7 minutes ago, Max said:

Unless candidates are self-funded, they all have donors whom they have to take into account when making their decisions. Members of Congress are free to make their own decisions without walking in lockstep with their party's leadership.

I also never said that anybody is being chased out of the Democratic Party, but the vitriol that you are showing to some of these Democrats certainly shows they are unwelcome by some liberals. And if those Democrats aren't welcome, a center-right person such as myself wouldn't want to join that party, regardless of how I feel about Trump and his GOP sycophants. (I may vote Democratic in a particular election, but I certainly won't join the party.)

 

Vitriol against all the democrats? There are a handful, 99% of the party supports the proposals the HEAD of the democratic party proposed. Those I have an issue with are the 6 in the house including reps from NJ, NY, and Ca. Honestly if these folks want to gain something for their constituents that might hit home get the SALT deductions back. Those are 3 of the hardest hit states. 

The pharma industry gets billions in research funding from the US gvmt. Them crying about how they need to charge more due to drug research falls on deaf ears with me.

2 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

AMEN!!! 

And I really don't get the "I support abortion for 20 weeks and for situations where a moms life is in danger after 20 weeks @max.  This is assuming that there are tons of people getting abortions after 20 weeks. There aren't. What your asking people to legislate is a restriction looking for a problem. There are not millions of abortions every year for women past 20 weeks In fact that number is small which should tell everyone out there that its being done on an exception basis already.

It still comes down to lack of autonomy and not trusting that the person carrying their child knows what's best. The state policing reproductive rights frankly is sick.

I hadn't read this post until just now, but I've already indicated that abortion is a complicated issue with people of goodwill on both sides. As Democrats have rightly criticized many in the GOP for being anti-science, I should point out that yet another reason why people are opposed to abortion at the 20-week point is because--while the scientific research has concluded varying results--there is some research indicating that fetuses can feel pain at that point (or shortly after that point):

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3#xref-ref-30-1

I've tried very hard to keep my conversations with you respectful, but I really think it's a low blow for you to suggest that I'm "sick" because I support a policy that limits abortions after a certain point. (In fairness, you didn't explicitly call me "sick," but you painted my position as such, which--IMO--isn't all that different.)

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by Max

33 minutes ago, Max said:

I hadn't read this post until just now, but I've already indicated that abortion is a complicated issue with people of goodwill on both sides. As Democrats have rightly criticized many in the GOP for being anti-science, I should point out that yet another reason why people are opposed to abortion at the 20-week point is because--while the scientific research has concluded varying results--there is some research indicating that fetuses can feel pain at that point (or shortly after that point):

https://jme.bmj.com/content/46/1/3#xref-ref-30-1

I've tried very hard to keep my conversations with you respectful, but I really think it's a low blow for you to suggest that I'm "sick" because I support a policy that limits abortions after a certain point. (In fairness, you didn't explicitly call me "sick," but you painted my position as such, which--IMO--isn't all that different.)

Well you missed what I said most which is the majority of abortions don't occur after 20 weeks as it is. So basically what your suggesting is that it needs to be legislated because the small number of women who have to have them need to be monitored to make sure their life is at risk or the situation is dire enough to warrant it. It's not enough to trust the woman to consult with her doctor. That is the part I find offensive. Its not an attack on you it's the entire mindset that if a baby was found to have so many congenital defects that the babe would not live, it should be the gvmt's decision as to whether I should or shouldn't carry the baby to full term. If there is pain beyond 20 weeks to the fetus, the fetus would be in pain for the duration also.

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by JaneAusten

1 hour ago, JaneAusten said:

Well you missed what I said most which is the majority of abortions don't occur after 20 weeks as it is. So basically what your suggesting is that it needs to be legislated because the small number of women who have to have them need to be monitored to make sure their life is at risk or the situation is dire enough to warrant it. It's not enough to trust the woman to consult with her doctor. That is the part I find offensive. Its not an attack on you it's the entire mindset that if a baby was found to have so many congenital defects that the babe would not live, it should be the gvmt's decision as to whether I should or shouldn't carry the baby to full term. If there is pain beyond 20 weeks to the fetus, the fetus would be in pain for the duration also.

Jane, I overreacted to what you wrote, and I do apologize.

