|
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 23:02 LightSpectra wrote:
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.
Actually I am sympathetic to the point. And my example still holds water whether sympathy is present or not.
You seem to think because the freedom of choice on abortion (or pregnancy) the democratic party has less votes because some people that agree with part of the issue, want a bigger restriction on the issue and that's the only reason why they won't vote for the democratic party any more. It's sad that happens I guess, but it happens that a party takes a stance you don't completely agree with.
How ideal wouldn't it be that both opposing (biggest) parties completely and accurately represent their respective demographic? Sadly that's impossible.
Politics in its respective party (even internally) has heterogeneous ideas running in them. It's basically a consensus in which you hope to change society for the (what you -your party- think is) better.
If too many differences are found, you part ways.
If people think "giving too much freedom" to pregnant women is too much to still support a party you mostly agree with so they won't vote for them any longer, than I think they have a weird sense of perception of reality. Why would that be the only thing they don't agree with in an ideology that promotes freedom of choice and openness?
|
spectra-> I think your categorization of some things as extremist pro-choice policies is inaccurate.
as a general point, both parties have been shrinking for decades now; and the number of people who classify as independents has been growing. both parties have been getting ideologically tighter, covering a smaller distribution of beliefs.
certain core sectors of each party have had a strong influence on primaries, limiting the level to which the party apparatus tolerates variations. though i'm sure there's some much better and more thorough explanations out there.
|
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.
I dunno about that. When one candidate is opposed to something important to me and the other guy isn't talking about it at all, I'd rather go with the guy that at least has a chance at giving me what I want, or at the very least maintaining the status quo.
|
On March 27 2017 23:10 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 23:05 Plansix wrote: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.
I think the root of this problem is that you have a weird understand of “extremist pro-choice” policies are. Private access to treatments for women’s health, including abortions, is a clutch issue for many voters. And one that it is very difficult to discuss in good faith due to the constant siege that those rights are under by religious groups.
There isn’t anything extremist about wanting access to abortion in every state. Or that the access should be same day if the woman has already gone through all the necessary testing. Really, the terms “extremist” is a little too vague for any discussion on the topic. Most democrats are willing to discuss some level of limitation on late stage abortions. The problem is that those discussions do not lead to less shitty laws written about late stage abortions(aka, blanket ban, no consideration for the woman’s health).
And that is the problem with the theory in general. The Democrats don’t choose to be the abortion party. The religious groups the GOP panders to paints them as the abortion party. And they won’t stop doing that until abortion is outlawed. Today’s moderate view on abortion will be the extremist view in 15 years if the democrats back off on the subject.
|
On March 27 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 23:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 23:05 Plansix wrote: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. I think the root of this problem is that you have a weird understand of “extremist pro-choice” policies are. Private access to treatments for women’s health, including abortions, is a clutch issue for many voters. And one that it is very difficult to discuss in good faith due to the constant siege that those rights are under by religious groups. There isn’t anything extremist about wanting access to abortion in every state. Or that the access should be same day if the woman has already gone through all the necessary testing. Really, the terms “extremist” is a little too vague for any discussion on the topic. Most democrats are willing to discuss some level of limitation on late stage abortions. The problem is that those discussions do not lead to less shitty laws written about late stage abortions(aka, blanket ban, no consideration for the woman’s health). And that is the problem with the theory in general. The Democrats don’t choose to be the abortion party. The religious groups the GOP panders to paints them as the abortion party. And they won’t stop doing that until abortion is outlawed. Today’s moderate view on abortion will be the extremist view in 15 years if the democrats back off on the subject.
I dont agree with this, the democratic party as a political entity is not the only abortion rights group that exists, nor do I really believe them to be the reason why we have gotten as far as we have with access in some regions of the US. They could be endorsed by such groups without publicly vilifying every person who is against abortion, which quite frankly is how nasty things have gotten. This gets back to the whole identity politics issue that has plagued the Ds for the last couple decades.
EDIT: democrats can vote against anti-abortion, or restricted access laws, without publicly making themselves the champion of the subject. This way those that care see action, and those that dont care arent forced to care, and can choose their candidate based on whatever other criteria actually is important.
|
On March 27 2017 23:02 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 22:51 zlefin wrote: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? Show nested quote +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.
You seem to think that just because FPTP means it is not pareto-optimal to have more than 2 parties, that those parties must necessarily always be the same parties.
