorry, but I think that this bot really needs some work, or to move to a different engine. Every time I read the summary and then read the article, the bot has missed major points or the entire thrust of the article/opinion, and instead uses minutiae that contribute to the piece only in the presence of the original (but now stripped) context.
The central thesis of the article is that the gop wants to use healthcare policies to restrict healthcare that they feel has a conflict with their religious or conservative worldviews. They don’t want to guarantee the rights of trans persons or people seeking abortions against discrimination but instead want the government to regulate what kinds of healthcare are legal. They want to remove decisions from the hands of medical professionals and patients and instead have it regulated by government bureaucrats who lack any relevant education. On the other hand, they do not want the government - even the parts of the government that are intentionally staffed with medical experts - to make decisions about things like pandemic policies.
This kind of paragraph is far more characteristic of the tone and focus of the article than most of the summary:
The bot didn’t complete a sentence. 🤦♀️