|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Republicans keep talking about rape, and the political consequences keep coming.
It’s a lesson learned the hard way so many times, most recently Wednesday night. With the GOP in control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans in the House were poised to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to try to advance it in the Senate. The bill is an outright challenge to Roe v. Wade, decided exactly 42 years ago.
Instead, House leaders had to cancel the vote after objections from some female Republicans who deemed a rape exemption unacceptably narrow and burdensome. The bill would not let rape or incest victims get an abortion after 20 weeks unless they had filed a police report, although most women who are raped do not report it.
Once again, the party of Todd Akin and transvaginal ultrasounds seemed to undo its own imminent victory.
“It’s a messaging issue,” said North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose objections to the restrictive rape language helped scuttle the bill and whose office later drew dozens of protesters who had wanted the stricter approach. “I believe our heart is in the right place, and we’re standing up for what is right. But I think in order to be able to have that conversation with the American people, we have always got to be speaking from the perspective of the individual and … having compassion for women in all situations.”
Republicans had vowed to avoid a repeat of candidates’ missteps in 2012, when Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments in Missouri and Richard Mourdock’s characterization of pregnancy from rape being “something God intended” cost the party two key Senate races and, arguably, control of the Senate.
The discipline paid off in 2014, when the GOP avoided talk of rape and swept Senate, House and state offices. Congressional Republicans quickly coalesced around abortion restrictions with potential to appeal even to those who tend to favor abortion rights.
Polls show Americans generally want abortion to stay legal — but with restrictions. More than a dozen states have passed 20 week bans, based on proponents’ contention that a fetus at that point of development can feel pain. A Quinnipiac University poll in November found 60 percent of Americans support the basic idea of a 20-week ban.
So House Republican leaders were caught off-guard when women in their own ranks — joined by at least one man — revolted. Anti-abortion activists in town for the annual March for Life were furious.
Source
|
On January 23 2015 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans keep talking about rape, and the political consequences keep coming.
It’s a lesson learned the hard way so many times, most recently Wednesday night. With the GOP in control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans in the House were poised to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to try to advance it in the Senate. The bill is an outright challenge to Roe v. Wade, decided exactly 42 years ago.
Instead, House leaders had to cancel the vote after objections from some female Republicans who deemed a rape exemption unacceptably narrow and burdensome. The bill would not let rape or incest victims get an abortion after 20 weeks unless they had filed a police report, although most women who are raped do not report it.
Once again, the party of Todd Akin and transvaginal ultrasounds seemed to undo its own imminent victory.
“It’s a messaging issue,” said North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose objections to the restrictive rape language helped scuttle the bill and whose office later drew dozens of protesters who had wanted the stricter approach. “I believe our heart is in the right place, and we’re standing up for what is right. But I think in order to be able to have that conversation with the American people, we have always got to be speaking from the perspective of the individual and … having compassion for women in all situations.”
Republicans had vowed to avoid a repeat of candidates’ missteps in 2012, when Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments in Missouri and Richard Mourdock’s characterization of pregnancy from rape being “something God intended” cost the party two key Senate races and, arguably, control of the Senate.
The discipline paid off in 2014, when the GOP avoided talk of rape and swept Senate, House and state offices. Congressional Republicans quickly coalesced around abortion restrictions with potential to appeal even to those who tend to favor abortion rights.
Polls show Americans generally want abortion to stay legal — but with restrictions. More than a dozen states have passed 20 week bans, based on proponents’ contention that a fetus at that point of development can feel pain. A Quinnipiac University poll in November found 60 percent of Americans support the basic idea of a 20-week ban.
So House Republican leaders were caught off-guard when women in their own ranks — joined by at least one man — revolted. Anti-abortion activists in town for the annual March for Life were furious. Source
The only way I can imagine them being "caught off guard" is if they didn't bother to ask the women's opinion in the first place and just assumed they would vote with party.
Which is pretty well in line with what we would expect from republicans.
|
On January 23 2015 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans keep talking about rape, and the political consequences keep coming.
It’s a lesson learned the hard way so many times, most recently Wednesday night. With the GOP in control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans in the House were poised to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to try to advance it in the Senate. The bill is an outright challenge to Roe v. Wade, decided exactly 42 years ago.
