Political & Elections

catahoula · Guru

RE: Carville get out much... you think?

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yes, well. I think the socialists are getting their health care and the religious fanatics are getting their religious government in Texas.

I happen not to agree with either of the parties our primary system has created.

hope · Guru

I was on CC starting around the aftermath of the Bush/Kerry election. There was constant talk of the "fundies" taking over the country (fundamentalist Christians). If "they" didn't manage it during two terms of George W. Bush....the playbook never changes.

catahoula · Guru

It was a non-specific comment, the one about lawyers, since I've no idea of what you do for a living. That the other issues aren't equivalent is simply my opinion, which you're welcome to correct, poetgrl.

That they did share some sort of commonality was the point of several of your comments, wasn't it?

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yeah, okay. Cool.

this is where I exit the ride.

carry on.

catahoula · Guru

Gotta love lawyers. Really. Saw a definition of 'advocate' the other day that pretty much summed up all the clarifying those dudes are so proud of selflessly doing: "one who subverts the legal system for profit".

Anyway, one guy/girls 'separation of church and state' is another's 'right to privacy'. (Well, not really -- they both make sense to exactly the same crowd, the one that has so much trouble with the 2nd being explicitly spelled out rather than reasoned from whatever was available.)

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yeah, that's the kind of reasoning that makes the other side want to come and take away my guns.

Can't stand either.

Intrepid1 · Veteran Member

poetgrl wrote:
Kind of sad when constitutionalists forget the separation of church and state part.

Could you please point me to the part in the US Constitution where this phrase is actually noted. Based upon what I have read, I don't believe it exists. Again, another common misconception by the public based upon the false belief that has been perpetrated over decades.

From usconstitution.net:

Though many people assume the 1st Amendment sets out some separation, the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation" appears to have been coined by Jefferson, in speaking of the religious liberties granted by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Madison, however, said that there is a line between church and state, not a wall — the distinction may or may not be significant.

In practice the separation is more theoretical than actual. In a truly separate society, we would not invoke the name of God on our currency, nor would we speak so highly of our Judeo-Christian values. But we do — the fact of the matter is, completely separating religion and government is probably impossible, so long as religion is an important part of the lives of the citizenry. The best we can hope for, and what I think the Constitution tries to protect, is to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of religious belief — that there be no religion litmus test.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I'm not an attorney.

It's fine with me that they aren't equivalent to you.

To me, I really want religion out of my government. I want to be left alone.

If you don't? I'm fine with that.

There are plenty of people who agree with you and many who agree with me.

We won't agree, at all, on this one, and I'm not going to persuade you and you are not going to persuade me, and luckily, at this point in time, it doesn't matter.

Get the religious agenda too far along, and then you might find it DOES matter since it "Comes from God." Or whatever you want to call God. Some have other names for religious rule. Not my cup of tea.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Monday 4th of November 2013 06:31:54 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

I wish it was only the five week limit. But it's not.

The thing that is so damned unfortunate is that we need these conservative fiscal policies. But instead, they will end up losing even more states with this kind of overreach.

Kind of sad when constitutionalists forget the separation of church and state part.

catahoula · Guru

Didn't freak out that Dallas Morning editor but she may be a special case -- a Wendy Davis supporter who's AOK with the futility of her candidates signature effort.

You're not alone with the idea that the abortion issue might purple Texas, but as reliable as abortion is for democrats, they're still some people who think it'll take more than just highlighting how good democrats have been for long-term employment prospects:

When Gov. Perry decided not to expand the state’s Medicaid program, turning down $100 billion from the federal government over the next decade under the Affordable Care Act, he consigned up to 2 million Texans to live without health insurance. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Hispanics make up 60 percent of the non-elderly uninsured and 34 percent of the poor in Texas. In other words, there are a lot of Hispanics who will not get coverage, or have to pay significantly more for health insurance, without the expansion. Davis needs to persuade them that it is Perry’s fault.

Makes you wonder: what, without the abortion wedge, would democrats talk about? The financial footing of all this free stuff? Medicaid's payment structure and prospects?

Nope, much better to argue that putting a five month limit on elective abortion is a "War on Women".

-- Edited by catahoula on Saturday 2nd of November 2013 07:03:20 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

This is why, Catahoula, women don't see this as a "maybe." It's real and it's going to freak many conservative women out, as well.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20131101/US-Texas-Abortion-Restrictions-Lawsuit/

I was recently reading a piece in which a "conservative" writer extrapolated from the fact that most women, myself included, agree with the limits after 20 weeks. (I would agree with limits at 16 weeks, personally), that this means women don't want legal abortion available at all. The poll numbers indicate that only 6% of women voters, want legal abortion eliminated entirely, but many more want limits on when. When a party running on fiscal conservatism turns around and tries so successfully to limit freedom?

