|
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. |
On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Privatizing social security is my favorite stupid Republican plan. It runs on the theory that the private sector will use the money “better” and that will benefit tax payers.
It really doesn't though. They just claim it does because that's an easier sell than "We actually legit don't care about you".
|
On March 27 2017 21:41 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
There's some serious milking of statistics going on there. He's comparing things that are not really comparable to make his point.
He basically says there are two groups of voters:
(White Men) and (Everybody else)
Yes, looking at that, of course White Men alone did not put Trump in the White House, but that's because there are far more (approximately twice as many) "Everybody else"s than White Men.
It reminds me of that classic problem that they give absolutely everybody in a first year statistics course to hammer in the effect of conditional probabilities, and the article (or tweet) cited draws a false equivalence. The point isn't and has never been that "white men" single-handedly put Trump in the White House, but rather that white men voted disproportionately for Trump.
The exact same argument holds for lower educated voters.
|
On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude.
On March 27 2017 22:03 farvacola wrote:Groome is a pretty cool old priest dude, but it is not exactly persuasive to reveal that he is opposed to abortion. NYT publishes opposing op-eds all the time 
Good response. Any valid points he makes are irrelevant, ever since ad hominem attacks stopped being a logical fallacy.
I asked this before and I'll ask this again, do you think the Democratic Party's move from moderation on abortion (e.g. Al Gore) to extremism (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) has won or lost a net amount of votes? Do you think there's a larger amount of people who said "Hey, Hillary Clinton going on a campaign tour with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and threatening to persecute pro-life people is a bit much", or people who said "I used to exclusively not vote/vote Green Party/whatever because people like John Kerry just weren't pro-choice enough for me, but I'm proudly out for Hillary Clinton"?
|
United States43271 Posts
On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Privatizing social security is my favorite stupid Republican plan. It runs on the theory that the private sector will use the money “better” and that will benefit tax payers. But it also runs on the idea that the government will have adequate oversight and protections of the new private SS accounts.
So everyone knows how awesome federal backed student loans are, right? Well let me tell you, this private SS accounts are going to be even better. The newest version of to big to fail.
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude.
I assume it'll be essentially like IRA accounts with the payroll deductions going directly into those rather than Social Security. That'd be awesome. The market gets way better returns than Social Security which only invests in treasury bonds. No idea how they'd fund the current obligations though. Current retirees are funded by those payroll deductions so they can't let me manage my own if I'm already paying for theirs.
Also poor people just wouldn't use it and therefore wouldn't get to retire.
|
Story time.
My cousin works at the senate and she was in an elevator. Bernie was the last one to get on, which put it over the weight limit. He sighs, says "I guess I need to start losing weight." and gets off the elevator.
|
On March 27 2017 22:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude. Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:03 farvacola wrote:Groome is a pretty cool old priest dude, but it is not exactly persuasive to reveal that he is opposed to abortion. NYT publishes opposing op-eds all the time Good response. Any valid points he makes are irrelevant, ever since ad hominem attacks stopped being a logical fallacy. I asked this before and I'll ask this again, do you think the Democratic Party's move from moderation on abortion (e.g. Al Gore) to extremism (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) has won or lost a net amount of votes? Do you think there's a larger amount of people who said "Hey, Hillary Clinton going on a campaign tour with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and threatening to persecute pro-life people is a bit much", or people who said "I used to exclusively not vote/vote Green Party/whatever because people like John Kerry just weren't pro-choice enough for me, but I'm proudly out for Hillary Clinton"?
