I mean I know about their Human Rights abuses and stuff, but China is just as bad and an ascendant power... Is Romney picking on Russia because they are in decline?
No. China is a very large partner of US in trade&stuff. Russia on the other hand, is not. Hence, blame Russia, and be silent about China.
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
And finally, on Slick Willy:
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
It's because the DNC platform isn't extreme. Democrats are very moderate on just about everything; there's not even a hint of socializing anything coming from the entire party, and access to birth control and early abortions is very moderate. Basically every issue is handled half-assedly by the party because they don't want to alienate anyone who is even remotely conservative by suggesting socializing anything, seriously tackling climate change, overhauling education/healthcare/the tax code, actually separating church and state, etc. Republicans, on the other hand, are one of the most right-wing, extremist political parties in any developed, first world nation.
The totaly unlimited abortion is as extreeme, as totally banned abourtion.
The Republicans are hardly extreme either. The idea that persons should get as much as they earn, and should pay for the things that they consume themselves, are not extreeme, at all. The idea that the goverment should be kept efficent, and should only do what it can do best(better than states and private enterprises) is not extreeme. The idea that religious freedom is importaint, is not extreeme. On the health care, again, they do not want to ban birthcontrol, they just want people that actually have sex pay for that, not the society. Which again, is kind of fair, since not everyone has same amount of sex, and needs equal quantity of birth controll madications/condomes/whatever.
Again, the idea of personal responsibility for your life, is not extreeme.
I mean I know about their Human Rights abuses and stuff, but China is just as bad and an ascendant power... Is Romney picking on Russia because they are in decline?
No. China is a very large partner of US in trade&stuff. Russia on the other hand, is not. Hence, blame Russia, and be silent about China.
True. Also, Russia is an old US foe (cold war) who many right-wing populists still feel threatened by. Romney is playing to his party's base.
On September 08 2012 15:18 farvacola wrote: ^I don't know who you are or where you came from, but hot damn do I agree with everything you've written. Well done
I agree! The one thing I don't understand is why both him and xdaunt are talking about abortions when it comes to this line...
"Allowing health care providers to deny birth control if it conflicts with their religious/moral convictions"
So what do you want to do? Violate a constitutional right just to allow a woman to get an abortion where she chooses?
------------------------------------
What does birth control have to do with abortions in the context of this discussion, both of your responses to that quote touched on abortion and not on birth control. (other than the fact having more access to birth control and more knowledge about how to use it decreases unwanted pregnancies)? I know some religions are against birth control but there are valid reasons for getting hormonal birth control without the purpose of having sex. I don't know why abortion is being brought up in reference to birth control, these are two different things.
It is basically the same issue. Catholic hospitals and institutions don't want to be forced to provide/do/fund abortions and birth control because it is against Catholic doctrine. This is why Sandra Fluke attracted the conservative ire that she did. It wasn't just that she wanted her birth control paid for, she wanted to force a Catholic institution (Georgetown) to do it.
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice.
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream.
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too.
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme.
And finally, on Slick Willy:
Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue.
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
On September 08 2012 15:18 farvacola wrote: ^I don't know who you are or where you came from, but hot damn do I agree with everything you've written. Well done
I agree! The one thing I don't understand is why both him and xdaunt are talking about abortions when it comes to this line...
"Allowing health care providers to deny birth control if it conflicts with their religious/moral convictions"
So what do you want to do? Violate a constitutional right just to allow a woman to get an abortion where she chooses?
------------------------------------
What does birth control have to do with abortions in the context of this discussion, both of your responses to that quote touched on abortion and not on birth control. (other than the fact having more access to birth control and more knowledge about how to use it decreases unwanted pregnancies)? I know some religions are against birth control but there are valid reasons for getting hormonal birth control without the purpose of having sex. I don't know why abortion is being brought up in reference to birth control, these are two different things.
It is basically the same issue. Catholic hospitals and institutions don't want to be forced to provide/do/fund abortions and birth control because it is against Catholic doctrine. This is why Sandra Fluke attracted the conservative ire that she did. It wasn't just that she wanted her birth control paid for, she wanted to force a Catholic institution (Georgetown) to do it.