I understand why you feel the way you do, and that it's a deeply moral issue to you. But those on the opposing side also see it as a deeply moral issue. And as I stated earlier, a sizable minority of women are pro-life, and they certainly aren't motivated by a desire to have men regulate their bodies.

If a fetus were found to have congenital defects, it obviously would be a tragic development. My own view would still be to do all that was possible to carry the baby to term, even if the doctors thought the baby (once born) had a low chance of survival. I acknowledge that as a man, my view is not as important as yours. But again, I'm sure that there are women who feel the same way.

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by Max

10 hours ago, Wendy said:

Religion should have no place in government laws.

THIS!!

While I acknowledge that it's virtually impossible to rid our laws completely of religious influence, since religion is such a big part of our history and has influenced the way we think in so many ways, both direct and indirect, I absolutely believe that we should strive to lessen it's influence as much as we can.

Religion is a personal belief, and laws are for everyone, whichever religion you follow, if any. 

16 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Oh my goodness, yes, I had forgotten about some of this stuff, with Rees-Mogg and lying to the Queen of England! This was a good review by O'Brien. Sometimes during previous U.K. elections, I have livestreamed LBC. Really interesting and concisely, passionately put.

My question is, did Brexit really "get done" when British and French fisherfolk are still arguing about fishing rights? Has the lorry drivers shortage been resolved? If not, and the U.K. is still trying to lure drivers from the E.U. with less than desirable short-term agreements, wasn't Brexit supposed to short-circuit this from happening? What about all the loads of paperwork that an agreement was supposed to circumvent in transporting goods? It seems as if Brexit didn't quite get everything done.

 

9 hours ago, OzFrog said:

Sadly it’s in the current UK government’s best interest to keeping fighting the “Brexit war” even if the UK has already let the EU. This is only because the government has nothing else to show for itself and it needs to keep fighting this imaginary war amongst others to cover up just what a s***show leaving the EU actually means, and also to appease the right-wing of the Tory party who will never be satisfied no matter how much gets done, ie. they will keep demanding more more more more, ad infinitum.

Exactly this. This particular government, for all its educational credentials (Eton, Oxbridge) is mediocre, lazy and has zero imagination or ideas. It has no vision beyond 'I wanna stay in power for the foreseeable future.' So they trot out Brexit talking points because for the base, Brexit is the emotional touchstone which goes beyond mere policy. And in their mind's eye, they are giving Johnny Foreigner a kicking -- it makes them feel good about their own lives. The government has no other policies except to erode those institutions which put a check on its power and bribe-taking.

They have learned the Trump culture-war lesson well. I'd like to think this latest accumulation of mess -- Brexit shortages, fuel & heat prices, Tory corruption -- is finally going to chip at potential voters to the point where they cannot stand seeing them anymore. But the fact is, many voters have their own reasons for keeping this sorry bunch in power, and will take pretty much any indignity as a result.

The other problem is that the opposition has been utterly neutered, so no viable alternatives to the National Brexit 'Conservative' Party. This is a problem befalling many Socialist parties in Europe, which have seen their voter share drop to single-digits. The difference is that, in parts of Europe, the Green party has filled the left-wing void. Not so in the UK. At least, not yet.

12 hours ago, Max said:

Jane, I overreacted to what you wrote, and I do apologize.

I understand why you feel the way you do, and that it's a deeply moral issue to you. But those on the opposing side also see it as a deeply moral issue. And as I stated earlier, a sizable minority of women are pro-life, and they certainly aren't motivated by a desire to have men regulate their bodies.

If a fetus were found to have congenital defects, it obviously would be a tragic development. My own view would still be to do all that was possible to carry the baby to term, even if the doctors thought the baby (once born) had a low chance of survival. I acknowledge that as a man, my view is not as important as yours. But again, I'm sure that there are women who feel the same way.

I believe it's unfair to keep dragging out this "high minority of women" talking point.. Part of the problem is how the right has portrayed the issue. Its intentional. Also you mention that but fail to mention over 70% of Americans believe Roe should stay in place.

1. No where have I heard the right say  Legalizing abortion has decreased the number of abortions overall. Women are counseled and educated now because it's legal by physicians, counselors, and in some cases faith members. Also legalizing forms of birth control has  been a huge factor as has education. Oh that's right sex education is a no no in schools also. Forget that it has led to lowered teen pregnancies.