Instead, House leaders had to cancel the vote after objections from some female Republicans who deemed a rape exemption unacceptably narrow and burdensome. The bill would not let rape or incest victims get an abortion after 20 weeks unless they had filed a police report, although most women who are raped do not report it.
Once again, the party of Todd Akin and transvaginal ultrasounds seemed to undo its own imminent victory.
“It’s a messaging issue,” said North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose objections to the restrictive rape language helped scuttle the bill and whose office later drew dozens of protesters who had wanted the stricter approach. “I believe our heart is in the right place, and we’re standing up for what is right. But I think in order to be able to have that conversation with the American people, we have always got to be speaking from the perspective of the individual and … having compassion for women in all situations.”
Republicans had vowed to avoid a repeat of candidates’ missteps in 2012, when Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments in Missouri and Richard Mourdock’s characterization of pregnancy from rape being “something God intended” cost the party two key Senate races and, arguably, control of the Senate.
The discipline paid off in 2014, when the GOP avoided talk of rape and swept Senate, House and state offices. Congressional Republicans quickly coalesced around abortion restrictions with potential to appeal even to those who tend to favor abortion rights.
Polls show Americans generally want abortion to stay legal — but with restrictions. More than a dozen states have passed 20 week bans, based on proponents’ contention that a fetus at that point of development can feel pain. A Quinnipiac University poll in November found 60 percent of Americans support the basic idea of a 20-week ban.
So House Republican leaders were caught off-guard when women in their own ranks — joined by at least one man — revolted. Anti-abortion activists in town for the annual March for Life were furious. Source
Who cares what Politico thinks?
Edit: it would be nice if you cut back on the propaganda machine. You've been laying it on way too thick.
|
I dunno about "what we would expect", but it seems like they're having a lot of trouble with vote counts and semantics in the bills, along with maintaining discipline within party ranks. Those are pretty fundamental legislative skills, so it doesn't bode well for their chances of getting much done. I wonder if they're botching it or if this is shenanigans from Democrats to sabotage bills and embarrass the party leadership.
|
I agree it's concerning to have trouble with such things, those should have been all ironed out by the support staff well beforehand.
Discipline is of course somewhat hard to maintain when your actual authority is quite limited.
|
On January 23 2015 14:00 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno about "what we would expect", but it seems like they're having a lot of trouble with vote counts and semantics in the bills, along with maintaining discipline within party ranks. Those are pretty fundamental legislative skills, so it doesn't bode well for their chances of getting much done. I wonder if they're botching it or if this is shenanigans from Democrats to sabotage bills and embarrass the party leadership.
What could democrats have to do with it?
|
On January 23 2015 11:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 07:51 Introvert wrote:
Term limits would do wonders. I don't think the system needs any other major revisions- at least not any that liberals would agree to. The problem isn't just term limit, gerrymandering is a much bigger issue imo.
It's not though, and I've posted on this several times- I can find the citations if you want.
What's mainly happening with districts is that Democrat districts lean more Democratic than Republican districts lean Republican- since you only need 50%+1 to win, every vote over that is a waste. Democrats tend to concentrate in smaller (or larger) urban areas than Republicans do, so it leads to a lot of "wasted" votes in each district. This is the primary reason why Republicans won the house in 2012 despite losing the overall popular vote (barely).
Also, the populace itself is becoming more polarized, so the districts can reflect that.
I think term limits are far more important, because hopefully by kicking them out after some short number of years, they can't build as much influence as if they've been in the Senate for 4 decades. I think it takes care of a lot of problems.
On January 23 2015 11:45 IgnE wrote:
It's just annoying to see your stupid shit cluttering up the thread. At least make it interesting.
Like "Bernie Sanders 2016" :p
I for one enjoy a slight chuckle now and again.
|
On January 23 2015 13:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 13:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Republicans keep talking about rape, and the political consequences keep coming.
It’s a lesson learned the hard way so many times, most recently Wednesday night. With the GOP in control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans in the House were poised to pass a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy to try to advance it in the Senate. The bill is an outright challenge to Roe v. Wade, decided exactly 42 years ago.