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:58 JinDesu wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:49 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:39 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote: I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention.
On Obama:
[quote]
On the tone of the convention and the delegates:
[quote]
On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn):
[quote]
Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread:
[quote]
And finally, on Slick Willy:
[quote]
Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
I mean I know about their Human Rights abuses and stuff, but China is just as bad and an ascendant power... Is Romney picking on Russia because they are in decline?
No. China is a very large partner of US in trade&stuff. Russia on the other hand, is not. Hence, blame Russia, and be silent about China.
He hasn't been silent about china either. Romney has said that day 1 of his term he'll name China a currency manipulator and ask the treasury department to draw up sanctions. The guy is playing to his base, for sure, but he's also uninterested in and clueless about foreign policy overall.
Makes him quite similar to the last republican president and we all know how well that worked out. Foreign policy is the area where a president has the most room to operate, yet nobody in the US cares about it. That while a single poor foreign policy decision can have worse implications than an entire term of domestic policy combined.
I mean I know about their Human Rights abuses and stuff, but China is just as bad and an ascendant power... Is Romney picking on Russia because they are in decline?
No. China is a very large partner of US in trade&stuff. Russia on the other hand, is not. Hence, blame Russia, and be silent about China.
He hasn't been silent about china either. Romney has said that day 1 of his term he'll name China a currency manipulator and ask the treasury department to draw up sanctions. The guy is playing to his base, for sure, but he's also uninterested in and clueless about foreign policy overall.
Makes him quite similar to the last republican president and we all know how well that worked out. Foreign policy is the area where a president has the most room to operate, yet nobody in the US cares about it. That while a single poor foreign policy decision can have worse implications than an entire term of domestic policy combined.
Well, i know he is not absolutely silent about China, just that, there is a big difference in mocking China up for unfair and protectionistic trade, and what he says about Russian treat to US.
On September 09 2012 00:20 Silidons wrote: A good video to see some of the differences that we face here in America when it comes to Dem V Rep
The gist of this video -- that republicans have to cater to extreme elements in the party -- is true enough. Of course, it's also true of the Democrats, who have their own lunatic fringe. Maher half admits this when he says, 'Were we this deranged when Bush was in power?" The answer is the liberals did get pretty deranged. (And of course conservatives pretty much went insane during large parts of the Clinton presidency).
This is a big problem in a two party system. By comparison, in Canada where we have only 3 major political parties, there is much less extremism and (at least somewhat) more civility in politics. The conservatives are in power right now, but they know that they can't go and start accommodating lunatic fringe conservatives or they'll lose votes to the (supposedly) centrist liberals. I believe that the addition of just one other party completely changes the dynamic and reduces the extremism substantially.
But in the US it's impossible for a 3rd party to get off the ground. I don't see how this can ever really change, but I hope it does!
On September 09 2012 00:20 Silidons wrote: A good video to see some of the differences that we face here in America when it comes to Dem V Rep http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0abS0IdQtA
The gist of this video -- that republicans have to cater to extreme elements in the party -- is true enough. Of course, it's also true of the Democrats, who have their own lunatic fringe. Maher half admits this when he says, 'Were we this deranged when Bush was in power?" The answer is the liberals did get pretty deranged. (And of course conservatives pretty much went insane during large parts of the Clinton presidency).
This is a big problem in a two party system. By comparison, in Canada where we have only 3 major political parties, there is much less extremism and (at least somewhat) more civility in politics. The conservatives are in power right now, but they know that they can't go and start accommodating lunatic fringe conservatives or they'll lose votes to the (supposedly) centrist liberals. I believe that the addition of just one other party completely changes the dynamic and reduces the extremism substantially.
But in the US it's impossible for a 3rd party to get off the ground. I don't see how this can ever really change, but I hope it does!
If US gets the proportional system, and direct wotes for president, instead of first past the post, it would greatly change the political landscape ad allow mony more parties.
Though, how realistic for US to change it`s woting system, is, another question.
On September 08 2012 15:18 farvacola wrote: ^I don't know who you are or where you came from, but hot damn do I agree with everything you've written. Well done
I agree! The one thing I don't understand is why both him and xdaunt are talking about abortions when it comes to this line...