It will be interesting to see if these extremists manage to turn texas purple. It's happened in Colorado and many other states. They should pull back and leave well enough alone, but they will force women like me, in their states, to vote for the dems. Or not. It's a very, very interesting case of possibly ruining your own good fortune by overreach, much as I think we will see at the federal level with the liberal extremists and obamacare.

God we need some common sense politicians. Unfortunately, they are all primaried out.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Friday 1st of November 2013 07:47:07 AM

-- Edited by poetgrl on Friday 1st of November 2013 07:48:00 AM

longprime · Guru

Hope, hope the researchers didn't use tax dollars to figure this out.

hope · Guru

The Compassionate Party:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/marriage-makes-our-children-richer-heres-why/280930/

-- Edited by hope on Tuesday 29th of October 2013 06:48:33 PM

longprime · Guru

Forgot.

But while walking the dog, thinking how I am going to reallocate the variable annuities to more cash holding. I got about 14 days and 21 days before their anniversary-reset dates/ No sense in risking a drop from their highs prior to the reset.

catahoula · Guru

Post the part of yours I left hanging and I'll re-edit mine to fit, lp.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I'm sorry but I don't understand what "that last step" is. Sorry if I'm being obtuse.

catahoula · Guru

Lots of ideas get floated and even pushed but there comes a time when you stop and decide whether or not it's working.

Hate to make blanket statements but there's a lot of history to judge and democrats tend to look like they think that last step is bs that might discourage a potential voter.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I voted third party once, back in the day. He was slightly nutty, and I threw away my vote.

Centrists have not been represented for years.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yes, I certainly haven't caught up on all the posts while I was away, though I was an original renegade and exile from CC along with our very own shark.

So, you don't know me and I don't know you, but I'm not in favor of everything I'm posting. I'm just posting the "facts."

It's not that I necessarily support these "facts."

Anyway, I'm not sure. I mean, the GOP used to be rabidly anti gay marriage. Not so much, now.

The GOP STARTED planned parenthood and access to birth control for impoverished women and title X, whatever their position might be these days.

Things change.

hope · Guru

What? What are we talking about? confuse

Why am I "arguing" any more so than you have been?

I'm lost. In any event, this pretty much sums up the results of the last election.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/09/single-women-voted-favour-obama

yeah, if the trend continues re single women, I'm sure Dems will have a lock on all future elections. I conceded that months ago, probably before you began reading here, poetgrl. I'm resigned to living in one f*****up country for the remainder of my time here.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Most Americans are really reasonable about the first trimester, but most of the liberals I know think the up to viability thing is really problematic.

It comes down to the same thing as always.

We all get stuck with extremists.

As usual, the primary system gives us centrists taxation without true representation.

I've actually heard some people discussing the possibility of a third party emerging, but I think the issue becomes impossible as long as the two parties hold sway. If there's one thing they hate more than each other, it's the idea of a third party competing for their bribes, uh, I mean, donations.

catahoula · Guru

Discussing abortion and single mothers, if it gets into detail, doesn't usually turn out well.

Hope I cleared up any ambiguities, poetgrl

poetgrl · Senior Member

Yes. I'm sure this is true.

I don't want you to roll over and do that dead thing.

I also was, originally, stating a simple fact of why it can be difficult for a woman like me, who believes many of the same things as the conservatives, to vote with the conservatives, when nothing is more important to "staying out of my life" than that you stay out of my life. ;)

At any rate, I'm not a liberal, in the traditional sense, hope, and I'm not going to be the one to "take the other side" of the argument just to give you someone to argue with.

carry on.

catahoula · Guru

I don't want to ban squat, other than the sucking sound of paying for it.

What I don't want is to get beat over the head with the fact someone else I vote with has a different belief of what's right and wrong than I do.

That and be expected to roll over and do that dead thing.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I feel as if you want me to be a stand in and have not read my posts.

So, I already know this and agree with this.

take care.

hope · Guru

That's interesting. I was just reading this last night:

Guess who likes the GOP’s 20-week abortion ban? Women.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/08/02/guess-who-likes-the-gops-20-week-abortion-ban-women/

my link probably won't work from my ipad, sorry.

catahoula · Guru

My comment was in the sense that pregnancy isn't a spontaneous event, but instead takes a little bit of effort.

That single mothers (or wannabe single mothers - misguided as that is, statistically) are said to be a voting block intent on someone else providing and approving of birth control... in all it's forms... doesn't convince me they're in control of much other than the voting machine.

I can't really say you're wrong but I think it's kind of horrible if you're right.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I'm talking about a problem the conservatives have with a major voting block, a block which is only getting bigger as the days go by.

I'm not sure what the heck ashamed or gloating has to do with any of it.