Instead, House leaders had to cancel the vote after objections from some female Republicans who deemed a rape exemption unacceptably narrow and burdensome. The bill would not let rape or incest victims get an abortion after 20 weeks unless they had filed a police report, although most women who are raped do not report it.
Once again, the party of Todd Akin and transvaginal ultrasounds seemed to undo its own imminent victory.
“It’s a messaging issue,” said North Carolina GOP Rep. Renee Ellmers, whose objections to the restrictive rape language helped scuttle the bill and whose office later drew dozens of protesters who had wanted the stricter approach. “I believe our heart is in the right place, and we’re standing up for what is right. But I think in order to be able to have that conversation with the American people, we have always got to be speaking from the perspective of the individual and … having compassion for women in all situations.”
Republicans had vowed to avoid a repeat of candidates’ missteps in 2012, when Akin’s “legitimate rape” comments in Missouri and Richard Mourdock’s characterization of pregnancy from rape being “something God intended” cost the party two key Senate races and, arguably, control of the Senate.
The discipline paid off in 2014, when the GOP avoided talk of rape and swept Senate, House and state offices. Congressional Republicans quickly coalesced around abortion restrictions with potential to appeal even to those who tend to favor abortion rights.
Polls show Americans generally want abortion to stay legal — but with restrictions. More than a dozen states have passed 20 week bans, based on proponents’ contention that a fetus at that point of development can feel pain. A Quinnipiac University poll in November found 60 percent of Americans support the basic idea of a 20-week ban.
So House Republican leaders were caught off-guard when women in their own ranks — joined by at least one man — revolted. Anti-abortion activists in town for the annual March for Life were furious. Source Who cares what Politico thinks? Edit: it would be nice if you cut back on the propaganda machine. You've been laying it on way too thick.
You seem to be particularly hostile lately, have you been eating enough? It seems like your blood sugar levels are fluctuating.
|
I also like chuckles. I'm sure coverpunch will step up his game instead of resorting to stupid, tired cliches.
|
I'm not so sure term limits will help that much at the federal level introvert, while it's not exactly the same, there's been a fair bit of research and examination of term limits at the state level, and the impression was they didn't really change things much at all; at least that's my recollection of the examination of such things. They either do the rotating door between industry and government thing, or they just hop around between different government jobs.
I do recall reading an article recently that appointed judges tended to be less corrupt than elected judges. was that on this forum or elsewhere?
|
On January 23 2015 14:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 14:00 coverpunch wrote:
I dunno about "what we would expect", but it seems like they're having a lot of trouble with vote counts and semantics in the bills, along with maintaining discipline within party ranks. Those are pretty fundamental legislative skills, so it doesn't bode well for their chances of getting much done. I wonder if they're botching it or if this is shenanigans from Democrats to sabotage bills and embarrass the party leadership. What could democrats have to do with it?
A social issue dear to their hearts where all of a sudden the bottom falls out below a Republican measure? I have a hard time believing the women just up and decided on their own at the 11th hour to pull their support and "revolt". It's possible the GOP botched it on their own, as I mentioned, like maybe they promised to change the wording and didn't or somehow they tricked the women into thinking it said something different.
But it seems likely that Democrats would interfere with such a measure, perhaps by alerting the women or the constituents that the measure might have deeper implications than they thought. I would find it surprising if Democrats were sitting around doing nothing as Republicans were trying to whip votes for this.
To be fair,this Daily Kos writer is angry at these Republican women who revolted because they already voted for the same language before. She makes it seem like the whole thing is Kabuki theater, like Republicans have to do "something" to satisfy pro-life protesters (who are in town for the Roe v Wade anniversary) but they ultimately WANT to table the issue without doing anything and some kind of problem like this gives them cover.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 23 2015 11:22 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 08:58 zlefin wrote:On January 23 2015 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 07:15 zlefin wrote:On January 23 2015 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 05:54 zlefin wrote:
What we really need is rules to deal with congress as a whole; so when everyone hates congress, we can simply vote to kick them ALL out of congress, and bring in other people, instead of having to vote individually on each candidate.