"Allowing health care providers to deny birth control if it conflicts with their religious/moral convictions"
So what do you want to do? Violate a constitutional right just to allow a woman to get an abortion where she chooses?
------------------------------------
What does birth control have to do with abortions in the context of this discussion, both of your responses to that quote touched on abortion and not on birth control. (other than the fact having more access to birth control and more knowledge about how to use it decreases unwanted pregnancies)? I know some religions are against birth control but there are valid reasons for getting hormonal birth control without the purpose of having sex. I don't know why abortion is being brought up in reference to birth control, these are two different things.
It is basically the same issue. Catholic hospitals and institutions don't want to be forced to provide/do/fund abortions and birth control because it is against Catholic doctrine. This is why Sandra Fluke attracted the conservative ire that she did. It wasn't just that she wanted her birth control paid for, she wanted to force a Catholic institution (Georgetown) to do it.
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:58 JinDesu wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:49 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:39 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote: [quote]
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
On September 08 2012 15:44 BlueBird. wrote: [quote]
I agree! The one thing I don't understand is why both him and xdaunt are talking about abortions when it comes to this line...
"Allowing health care providers to deny birth control if it conflicts with their religious/moral convictions"
So what do you want to do? Violate a constitutional right just to allow a woman to get an abortion where she chooses?
------------------------------------
What does birth control have to do with abortions in the context of this discussion, both of your responses to that quote touched on abortion and not on birth control. (other than the fact having more access to birth control and more knowledge about how to use it decreases unwanted pregnancies)? I know some religions are against birth control but there are valid reasons for getting hormonal birth control without the purpose of having sex. I don't know why abortion is being brought up in reference to birth control, these are two different things.
It is basically the same issue. Catholic hospitals and institutions don't want to be forced to provide/do/fund abortions and birth control because it is against Catholic doctrine. This is why Sandra Fluke attracted the conservative ire that she did. It wasn't just that she wanted her birth control paid for, she wanted to force a Catholic institution (Georgetown) to do it.
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:58 JinDesu wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:49 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:39 ey215 wrote: [quote]
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
[quote]
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support from the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
edit: it looks like on the specific issue of abortions, it might come down in part semantics. Funding of planned parenthood enjoys wide support among pro choice people and Democrats generally. But technically funds to planned parenthood can't be used for abortions. But this is somewhat absurd, since planned parenthood offers funds for abortions and those funds are freed up by having their other funding taken care of by the government. I'm not confident any sense can be made of which money came from where.
As for insurance, the only number I've seen so far is 42% of Americans in favor of tax payer funding for insurance that covers abortions. Since presumably every single one of those people is pro choice, and pro choice people are roughly 50% of the population, they must mostly be in support of it. Currently looking for the best citation for this.
On September 09 2012 02:12 frogrubdown wrote: It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
Yes I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's not even the case that "most" pro-choice voters necessarily support state-funded abortions. Let me see if I can find some data to back this up.
Here is a survey of Canadians. About 44% want the state to fund abortions in all cases, while about 40 percent say it should fund abortions only in the case of emergencies. About 10% say it should never fund abortions.
Question number 37: are you in favor of public funds for abortions? 61% oppose, 37% in favor. Contrast that 61% with only about 24% of people saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (see question 35).
I think this illustrates that a lot of the people who agree that abortions should be legal still do not support government funding.
On September 09 2012 02:12 frogrubdown wrote: It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
Yes I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's not even the case that "most" pro-choice voters necessarily support state-funded abortions. Let me see if I can find some data to back this up.
Here is a survey of Canadians. About 44% want the state to fund abortions in all cases, while about 40 percent say it should fund abortions only in the case of emergencies. About 10% say it should never fund abortions.
Question number 37: are you in favor of public funds for abortions? 61% oppose, 37% in favor. Contrast that 61% with only about 24% of people saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (see question 35).
I think this illustrates that a lot of the people who agree that abortions should be legal still do not support government funding.