Firstly, there are primaries. These are (partially) to set out internally what the policy points are. If two candidates were to run in the primaries with exactly the same program except for one wanting to ban musicals and the other not, you can use their support from within the party to plan your stance with regards to musicals (or abortion).
Secondly, there is nothing stopping influential people from jumping ship and starting their own party. If they are actually the group with stances that are supported by the majority, then the old party would, over time, become marginalized. This can be used if the support within the party is small, but the support amongst the general population is big. It hasn't happened a lot in the USA, but it has happened (particularly pre-civil war).
Both are entirely valid ways of realigning the political system with shifting voter blocks. You seem to be more in favour of the former. But insofar as I know, the only Democrat who ran in the primaries with a somewhat similar stance on abortion was Jim Webb. And he didn't do too well. You could see this as low support for the idea within the Democratic party.
|
On March 27 2017 23:37 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2017 23:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 23:05 Plansix wrote: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. I think the root of this problem is that you have a weird understand of “extremist pro-choice” policies are. Private access to treatments for women’s health, including abortions, is a clutch issue for many voters. And one that it is very difficult to discuss in good faith due to the constant siege that those rights are under by religious groups. There isn’t anything extremist about wanting access to abortion in every state. Or that the access should be same day if the woman has already gone through all the necessary testing. Really, the terms “extremist” is a little too vague for any discussion on the topic. Most democrats are willing to discuss some level of limitation on late stage abortions. The problem is that those discussions do not lead to less shitty laws written about late stage abortions(aka, blanket ban, no consideration for the woman’s health). And that is the problem with the theory in general. The Democrats don’t choose to be the abortion party. The religious groups the GOP panders to paints them as the abortion party. And they won’t stop doing that until abortion is outlawed. Today’s moderate view on abortion will be the extremist view in 15 years if the democrats back off on the subject. I dont agree with this, the democratic party as a political entity is not the only abortion rights group that exists, nor do I really believe them to be the reason why we have gotten as far as we have with access in some regions of the US. They could be endorsed by such groups without publicly vilifying every person who is against abortion, which quite frankly is how nasty things have gotten. This gets back to the whole identity politics issue that has plagued the Ds for the last couple decades. EDIT: democrats can vote against anti-abortion, or restricted access laws, without publicly making themselves the champion of the subject. This way those that care see action, and those that dont care arent forced to care, and can choose their candidate based on whatever other criteria actually is important.
Although I agree that people should not be vilified for their views, the long standing rhetoric around pro-life movements is to claim that being pro-choice is supporting child murder. It is not shocking that hostile opposition to abortions rights is met with hostility.
|
Apparently Trump, just like many others, failed to read what the spending targets for NATO actually mean (it doesn't involve paying NATO, it involves each country's own military expenditure). Unlike most of us for whom that doesn't matter, he decided it made sense to hand a bill to Merkel.
On March 27 2017 23:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2017 23:37 Trainrunnef wrote:On March 27 2017 23:23 Plansix wrote:On March 27 2017 23:10 LightSpectra wrote:On March 27 2017 23:05 Plansix wrote: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. I think the root of this problem is that you have a weird understand of “extremist pro-choice” policies are. Private access to treatments for women’s health, including abortions, is a clutch issue for many voters. And one that it is very difficult to discuss in good faith due to the constant siege that those rights are under by religious groups. There isn’t anything extremist about wanting access to abortion in every state. Or that the access should be same day if the woman has already gone through all the necessary testing. Really, the terms “extremist” is a little too vague for any discussion on the topic. Most democrats are willing to discuss some level of limitation on late stage abortions. The problem is that those discussions do not lead to less shitty laws written about late stage abortions(aka, blanket ban, no consideration for the woman’s health). And that is the problem with the theory in general. The Democrats don’t choose to be the abortion party. The religious groups the GOP panders to paints them as the abortion party. And they won’t stop doing that until abortion is outlawed. Today’s moderate view on abortion will be the extremist view in 15 years if the democrats back off on the subject. I dont agree with this, the democratic party as a political entity is not the only abortion rights group that exists, nor do I really believe them to be the reason why we have gotten as far as we have with access in some regions of the US. They could be endorsed by such groups without publicly vilifying every person who is against abortion, which quite frankly is how nasty things have gotten. This gets back to the whole identity politics issue that has plagued the Ds for the last couple decades. EDIT: democrats can vote against anti-abortion, or restricted access laws, without publicly making themselves the champion of the subject. This way those that care see action, and those that dont care arent forced to care, and can choose their candidate based on whatever other criteria actually is important. Although I agree that people should not be vilified for their views, the long standing rhetoric around pro-life movements is to claim that being pro-choice is supporting child murder. It is not shocking that hostile opposition to abortions rights is met with hostility.