Dude, you cited to an op-ed written by a fervent Catholic reformer as evidence that the status quo demands that Democrats drop their focus on reproductive rights. You even suggested that the NYT itself supported Groome's view. Your posts are just as subject to immature logical fallacy accusations (appeal to authority) as anyone else's are, so why go down that boring road at all?
|
On March 27 2017 22:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:08 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude. On March 27 2017 22:03 farvacola wrote:Groome is a pretty cool old priest dude, but it is not exactly persuasive to reveal that he is opposed to abortion. NYT publishes opposing op-eds all the time Good response. Any valid points he makes are irrelevant, ever since ad hominem attacks stopped being a logical fallacy. I asked this before and I'll ask this again, do you think the Democratic Party's move from moderation on abortion (e.g. Al Gore) to extremism (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) has won or lost a net amount of votes? Do you think there's a larger amount of people who said "Hey, Hillary Clinton going on a campaign tour with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and threatening to persecute pro-life people is a bit much", or people who said "I used to exclusively not vote/vote Green Party/whatever because people like John Kerry just weren't pro-choice enough for me, but I'm proudly out for Hillary Clinton"? Dude, you cited to an op-ed written by a fervent Catholic reformer as evidence that the status quo demands that Democrats drop their focus on reproductive rights. You even suggested that the NYT itself supported Groome's view. Your posts are just as subject to immature logical fallacy accusations (appeal to authority) as anyone else's are, so why go down that boring road at all?
You didn't actually respond to anything I said (other than a tu quoque for my accusation of ad hominem), but ok.
I ask again, do you think the Democratic Party has gained or lost votes because of their change of stance on abortion?
|
On March 27 2017 22:16 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:14 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2017 22:08 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude. On March 27 2017 22:03 farvacola wrote:Groome is a pretty cool old priest dude, but it is not exactly persuasive to reveal that he is opposed to abortion. NYT publishes opposing op-eds all the time Good response. Any valid points he makes are irrelevant, ever since ad hominem attacks stopped being a logical fallacy. I asked this before and I'll ask this again, do you think the Democratic Party's move from moderation on abortion (e.g. Al Gore) to extremism (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) has won or lost a net amount of votes? Do you think there's a larger amount of people who said "Hey, Hillary Clinton going on a campaign tour with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and threatening to persecute pro-life people is a bit much", or people who said "I used to exclusively not vote/vote Green Party/whatever because people like John Kerry just weren't pro-choice enough for me, but I'm proudly out for Hillary Clinton"? Dude, you cited to an op-ed written by a fervent Catholic reformer as evidence that the status quo demands that Democrats drop their focus on reproductive rights. You even suggested that the NYT itself supported Groome's view. Your posts are just as subject to immature logical fallacy accusations (appeal to authority) as anyone else's are, so why go down that boring road at all? You didn't actually respond to anything I said (other than a tu quoque for my accusation of ad hominem), but ok. I ask again, do you think the Democratic Party has gained or lost votes because of their change of stance on abortion?
Who cares? The aim of a political party is not to do whatever it takes to win votes. It's to take stances and hope enough people agree with that stance that they will be voted for.
|
Single issue voting is always problematic, and to the extent that Democrats focus on reproductive rights at the expense of labor, economy, or other important issues, I'm with anyone who criticizes them accordingly. However, this notion that Democrats need to "back off" abortion is its own sort of single issue focus that I think ignores the fact that the vast majority of voters are going to focus on other things when the asphalt hits the curb.