Maybe "a lot" don't, but doesn't that data pretty clearly back up my claim that most do? Unless you want to claim that to be pro life you have to believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, but that definitely is not how 'pro life' is typically used. Under the normal definition, around half of Americans are pro life, meaning, by your own data, most of the rest must be supporting public funds for abortions.
It is basically the same issue. Catholic hospitals and institutions don't want to be forced to provide/do/fund abortions and birth control because it is against Catholic doctrine. This is why Sandra Fluke attracted the conservative ire that she did. It wasn't just that she wanted her birth control paid for, she wanted to force a Catholic institution (Georgetown) to do it.
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:58 JinDesu wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:49 Souma wrote: [quote]
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
On September 09 2012 00:31 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
You're being extremely slippery on this issue, xdaunt. You've repeatedly claimed that abortion isn't an issue even pro choice people should care about because the Republicans can't do anything about it. But what matters for whether or not it's in the interest of pro choice people to vote based on abortion doesn't depend on what you think the proper role of government is, it depends on what they think it is. You might as well say it's absurd for anyone to vote based on one party being less hawkish than the other because clearly the government is supposed to be hawkish.
Most pro choice people have a far more expansive conception of governmental function than you, and this conception often includes the government providing things like health care and contraception and abortions. Since you admit that there is a real possibility of Republicans threatening funding for these types of things, of course it is in the typical pro choice person's interest to in part base their vote on the Republican stance toward them.
How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote:
On September 08 2012 05:58 JinDesu wrote: [quote]
I thought the Roe v Wade decision set these ground rules:
First trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor. Second trimester - decision to abort is between mother and doctor, but states may intervene in the interest of the mother's health.
Once the fetus is capable of surviving the outside world (dunno when this is), the state can choose to regulate abortion.
So it's not without restrictions...
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats in elections and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
edit: in any case, it'd probably be more clear to simply argue directly using data on support in general for tax funded abortions, as Ziggurat and I have started doing. It's not too big a leap to assume that practically anyone who favors tax-payer funded abortions is pro choice, and the percent that do favor it is not that much less than the percent of people who are pro choice.
On September 09 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote: [quote] How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote: [quote]
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
[quote]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
Also that argument really only gives two sides, say someone is born into a conservative family so they brand themselves conservative but every election they simply like the democrats ideals better.
Frankly this "left right" policy in the states not only divdes your entire nation (I know because in Canada we have 5 I believe which gives more room for political diversity, but also it can cause a lot of confusion) and creates an inefficient system.
Also, who looks to be winning? I keep hearing that the Republicans completely fucked the debate while Democrats (especially Clinton) were on point.
On September 09 2012 00:51 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote: [quote]
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
Also that argument really only gives two sides, say someone is born into a conservative family so they brand themselves conservative but every election they simply like the democrats ideals better.
Frankly this "left right" policy in the states not only divdes your entire nation (I know because in Canada we have 5 I believe which gives more room for political diversity, but also it can cause a lot of confusion) and creates an inefficient system.
Also, who looks to be winning? I keep hearing that the Republicans completely fucked the debate while Democrats (especially Clinton) were on point.
True. Further evidence that it would have been better for me to just put the argument directly in terms of support for tax funded abortions, which does strongly indicate that most pro choice people are in favor.
I have no idea who is winning. Even more so than in past elections, all I ever hear are people claiming that their favored candidate will win. Hard to get any solid ground.
On September 09 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote: [quote] How am I being slippery? I've made it incredibly clear that the only meaningful action in the abortion debate lies in funding. With this in mind, I then argued that if you are still a single issue voter on the issue of abortion (regardless of whether you are for it or against it), then you should reexamine your priorities. All that I am really saying is that the issue gets far more press than is due.
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:08 Souma wrote: [quote]
Indeed. As the DNC stated, they "unequivocally support Roe v. Wade."
[quote]
As for partial-birth abortion there was a debate about that earlier... I suppose you can say the abortion stance is more extreme now but not without valid reason.
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats in elections and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
edit: in any case, it'd probably be more clear to simply argue directly using data on support in general for tax funded abortions, as Ziggurat and I have started doing. It's not too big a leap to assume that practically anyone who favors tax-payer funded abortions is pro choice, and the percent that do favor it is not that much less than the percent of people who are pro choice.