Sometimes the problem is not with any particular person, but is somewhere in the institutional dynamics; and we don't have a good way to address that. Instead of devising a way to remove all of congress why not fight the disease and not the symptom? The US needs a complete redesign of the entire political system if you want to fix the current situation. what I'm talking about already is a major redesign; and it is fighting a part of the disease. Structural change is important. It's also a clear objective, do you have a clear roadmap for a complete redesign that would actually accomplish something and work? "lets vote out all of congress" doesn't solve any part of the underlying problem. And no ofc i dont have it all layed out but if you cant see the problems with your political system then it explains why the problems exist and keep getting worse. Massively limit spending allowed by candidates, abolish superpac's, politicians should not be deciding on voter districts, abolish 'first to the post' system. abolish filibuster, the list go's on and on. And yes XDaunt i agree that corruption is a large part of the problem. I disagree; as I said, sometimes the issue is NOT with an individual, but with institutional dynamics, and things getting passed on from one group to the next over time, and a complete change can fix that (especially if you include rules rewrites and such with it). Would it solve the large influence money has on elections? or how 1 part of government can effectively block all legislation for prolonged periods of time? or the ability of politicians to redraw voter districts in such as way as to keep themselves in power? No it does none of these things unless you think politicians are people of great social justice who are corrupted by the institutional dynamics rather then them being humans who have basic desire of power and wealth. I'm with Zlefin on this. It's naive and nonsensical to hope for any big changes. Read the epic works about LBJ by Robert Caro - the South has been blocking legislation for a very long time now and been very successful at ensuring any legislation that does go through has their interests compromised and baked into it. The American system has plenty of flaws. But American politicians know how to play this game and they're on top because they're good at it. So I wouldn't expect them to voluntarily change the rules, particularly if it hurts their chances in future elections.
it might be possible to push through changes by an unexpected electorate revolt against congress. a total election of congress instead of electing individual congressperson could better direct voter attention to the level of party politics, instead of individuals at the local level that can be fairly disassociated with party level policy.
since gerrymandering is such a big issue already, one way of sweeping it away would be to get rid of districts and pool the votes more. this stuff about muh local rule is outdated and inane.
|
On January 23 2015 15:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 11:09 wei2coolman wrote:On January 23 2015 07:51 Introvert wrote:
Term limits would do wonders. I don't think the system needs any other major revisions- at least not any that liberals would agree to. The problem isn't just term limit, gerrymandering is a much bigger issue imo. It's not though, and I've posted on this several times- I can find the citations if you want. What's mainly happening with districts is that Democrat districts lean more Democratic than Republican districts lean Republican- since you only need 50%+1 to win, every vote over that is a waste. Democrats tend to concentrate in smaller (or larger) urban areas than Republicans do, so it leads to a lot of "wasted" votes in each district. This is the primary reason why Republicans won the house in 2012 despite losing the overall popular vote (barely). Also, the populace itself is becoming more polarized, so the districts can reflect that. I think term limits are far more important, because hopefully by kicking them out after some short number of years, they can't build as much influence as if they've been in the Senate for 4 decades. I think it takes care of a lot of problems. Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 11:45 IgnE wrote:
It's just annoying to see your stupid shit cluttering up the thread. At least make it interesting. Like "Bernie Sanders 2016" :p I for one enjoy a slight chuckle now and again.
You just addressed the issue right there as to why I think gerrymandering is a bigger problem. Right now representatives (especially congress) only have to run pandering one side of the political scale due to their districts, as opposed to running a more moderate campaign that accounts for both left and right wing political considerations in a more politically homogenous district.
Of course limiting terms is definitely a step in the right direction, and it is much easier to implement than gerrymandering rules/laws.
|
On January 24 2015 03:18 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2015 11:22 coverpunch wrote:On January 23 2015 09:11 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 08:58 zlefin wrote:On January 23 2015 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 07:15 zlefin wrote:On January 23 2015 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2015 05:54 zlefin wrote:
What we really need is rules to deal with congress as a whole; so when everyone hates congress, we can simply vote to kick them ALL out of congress, and bring in other people, instead of having to vote individually on each candidate.