When you have party members talking about rape the way the conservatives do? That's a good place to look for shame. And, it's a good place to look for why the republicans have a woman problem, too. But, I'm not gloating, nor am I ashamed.

hope · Guru

maybe we have a problem getting single women to vote R, but you should feel ashamed to gloat about it, is my point.

longprime · Guru

you think?

poetgrl · Senior Member

RE: Carville get out much... you think?

hope · Guru

This is really confusing to me. Are we supposed to be happy that we have an entire underclass of women, both black and white, who g think nothing of bearing children with no father in the picture because they know big government will be there to help them, thereby producing more democrat voters? That's pretty shameful, if you ask me. Statistics show that kids do better by every measure in a two parent family. Men and women do better by every measure, including economically, in intact two parent families.

I'm not cheering for the party that relies on fewer and fewer woman marrying, or more women divorcing. Sounds crazy, but the truly compassionate thing to do is urge these women to be self-reliant.

And propagating the "war on women" meme, or whatever you want to call it, just further exploits them. Again, shameful.

catahoula · Guru

I can't see why 'a meme' isn't exactly what you would call it, regardless of gender or marital status. It is what it is.

For all the personal control our single women, the one's that have a problem with conservatism, talk about having and needing over the uterus.... isn't the real problem that they don't seem to have much control over it at all?

longprime · Guru

you did notice, I haven't commented all that much on this thread. aww

I never understood the title, anyway. confuse

Cat, you edited your post. Now my reply doesn't make sense/ Doesnt matter.

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 25th of October 2013 08:27:53 PM

catahoula · Guru

Maybe I should have quoted exactly what I was speaking of:

The GOP STARTED planned parenthood and access to birth control for impoverished women and title X, whatever their position might be these days.

Things change.

The third step was the one where you took a good look at whether it was working the way you'd envisioned. I'd guess not, at least not the way those nameless architects envisioned. At the very least, I'd suspect they intended to limit free to the impoverished.

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 25th of October 2013 08:54:17 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I go and put up some curtain rods, screw it up badly, come back and see the steam rising.

Most of the R's I know want women to have the right to terminate up to a reasonable time limit.

Which is not just shy of viability.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 25th of October 2013 07:05:54 PM

catahoula · Guru

There's one party that is damn near fixated on looking for an excuse for their results, but I've always been amazed they reach for college pedigrees and polls about education levels.

Maybe Pew's considered the party affiliation for a race other than white? Along with degree attainment?

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:43:51 PM

hope · Guru

Not the women voters. Of whom I thought we were speaking from the start here? Black ,Hispanic and White?

-- Edited by hope on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:37:11 PM

catahoula · Guru

I'd guess this woman votes democrat... reliably...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Next in my change of thinking came our editorial board’s courageous stand against the death penalty, a stand I fought hard for. Since then, I’ve had difficulty squaring my support of “no death penalty” with support for abortion rights.

Fast forward to the Texas Legislature’s sweeping and controversial abortion regulations bill. While my thinking hasn’t moved to the place that I’m ready to lead a board revolt to change our pro-choice stand and call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, neither do I think the provisions of the new law are unreasonable. (Update: Here and here are two recent DMN editorials related to the legislation. Having been a part of the debate before the writing of the second one, I felt the final editorial was more critical of the bill than our board discussion had been.)

When our board debated the restrictions in this bill, I couldn’t really find a lot of fault in the rules. I certainly think the 20-week limit is reasonable. And I don’t think the surgical center rules — even being able to get a gurney through the door — are unreasonable. I recognize that almost never does something go wrong in an abortion procedure, but it can. The “admitting privileges” at a nearby hospital is troublesome, but not so much that I think it was cause to oppose the bill.

I’m likely to lose standing with some of my friends and colleagues over this blog post. I’m sure to lose standing with the “Stand with Wendy” supporters. (I do hope Davis runs for governor, even if I disagree with her abortion stand. Bill McKenzie put it well here.) But while I’ll continue to speak up loudly for what I see as critical women’s issues — equal pay, help for single mothers, health care (which is not tied at the hip with abortion rights) — I don’t see abortion rights as a women’s rights issue.

I see it as a justice issue.

------------------------------------------------------

.... which makes me wonder why she moved on from an absolute, no-holds barred, Gosnell kind of defense of any effort to trim what has passed over the years. No daughters? Grew out of the group sign-waving stage?

Closed the link but she's an editor for the Dallas Morning News, hoped Wendy Davis would run, etc.

-- Edited by catahoula on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:37:25 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/

Hope, that is ridiculous. The GOP is considerably less educated than the Dems.

From the Pew research:

Lower-income and less educated whites also have shifted substantially toward the Republican Party since 2008. The GOP has largely erased the wide lead Democrats had among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000. And middle-income whites ($30,000-$74,999), who were split between the parties four years ago, now favor the GOP by 17 points. By contrast, there has been no shift among higher income whites, who favor the GOP by roughly the same margin today as in 2008.