Is it just entirely foreign to you partisan folks that unaffiliated voters (and non-voters) can side with one party or the other or neither, all depending on the issue at hand? You still bunch us up as generally supporting one side or the other. We're not a part of your silly little game that's hijacked and made a mockery of our nations political system.
Edit: Also, you didn't really say most. You used that four legged dog analogy. The data shows your analogy doesn't have any legs.
On September 09 2012 00:51 frogrubdown wrote: [quote]
You're being slippery because you've repeatedly downplayed the importance of funding based on your own views about what government should fund. Those views are irrelevant to the voting interests of most actual pro choice people, making your arguments a complete non sequitur in so far as they are meant to address how much weight pro choicers should assign to abortion when voting.
I thought that was pretty clear from what I said. Maybe it's still the case that abortion gets more press than is due, and maybe it's also pretty generally the case that people shouldn't be single issue voters. But your arguments for these claims have involved irrelevancies.
You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote:
On September 08 2012 06:13 ey215 wrote: [quote]
For the record, I'm fine with how we currently stand with abortion legally. I'm just tired of the RNC being labeled extreme by the media while the DNC gets a pass. Noonan was right, abortion is being used as a wedge issue and frankly if Noonan is the "conservative" columnist that people want to go after then the country is never moving back to the center.
The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats in elections and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
edit: in any case, it'd probably be more clear to simply argue directly using data on support in general for tax funded abortions, as Ziggurat and I have started doing. It's not too big a leap to assume that practically anyone who favors tax-payer funded abortions is pro choice, and the percent that do favor it is not that much less than the percent of people who are pro choice.
Is it just entirely foreign to you partisan folks that unaffiliated voters (and non-voters) can side with one party or the other or neither, all depending on the issue at hand? You still bunch us up as generally supporting one side or the other. We're not a part of your silly little game that's hijacked and made a mockery of our nations political system.
Who on earth are you even talking to? I'm not a Democrat and have never voted for a Democratic candidate in my life.
On September 09 2012 02:12 frogrubdown wrote: It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
Yes I understand that. What I'm saying is that it's not even the case that "most" pro-choice voters necessarily support state-funded abortions. Let me see if I can find some data to back this up.
Here is a survey of Canadians. About 44% want the state to fund abortions in all cases, while about 40 percent say it should fund abortions only in the case of emergencies. About 10% say it should never fund abortions.
Question number 37: are you in favor of public funds for abortions? 61% oppose, 37% in favor. Contrast that 61% with only about 24% of people saying that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances (see question 35).
I think this illustrates that a lot of the people who agree that abortions should be legal still do not support government funding.
Maybe "a lot" don't, but doesn't that data pretty clearly back up my claim that most do? Unless you want to claim that to be pro life you have to believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, but that definitely is not how 'pro life' is typically used. Under the normal definition, around half of Americans are pro life, meaning, by your own data, most of the rest must be supporting public funds for abortions.
The question in this poll is probably not specific enough. The problem is that people who say that government money can fund abortions are not asked in what circumstances that would be acceptable. For example, even I would not oppose government funding of abortions when the mother's life is in danger. Many people might be okay with government funding of abortions in cases of incest or rape but be very unhappy about funding all abortions no matter what the circumstances.
This has all been a bit of a digression. Regardless of the actual numbers the bottom line I think is this:
- If the most important issue for a voter is that the state should fund abortions, then that voter should definitely vote democrat because there is a big difference between the parties on this issue
- If the most important issue for a voter is that abortion should be legal, then that voter should go on to consider other issues, because abortion will continue to be legal no matter which party wins.
On September 09 2012 00:58 xDaunt wrote: [quote] You are reading way more into my posts than what is there. I'll just leave it at that.
You don't have to go very far back in this thread to see you doing exactly what I describe you as doing.
On September 08 2012 06:32 xDaunt wrote: [quote] The big joke (and what really makes the democrat rhetoric a big lie) is that republicans can't really do much to obstruct the right to an abortion anyway.