It's also now a talking point that doctors are ripping babies out of their mothers' wombs at 9 months, thanks to our friend Trump.
|
On March 27 2017 23:43 Acrofales wrote:
But insofar as I know, the only Democrat who ran in the primaries with a somewhat similar stance on abortion was Jim Webb. And he didn't do too well. You could see this as low support for the idea within the Democratic party.
I have trouble believing that actual pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey Jr. and Joe Donnelly can get elected but the whole party would crash and burn if they had an overall abortion stance more like Al Gore's than Nancy Pelosi's.
|
The republican party has some severe and painful internal divisions right now; it's possible a similar thing could happen to the democrats if they tried expanding what's allowed in the party.
I don't know the internal dynamics that led to parties covering a smaller ideological range, but that is what has occurred. sadly I can't readily find the links that could perhaps explain it further.
|
The democrats already have enough problem with the left/center dynamic in their party. Softening the stance on abortion in some ham fisted attempt to attract more moderate isn’t going to make that division better. Better to take the Tim Kaine route and just say that you are against it, but you don’t believe the government has any place restricting access.
|
On March 27 2017 22:12 Gahlo wrote:
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.
lol, that's awesome. My grandmother works at the congress dining hall and she's got lots of similar stories. I actually got to meet a couple congressmen last time I was there about...8 years ago.
|
On March 27 2017 23:17 zlefin wrote:
spectra-> I think your categorization of some things as extremist pro-choice policies is inaccurate.
as a general point, both parties have been shrinking for decades now; and the number of people who classify as independents has been growing. both parties have been getting ideologically tighter, covering a smaller distribution of beliefs.
certain core sectors of each party have had a strong influence on primaries, limiting the level to which the party apparatus tolerates variations. though i'm sure there's some much better and more thorough explanations out there.
Actually (among elected members), the democrats have been getting ideologically tighter, the republicans moving further right (by some analysis that puts them on a one-dimensional scale
So: originally
Democrats=Moderates, liberals, very liberals
Republicans=Moderates, conservatives, very conservatives
now
Democrats= Liberals, very liberals
Republicans=Conservatives, very conservatives, very,very conservatives
Abortion specifically has some particular problems, in that both extreme sides see any giving way as a massively horrible violation of rights (best example is the 1850's... right to own "people" v. right of people not to be owned)
["people" in quotation marks because that is really the issue in both cases]
...which means the parties are going to occupy opposite stances, and as an issue it would tend to increase polarization.
You might have less polarization if Roe had lost and it had been a state issue... (so it would be a crime in some states and a protected fundamental right in others... but again slavery showed the problem with that)
|
|
|
So looks like Nunes' source for his Trump team surveillance claim was located at the White House. Nunes met with his source on WH grounds the night before his press conference last week. Nunes really needs to be removed from the committee or at least the investigation.
|
look at that twisting and turning to corner the fuckup he made...
So the only place the Intelligence Committee can review information is the WH?
Right...
And then he held a press conference before informing his fellow committee members? Right...
|
Which would be illegal no matter how you look at it. If I was a Republican I'd be rounding up confidants right now and talking about a certain piece of legislation...
|
Bill had one 30 minute chat with the AG on a runway while his wife was under investigation. I'm sure this is the same thing. Just swapping stories about their kids. Nunes has kids right?
|
I would be interested to hear where in the WH the conversation took place but its still pretty scummy. Its nothing like Bill and the AG though expecialy considering no one knows who the source is, the next election is a year and a half off, and no one involved is actualy near the investigation.
Anyone who thinks the Dems are on the net losing side for the abortion debate is an idiot. Its an easy wedge issue that gives them advantages over women blocs which are a growing and increasingly the most important voteing bloc in the race. as much as I have a problem with "the war on women" talk I can't argue its not effective.
|
A lot of the "war on women" argument is of the Republican's making. Some of their members seem dead set on making the dumbest statements about women's health and rights possible. And even that would be fine, but somehow these statements get translated into legislation too. The Dems milk it for sure, but the GOP gives them so much ammo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