2. The right focuses on late term abortions when they represent less than 2% of abortions. That should indicate that women who have to have them are intending to carry the fetus to birth and the rational to have one is dire. Ralph Northam the current Gov of Vi who is also a Child Neurologist said as much and talked about late term abortions on a radio show. OF course the right misrepresented what he said and called him a baby killer. You really think it's easy for a woman and man to decide to end a pregnancy due to severe problems where the babe would not live? You know nothing about this. You say abortions should not be legal after 20 weeks due of pain to the fetus but then on the flip side your said YOU believe a fetus should be carried to term regardless subjecting that same fetus to pain to term, and a tragic death. You believe in science when it comes to information about "pain" to a fetus but not certain death of a babe upon delivery. I guarantee you I know what I am talking about. 

3. Nothing presented by the right is going to lessen abortions in fact it will increase them. And who is impacted? Poor women. But that's intentional. It's just another way for our gvmt to punish poor people especially women and women of color by the way who already have the highest mortality rates when it comes to giving birth in the western world.

What you have done is demonstrated how hypocritical the argument is and yet again how the women and in many cases the couple must have the gvmt legislate their decision. Your lucky you never had to go through anything like that. With that I am done with this discussion. 

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by JaneAusten

By the way Jim Acosta from CNN (still detest CNN) ran this segment. Makes you wonder since the right was setting up Va to be another "Stolen" election narrative, would Youngkin have conceded had he not won? The GOP candidate in NY hasn't conceded though he lost by more votes than McAuliffe lost by.  I had no idea the "they are stealing another election" narrative was pushed as hard as it was. Funny how when the right wins it's all nice and clean.

Acosta: No more whining, sore losers or lies. Just stop the squeal (msn.com)

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by JaneAusten

UGGGGGH. ENOUGH ALREADY!! 😡😡😡😡😡

https://www.newsweek.com/big-bird-communist-muppet-vaccination-draws-backlash-republicans-conservatives-1646804?amp=1

10 minutes ago, amybrickwallace said:

UGGGGGH. ENOUGH ALREADY!! 😡😡😡😡😡

https://www.newsweek.com/big-bird-communist-muppet-vaccination-draws-backlash-republicans-conservatives-1646804?amp=1

3 minutes ago, I Am A Swede said:

Yup!!!

6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

I believe it's unfair to keep dragging out this "high minority of women" talking point.. Part of the problem is how the right has portrayed the issue. Its intentional. Also you mention that but fail to mention over 70% of Americans believe Roe should stay in place.

1. No where have I heard the right say  Legalizing abortion has decreased the number of abortions overall. Women are counseled and educated now because it's legal by physicians, counselors, and in some cases faith members. Also legalizing forms of birth control has  been a huge factor as has education. Oh that's right sex education is a no no in schools also. Forget that it has led to lowered teen pregnancies.

2. The right focuses on late term abortions when they represent less than 2% of abortions. That should indicate that women who have to have them are intending to carry the fetus to birth and the rational to have one is dire. Ralph Northam the current Gov of Vi who is also a Child Neurologist said as much and talked about late term abortions on a radio show. OF course the right misrepresented what he said and called him a baby killer. You really think it's easy for a woman and man to decide to end a pregnancy due to severe problems where the babe would not live? You know nothing about this. You say abortions should not be legal after 20 weeks due of pain to the fetus but then on the flip side your said YOU believe a fetus should be carried to term regardless subjecting that same fetus to pain to term, and a tragic death. You believe in science when it comes to information about "pain" to a fetus but not certain death of a babe upon delivery. I guarantee you I know what I am talking about. 

3. Nothing presented by the right is going to lessen abortions in fact it will increase them. And who is impacted? Poor women. But that's intentional. It's just another way for our gvmt to punish poor people especially women and women of color by the way who already have the highest mortality rates when it comes to giving birth in the western world.

What you have done is demonstrated how hypocritical the argument is and yet again how the women and in many cases the couple must have the gvmt legislate their decision. Your lucky you never had to go through anything like that. With that I am done with this discussion. 