|
On March 27 2017 22:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:16 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 22:14 farvacola wrote:On March 27 2017 22:08 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 21:56 Plansix wrote:
Edit: LOL. The abortion party. Of course it is written by an old dude. On March 27 2017 22:03 farvacola wrote:Groome is a pretty cool old priest dude, but it is not exactly persuasive to reveal that he is opposed to abortion. NYT publishes opposing op-eds all the time Good response. Any valid points he makes are irrelevant, ever since ad hominem attacks stopped being a logical fallacy. I asked this before and I'll ask this again, do you think the Democratic Party's move from moderation on abortion (e.g. Al Gore) to extremism (e.g. Nancy Pelosi) has won or lost a net amount of votes? Do you think there's a larger amount of people who said "Hey, Hillary Clinton going on a campaign tour with the CEO of Planned Parenthood and threatening to persecute pro-life people is a bit much", or people who said "I used to exclusively not vote/vote Green Party/whatever because people like John Kerry just weren't pro-choice enough for me, but I'm proudly out for Hillary Clinton"? Dude, you cited to an op-ed written by a fervent Catholic reformer as evidence that the status quo demands that Democrats drop their focus on reproductive rights. You even suggested that the NYT itself supported Groome's view. Your posts are just as subject to immature logical fallacy accusations (appeal to authority) as anyone else's are, so why go down that boring road at all? You didn't actually respond to anything I said (other than a tu quoque for my accusation of ad hominem), but ok. I ask again, do you think the Democratic Party has gained or lost votes because of their change of stance on abortion? Who cares? The aim of a political party is not to do whatever it takes to win votes. It's to take stances and hope enough people agree with that stance that they will be voted for.
That would be totally unobjectionable if we had a multi-party state and preferential voting, but the fact is that we have a bipartisan state and FPTP voting. So the Democrats have a choice, they can moderate themselves on 1% of their platform so that the other 99% has a higher chance of winning, or they can continue to have that radicalized 1% and put the other 99% at a higher risk because of it.
Personally I don't want to have to live through another Trump-like presidency or Ryan-like Congress, so I know which of those options I prefer.
On March 27 2017 22:23 farvacola wrote:
Single issue voting is always problematic, and to the extent that Democrats focus on reproductive rights at the expense of labor, economy, or other important issues, I'm with anyone who criticizes them accordingly. However, this notion that Democrats need to "back off" abortion is its own sort of single issue focus that I think ignores the fact that the vast majority of voters are going to focus on other things when the asphalt hits the curb.
So to be clear, you don't think that the Democratic Party's overall change of stance on abortion has cost them a significant number of votes? Is that correct?
|
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches.
|
On March 27 2017 22:30 Plansix wrote:
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches.
You realize "At best they avoid the topic" would actually be a considerable moderation from their platform over the past ten years, right? Returning to "Safe, legal and rare" would be a vast improvement over "On demand and without apology", overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing abortions to be paid by Medicaid, using the IRS to punish pro-life organizations, etc.
|
On March 27 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:30 Plansix wrote:
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches. You realize "At best they avoid the topic" would actually be a considerable moderation from their platform over the past ten years, right? Returning to "Safe, legal and rare" would be a vast improvement over "On demand and without apology", overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing abortions to be paid by Medicaid, using the IRS to punish pro-life organizations, etc.
On demand and without apology is what I want. I'm sure a lot of people agree. Why is moderating that stance an "improvement"? Because you say it is? I'm confused.
|
Have you been reading my posts? I'm not debating if it's a good policy or not, I'm arguing that it's cost them a net amount of votes.
|
On March 27 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:30 Plansix wrote:
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches. You realize "At best they avoid the topic" would actually be a considerable moderation from their platform over the past ten years, right? Returning to "Safe, legal and rare" would be a vast improvement over "On demand and without apology", overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing abortions to be paid by Medicaid, using the IRS to punish pro-life organizations, etc.
what's wrong with allowing medicaid to pay for a medical procedure? that's kinda what it's for.
I'm fine with using federal funds to pay for important medical procedures.
/half-facetious (or something like that)
and using the IRS to punish pro-life orgs sounds like a bogus accusation; and at any rate there's already procedures for remedying such things.
|
What does it matter if it cost them a net amount of votes? It's the direction they're taking, deal with it. I'm pretty sure they know what they're risking if they take something up in their platform.
That's like saying the Republicans have lost votes because of their stance on taxing. It's a moot point.
|
On March 27 2017 22:51 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 22:30 Plansix wrote:
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches. You realize "At best they avoid the topic" would actually be a considerable moderation from their platform over the past ten years, right? Returning to "Safe, legal and rare" would be a vast improvement over "On demand and without apology", overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing abortions to be paid by Medicaid, using the IRS to punish pro-life organizations, etc. what's wrong with allowing medicaid to pay for a medical procedure? that's kinda what it's for.