Similarly, whites without a college degree now tilt decidedly toward the Republican Party – the GOP now holds a 54% to 37% advantage among non-college whites, who were split about evenly four years ago. The partisanship of white college graduates, by contrast, has not changed.

-- Edited by poetgrl on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:22:58 PM

-- Edited by poetgrl on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:23:31 PM

hope · Guru

Right. I'm talking about the characteristics of that Democrat "voting bloc," which include characteristics such as being lower income and less educated than the "voting block" of women who vote R.

It's in the best interest of these women and their children to become more like the women who vote R (i.e. Married). Married, stats show, correlates to higher income. Better health/well-being, higher education.

So instead of appealing to the Dem women voters by offering free BC, abortion on demand, subsidies, food stamps, etc. etc., perhaps a better strategy, if one is truly interested in their welfare, would be to urge upon them that awful idea "traditional values," meaning, work hard, get an education, be responsible for your own sex life to avoid having children without benefit of a father, and Get Married before you have children.

Of course, if that happened, Democrats would lose their single women voting bloc. Which is really the bottom line isn't it.

Can't explain it much better, am tired having just spent the day teaching kids of primarily single moms.

in any case, I don't think you are open to thinking about it.

-- Edited by hope on Friday 25th of October 2013 06:08:28 PM

poetgrl · Senior Member

Well, if you notice, the second amendment is upheld by the nine, as well.

If it makes you feel better, I would fight and have fought just as hard for the right to bear arms as the right to control my own uterus.

I'd really like them to leave us all alone, for the most part. Being left alone for me just happens to start with my body.

catahoula · Guru

Liberals do tend to take the long view about the supreme court. Not surprising at all, since the judicial system has always moved so much faster in the direction they want to take than the legislative one has, proof they're at least sneakier if not smarter than conservatives.

Perfectly fine that we kind of, sort of, disagree, poetgrl. If women want to vote based on euphemisms, I'm not the person to judge -- I've done much sillier things, called them good, and still do.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I think any candidate in this day and age who posts a website about how he is working to make sodomy between consenting adults illegal: read: gay sex. illegal. doesn't need much definition from me or from anybody else.

It's very clear what he stands for. It is also clear he stands for these things in a "purple" state and not a red one.

I don't think the shutdown helped, but I don't think he would have won anyway, with that stuff, not in Virginia.

longprime · Guru

RE: the only Question I have?

poetgrl · Senior Member

RE: Carville get out much... you think?

catahoula · Guru

No, I think the problem is conflating a self-professed person of faith with one dead-set on imposing their morals on everyone. It's so easy to do, I mean, because: the press asks a Santorum if faith is important to him and then whether a he's a practicing adherent, and then what his religion says about abortion. Add in a position statement or two from the past, and he's intent on climbing into everyone's uterus and bed. Easy, peasy, but it ignores the practical reality of taking something away from those used to it which, if entitlements are any guide, ain't gonna happen in any big way.

Does the average woman voter really believe the the first thing a Santorum, for instance, would do upon assuming office would be to declare war on abortion and contraception?

hope · Guru

"The abortion until viability crowd is too extreme,"

pretty much the Democrat party platform.

Republican party platform: actually not extreme at all, and more in keeping with the majority of women's opinion on abortion, according to polls.

there are nut cases in both parties. Not a reason to totally x-out an entire party. Just work not to elect them.

poetgrl · Senior Member

The problem, though, is that every time the conservatives win a state government based on campaigning on fiscal conservatism, the first thing they do is to implement their religious social agenda.

To you it might sound like demagoging, to me the idea that in Virginia the governor won based on fiscal issues and then turned around and got right on the abortion issue or what has happened in states like Texas or the Dakotas says this is not pure talk. This is a real strategy of the conservative right. And it has nothing to do with fiscal issues. It's plain and simple control over my body.

I don't believe in abortion until viability, except in the case of the life of the mother. However, in the first trimester, I think abortion on demand and no questions, no counseling, nothing. It's not even a fetus at that point, it's a cytoblast.

But, abortion isn't the only issue vis a vis reproductive freedom. When a state like Texas turns down the title X money for the impoverished women, when they close the planned parenthoods, which is frequently the ONLY place these women can get affordable birth control, the reality of bc becoming unavailable is not just a concept but a fact.

These issues might seem insignificant to a conservative, however, the logically inconsistent position that every cytoblast must be carried to term but we have got to reduce welfare to single mothers is preposterous. There are real fundamentally irreconcilable positions here.

The funny thing is that the establishment of access to birth control and planned parenthood and title X was a Republican issue in the late 60s and early 70s. What changed?