I don't have personal animus towards women who get late-term abortions or those who support that issue. But I do believe that men--including those who have never been in the situation of supporting women with troubled pregnancies--are entitled to their opinions. The fact of the matter is that I am moved by science such as this:

"Abortions performed after 20 weeks gestation, when not done by induction of labor (which leads to fetal death due to prematurity), are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedures.[1]  These particularly gruesome surgical techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removal of a fetal body from a woman’s uterus, mere weeks before, or even after, the fetus reaches a developmental age of potential viability outside the mother.[2]  In some cases, especially when the fetus is past the stage of viability, the abortion may involve administration of a lethal injection into the fetal heart in utero to ensure that the fetus is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive."

https://lozierinstitute.org/the-reality-of-late-term-abortion-procedures/

And opposition to abortion after 20 weeks is not some out-of-the-mainstream position by global standards, since the United States is only one of seven nations on earth to allow abortions after that point.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/09/house-democrats-unite-to-advance-barbaric-abortion-bill/

If one wants to take the position that government just shouldn't be telling women what to do, one could take such an argument to absurd new issues that have nothing to do with reproductive rights; for instance, when women (and men) are required to wear seat belts, it's because the government is telling them to do so.

6 hours ago, JaneAusten said:

By the way Jim Acosta from CNN (still detest CNN) ran this segment. Makes you wonder since the right was setting up Va to be another "Stolen" election narrative, would Youngkin have conceded had he not won? The GOP candidate in NY hasn't conceded though he lost by more votes than McAuliffe lost by.  I had no idea the "they are stealing another election" narrative was pushed as hard as it was. Funny how when the right wins it's all nice and clean.

Acosta: No more whining, sore losers or lies. Just stop the squeal (msn.com)

I've already said that Ciattarelli should have conceded, and the longer this drags out the more politically damaging it becomes for him. Just today, Governor Murphy has called for Ciattarelli to concede.

I try extra hard to avoid being hypocritical, which is why there are so many politicians I cannot stand. Democratic State Senate President Steve Sweeney is also refusing to concede, in spite of his opponent (whom as I said before, is a vile human being that has no place in government) having a lead that cannot be overcome. So how, exactly, do the Democrats (who are outraged over Ciattarelli's refusal to concede) feel about Sweeney's post-election behavior? And while Murphy did say that Sweeney lost, he still hasn't yet called for Sweeney to concede.

https://www.insidernj.com/sweeney-puts-murphy-pickle-ciattarelli/

Hypocrisy like this is one major reason why I don't see myself ever putting on a "Team Blue" jersey, or see myself ever again putting on a "Team Red" jersey. And I strongly disagree with those who say I have to choose between the two major parties, "because it's a binary choice" bulls**t. (I may vote for certain Republicans and even certain Democrats, but I'll likely not vote for either choice in future elections. And I will continue to hope for a viable, third alternative.)

I also agree that the two of us should end this conversation, given how heated and intense it has become.

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by Max

18 hours ago, amybrickwallace said:

And why Bernie never was elected president, but I digress.

@marceline and @dragonflies,  my fellow Ohioans, I don't know if you have seen this yet. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wksu.org/government-politics/2021-11-02/an-abortion-bill-thats-similar-to-the-controversial-new-law-in-texas-might-be-coming-to-ohio%3f_amp=true

Sadly this won't shock me at all. Ohio has gone to shyte 

21 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

Sadly this won't shock me at all. Ohio has gone to shyte 

Ohio turning so solidly red has been one of the most surprising political swings of the last decade, as it was the quintessential swing state for over 100 years. The long-time swing state of Iowa has seen an even more rightward shift. On one hand, that may not be so surprising given the state's demographics. On the other hand, Iowa had been considerably more Democratic than Ohio.

I personally believe that Georgia will become the next Virginia or Colorado, in the sense that it won't be long before Georgia is solidly blue. While I think that Republicans will still win statewide elections in Georgia, such victories will be few and far between (such as this year's VA elections or when Cory Gardner won a narrow Senate race in Colorado in 2014).

What's a real question mark, IMO, is just how much further Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and (to a lesser extent) Minnesota will drift rightward and how much more favorable Texas will become for the Democrats. I already think that Arizona is a lean-Democratic state, but I don't see it completely following Georgia's transformation; instead, I think that Arizona will become a lot like Nevada politically.

Edited November 8, 20214 yr by Max

Believe me I'm disgusted my home state is now fully red. I couldn't go anywhere last year without seeing TRUMP signs everywhere. My state is a dumpster fire