For fuck's sake, am I speaking English?
On March 27 2017 22:55 Uldridge wrote:
What does it matter if it cost them a net amount of votes? It's the direction they're taking, deal with it. I'm pretty sure they know what they're risking if they take something up in their platform.
That's like saying the Republicans have lost votes because of their stance on taxing. It's a moot point.
Maybe you're not sympathetic to the point because you agree with their current platform, so let me try and make some sort of analogy here.
Suppose the Democratic Party's platform shifted so that one of their planks was "Musicals should be completely banned." If you hate musicals, you say "hurray!"; if you're a fan of musicals, that might be a deal-breaker for you and you stay at home on election day (or vote Republican). The question for the musical-hater is, is this plank so important that it's worth risking losing the next election because of the musical-fan going home? If it is, then great--you don't care about 99% of the other issues, so you have nothing to lose here. For those who are musical-fans or don't care at all about musicals, that's a terrible idea.
|
On March 27 2017 22:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:30 Plansix wrote:
The democrats are not going to get anything by backing off of women’s right to choose. At best they avoid the topic. They are not going to pick up pro-life voters, single issue voters. And they are going to piss off democratic women who assume that the party will always be pro-choice. There is very little to be gained beyond a lot of headaches. You realize "At best they avoid the topic" would actually be a considerable moderation from their platform over the past ten years, right? Returning to "Safe, legal and rare" would be a vast improvement over "On demand and without apology", overturning the Hyde Amendment, allowing abortions to be paid by Medicaid, using the IRS to punish pro-life organizations, etc.
If the status quo in this county were just that “safe, available, legal and rare” nationwide, I wouldn’t be opposed to that. But when you have states like Texas and others try to close down every clinic by overburdening them with regulations and requirements, I can support backing off the issue. And the constant efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.
The opinion piece makes a bunch of leaps of faith as to how people will react and that toning down the rhetoric will change how the pro-life movement paints the democrats. They are still going to harp on planned parenthood like it’s the devil and demand its funding be cut or we force PP to stop performing abortions. And in some states, they are the only one doing it. It is a concession that many democrats are not willing to make. And it is likely the only concession that will change the tone of the discussion.
|
On March 27 2017 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Have you been reading my posts? I'm not debating if it's a good policy or not, I'm arguing that it's cost them a net amount of votes.
It will cost them votes. There are voters who simply won’t vote at all because the democrats are not actively defending women’s health rights. Abortion is not a single issue, it is related to women’s health for many women voters. And men too. It is delusional to think it won’t cost the democrats anything considering how hard it is for them to get turn out in the first place.
|
On March 27 2017 23:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:48 LightSpectra wrote:
Have you been reading my posts? I'm not debating if it's a good policy or not, I'm arguing that it's cost them a net amount of votes. It will cost them votes. There are voters who simply won’t vote at all because the democrats are not actively defending women’s health rights. Abortion is not a single issue, it is related to women’s health for many women voters. And men too. It is delusional to think it won’t cost the democrats anything considering how hard it is for them to get turn out in the first place.
So just to be clear here, you think the Democrats will lose some pro-choice voters by moving from extremist pro-choice policies to moderate pro-choice policies?
That's a fair opinion to have, I just question how realistic it is. If somebody's a single-issue voter on abortion rights, it seems to me that they're going to vote Democrat whether or not they want to overturn the Hyde Amendment etc., if for no other reason than the Republican Party is completely pro-life and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, etc.
It is my perception and opinion that there are more centrist voters turned off by extremist abortion policies, than there are extremist pro-choice voters turned off by moderate pro-choice policies. But if you think that's wrong, I have nothing to show for it either way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