Democratic rhetoric on abortion would only be a "big lie" if Republicans weren't trying to do an absurd number of abortion-related things that pro choice voters care about, the funding related ones being things that Republicans could very realistically accomplish. When sunprince gave a litany of examples of Republicans threatening things pro choice voters care about, your response to half of them appealed to your own views of the proper role of government in funding services. A complete non sequitur.
There is a huge difference in my view between wanting abortion to be legal and wanting the government to use tax money to pay for abortions. As a libertarian I think abortion should be legal because I don't think it's any of the government's business. But I strongly oppose the idea that the state would forcibly take money from me and use it to pay for these procedures.
I think a lot of voters would feel the same way. So when you say that "pro-choice voters" care a bout funding that is a pretty big exaggeration.
I never stated there wasn't a huge difference. I just stated that it is disingenuous to claim that Demotcratic rhetoric on abortion is a lie on the basis of the fact that Republicans can only realistically harm funding for abortions and birth control, which most pro choice people care about but xdaunt considers unimportant (for the record, I think they can harm more than just funding, but that's beside the point).
This ties into your last point. I was generally careful to use words like 'most' throughout my posts here and it would be absurd for anyone to read me as saying that all pro choicers are in favor of funding on the basis of one place where I didn't. Clearly most are though. Look at the party identification of people who identify as pro choice, and what that party supports in terms of abortion.
edit: I should also note that present tense indicative sentences with plural subjects are not generally used to express universal quantifications. They are more often habituals. Consider:
(1) Dogs have four legs.
(1) is true. It does not express the claim that all dogs have four legs (which is false), but rather a claim more along the lines of it being characteristic of dogs to four legs. Similarly:
(2) Pro choice voters care about x.
It does not need to be the case that all pro choice voters care about x for (2) to express a truth. It would be more perspicuous of me to always use 'most's but you can hardly accuse me of having literally asserted that all pro choice voters care about the same thing.
But you're asserting that most pro-choice people care about government funded abortions, which I find highly dubious. Can you provide a source please? I think most politically moderate people are pro choice but would laugh at the idea that they should pay for someone else's abortion.
I don't have a direct source (i.e., a response to a 'do you believe in government funded abortions?' survey), but was rather extrapolating from other statistics that maybe I can muster up in a little bit. Namely that,
(1) pro choice people are pretty generally Democrats, (2) Democrats pretty generally think that everyone should be insured and that those who can't afford it should be provided with it by the government, and (3) such insurance should cover abortions.
I'd be surprised if any of these steps went wrong, but maybe it does. Also, it's worth noting that xdaunt is also arguing against funding of birth control, which surely has even more support the pro choice and is very seriously threatened by Republicans.
Only 31% of Americans are Democrats. 35% of Americans think abortion should always be legal, and 47% think it should sometimes be legal.
Well, being a registered Democrat is a pretty different thing than consistently supporting Democrats in elections and I probably should have been clear about that in my argument (if only 31% of people consistently supported Democrats, they'd never win elections). That said, you're data does not really directly speak to any of my premises.
edit: in any case, it'd probably be more clear to simply argue directly using data on support in general for tax funded abortions, as Ziggurat and I have started doing. It's not too big a leap to assume that practically anyone who favors tax-payer funded abortions is pro choice, and the percent that do favor it is not that much less than the percent of people who are pro choice.
Is it just entirely foreign to you partisan folks that unaffiliated voters (and non-voters) can side with one party or the other or neither, all depending on the issue at hand? You still bunch us up as generally supporting one side or the other. We're not a part of your silly little game that's hijacked and made a mockery of our nations political system.
Who on earth are you even talking to? I'm not a Democrat and have never voted for a Democratic candidate in my life.
You're partisan though, right? I can't imagine someone who isn't insisting that someone who has not affiliated themselves with a party must surely still consistently support one or the other. Its insulting honestly. You also insist that there are two sides concerning abortion. Pro-choice and in support of government funding, and pro-life against government funding. Anyone who has opinions not in strict accordance with the established sides is a freak minority. In my experience it is partisans that think in such a fashion.
EPT