Sometimes the problem is not with any particular person, but is somewhere in the institutional dynamics; and we don't have a good way to address that. Instead of devising a way to remove all of congress why not fight the disease and not the symptom? The US needs a complete redesign of the entire political system if you want to fix the current situation. what I'm talking about already is a major redesign; and it is fighting a part of the disease. Structural change is important. It's also a clear objective, do you have a clear roadmap for a complete redesign that would actually accomplish something and work? "lets vote out all of congress" doesn't solve any part of the underlying problem. And no ofc i dont have it all layed out but if you cant see the problems with your political system then it explains why the problems exist and keep getting worse. Massively limit spending allowed by candidates, abolish superpac's, politicians should not be deciding on voter districts, abolish 'first to the post' system. abolish filibuster, the list go's on and on. And yes XDaunt i agree that corruption is a large part of the problem. I disagree; as I said, sometimes the issue is NOT with an individual, but with institutional dynamics, and things getting passed on from one group to the next over time, and a complete change can fix that (especially if you include rules rewrites and such with it). Would it solve the large influence money has on elections? or how 1 part of government can effectively block all legislation for prolonged periods of time? or the ability of politicians to redraw voter districts in such as way as to keep themselves in power? No it does none of these things unless you think politicians are people of great social justice who are corrupted by the institutional dynamics rather then them being humans who have basic desire of power and wealth. I'm with Zlefin on this. It's naive and nonsensical to hope for any big changes. Read the epic works about LBJ by Robert Caro - the South has been blocking legislation for a very long time now and been very successful at ensuring any legislation that does go through has their interests compromised and baked into it. The American system has plenty of flaws. But American politicians know how to play this game and they're on top because they're good at it. So I wouldn't expect them to voluntarily change the rules, particularly if it hurts their chances in future elections. it might be possible to push through changes by an unexpected electorate revolt against congress. a total election of congress instead of electing individual congressperson could better direct voter attention to the level of party politics, instead of individuals at the local level that can be fairly disassociated with party level policy. since gerrymandering is such a big issue already, one way of sweeping it away would be to get rid of districts and pool the votes more. this stuff about muh local rule is outdated and inane.
It would be a pretty good fix for a good number of issues yeah. Hold elections across the entire state. the % votes a party receives gives them that % of congressmen and the party decides who those people are. It also helps break up the 2 party system a bit more because a smaller % of support is needed to gain a seat in congress.
It is a system that is already in use in a lot of other countries and working pretty well.
ps.
Yes these changes will probably never happen because those in power will not hand it away, but that should not stop the public from realizing that there are better ways out there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
a lot of successful political changes in american history were pretty big underdogs. it's not hard to imagine gerrymandering becoming an issue if someone champions it hard and smart enough. problem is neither party wants to get rid of it totally
|
On January 24 2015 03:35 oneofthem wrote:
a lot of successful political changes in american history were pretty big underdogs. it's not hard to imagine gerrymandering becoming an issue if someone champions it hard and smart enough. problem is neither party wants to get rid of it totally
Pretty sure the democrats really want to change it. The average American is a lot more progressive compared to current representatives of congress.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
don't tell the democrats in new york state legislature. upper house is always republican lower house is democrat, and this arrangement is sort of okay with all involved.
|
On January 24 2015 03:43 oneofthem wrote:
don't tell the democrats in new york state legislature. upper house is always republican lower house is democrat, and this arrangement is sort of okay with all involved.
Obviously there are going to be a couple democrats that currently benefit from gerrymandering, but as a whole our current congress is by far and away more conservative than the average american.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's mostly a function of negotiation between parties on what to gerrymander. democrat strongholds are urban areas, while republicans control rural districts. the urban democrat representatives have an interest in drawing their 'home turf' maps, and they trade for this power by letting republicans gerrymander the rural districts. it's putting individual political careers above political effectiveness of the party.
this mostly applies to state legislatures but for congressional districts the same thing can happen.
http://www.gothamgazette.com/index.php/opinions/5474-the-2014-republican-victory-for-new-york-state-senate-impressiveand-fragile-benjamin
so really democrats overall may be disadvantaged/underrepresented, but they can only blame themselves. some of these guys are content with running uncontested elections.
|
Some states have had success in creating new bipartisan commissions to draw the district lines.
One real challenge is that there's no clear or simple way to figure out how to best draw district lines, I've pondered some algorithms, and they all have significant issues/imperfections in them, which make it seem like using judgment is better, but of course, using judgment opens up a lot of room for misuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
