Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Omnibus Politics Thread: Campaign 2016 EditionFollow

#27 Sep 21 2015 at 3:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Annnnnnddddd.... Walker's out.
The Hill wrote:
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will bow out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination Monday evening.

Walker, who has seen his poll numbers plummet over the last several months, has scheduled a news conference in Madison, Wis., at 6 p.m.

Walker is the second candidate to drop out of the 2016 race, following former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who suspended his campaign on Sept. 11. That leaves 15 candidates in the hunt for the GOP nomination. One of Walker's major donors, Minnesota billionaire Stanley Hubbard, said Monday he heard the news and then called "one of Walker's key people inside the campaign and they confirmed it."

Guess you need more than one trick to be a contender. Sort of like Giuliani with 9/11 all Walker had was unions. I can defeat ISIS because unions, I can beat Democrats because unions, I can end abortion because unions, etc etc. Every non-union thing he said, he was correcting and re-correcting himself three more times until no one knew where he stood on anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Sep 21 2015 at 10:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Walkers gonna walk.

Hopefully we can get this thing down to a sane number of contestants sooner rather than later.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#29 Sep 21 2015 at 10:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Are you employed by Walker's spin team? If so, kudos on a stellar last day:
NYT wrote:
“Today I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field,” Mr. Walker said. “With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.

“I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same,” he said, “so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner.”

"My campaign collapsed into embarrassing ruins? I meant to do that! To... help conservatives! If anything, I'm a hero here!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Sep 21 2015 at 11:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,065 posts
Quote:
Are you employed by Walker's spin team?


Not anymore.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#31 Sep 22 2015 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Hopefully we can get this thing down to a sane number of contestants sooner rather than later.
Well, sensible number anyway. We're not going to see any sanity.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 Sep 22 2015 at 5:01 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Maybe we should change the game to "who's next to drop?"
#33 Sep 22 2015 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the three lowest polling candidates are Santorum (0.8%), Jindal (0.3%) and Graham (<0.1%) so those would seem your likely candidates. Except I don't know if any of them have a real campaign going on except in name only. Out of those invited to the real debates, I'd guess Kaisch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 22 2015 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,559 posts
Wouldn't it be funny if they all ran just to help trump out by thinning the herd early on?
#35 Sep 22 2015 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
Hard to believe we're still a year and change out. Oy.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#36 Sep 22 2015 at 8:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
Samira wrote:
Hard to believe we're still a year and change out. Oy.


Yeah, but I'd bet money we'll be seeing some large field changes between now and March, and probably sooner rather than later.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#37 Sep 22 2015 at 8:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Biden, who's totally not running you guys just quit it already wait Hillary's polling how low?, said today that "abortion is always wrong". He also said there's a place in the Democratic party for those who are pro-life, which seems absurd on it's face, they being the party which uses Roe v. Wade as their sole litmus test for SCOTUS appointees, but I wonder how much of the Democratic base would consider themselves "pro-life".
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#38 Sep 22 2015 at 9:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
More than you might think. Back before everything became quite so polarized, there was a much greater overlap between various ideologies between the two parties. Blue-collar workers tended to be socially conservative but pretty reliably voted Democrat because union! union! Rural voters tended to vote Republican but didn't particularly care about issues like abortion as long as they weren't asked to pay for it. That sector has hardened into gubbmint-hating Libertarians.

Now, to our detriment, it's all binary. Left or right, liberal or conservative, and the middle ground is now no man's land. Too bad.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Sep 22 2015 at 10:15 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,909 posts
Trump was on with Colbert on the Late Show. And he and Colbert really worked well together.

If one had not much exposure to him and his other messages in the past, looking at what he said and how he acted on the show, it would make him seem reasonable and likable.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#40 Sep 22 2015 at 10:28 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Yeah, Colbert was throwing out bait, but Trump just wasn't biting. Almost like he was pretending to be a real politician. It was so adorable, I just want to smother him with his toupee.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#41 Sep 22 2015 at 10:36 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Also, this gave me the lol's.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2015 11:37pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#42 Sep 22 2015 at 10:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Biden, who's totally not running you guys just quit it already wait Hillary's polling how low?, said today that "abortion is always wrong".

He also says he accepts that there's others who hold a different view and he's previously said that he supports Roe v Wade:
Biden wrote:
Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.

And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.

Not all that surprising.
Quote:
I wonder how much of the Democratic base would consider themselves "pro-life".

Probably a number of blue collar union Catholic types. Less of those than there used to be but they still exist.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Sep 23 2015 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
******
49,824 posts
I don't know how you people do it, I gave up on Colbert after the first episode.

Oh, and Biden is probably angry he's late to the party and doesn't get to be the angry uncle nominee.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 11:56am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Sep 23 2015 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Demea wrote:
Yeah, Colbert was throwing out bait, but Trump just wasn't biting. Almost like he was pretending to be a real politician. It was so adorable, I just want to smother him with his toupee.


I've taken to officially calling him "Captain Combover".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Sep 23 2015 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He also says he accepts that there's others who hold a different view and he's previously said that he supports Roe v Wade:
Biden wrote:
Because it's as close to a consensus that can exist in a society as heterogeneous as ours. What does it say? It says in the first three months that decision should be left to the woman. And the second three months, where Roe v. Wade says, well then the state, the government has a role, along with the women's health, they have a right to have some impact on that. And the third three months they say the weight of the government's input is on the fetus being carried.

And so that's sort of reflected as close as anybody is ever going to get in this heterogeneous, this multicultural society of religious people as to some sort of, not consensus, but as close it gets.

Not all that surprising.


I think what's surprising (and a bit alarming) is that pro-choice has morphed into pro-abortion, and today there are those who will argue directly against the limitations set in Roe v. Wade (or not even be aware that such limitations exist). Ironically, the only difference between my position and Biden's is the label use (although does he actually say he's "pro-life", or the same kind of "pro-choice" that I am?), and that I disagree with the ruling, but not because I disagree with the standards they applied, but don't think the court was/is the correct part of government to apply it. The legislatures were well on their way to settling this in a reasonable manner, which (in most parts of the US at least) would likely have resulted in laws pretty similar to those outlined in Roe v. Wade. The only thing the ruling did was rob the people of the process of determining their own laws, and along the way set precedent for additional future judicial overreaches.

Quote:
Quote:
I wonder how much of the Democratic base would consider themselves "pro-life".

Probably a number of blue collar union Catholic types. Less of those than there used to be but they still exist.


Yeah. The polarization of this issue (and a handful of others) have kinda forced people into one side or the other. Not that we've seen any symptoms of that here though. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Sep 23 2015 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Is the "pro-abortion" thing something you guys just tell yourselves? What does that even mean? Like, your friend says she's pregnant and you get excited that now she gets to have an abortion? Or she says she's actually happy to be pregnant but you argue that an abortion would be much better? Do these pro-abortion people stand outside maternity wards, waving signs and screaming at pregnant women to have an abortion?

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 6:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Sep 23 2015 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Is the "pro-abortion" thing something you guys just tell yourselves? What does that even mean?


Pro-abortion meaning that the focus of the right isn't on a woman to control her own body, but rather on the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy (ie: "right to abort"). The former focus leads one to naturally balance the right of the woman to control her body with the right of a developing fetus to live, which results in the kind of limits that Roe v. Wade established. The latter leads ones to argue that a fetus is just a clump of cells, no different than a cancer or a virus, with no rights at all, so that the right to abort cannot be infringed at all. Such people have a hard time answering the question: "Ok. So at what point in a pregnancy should it be illegal to abort?".

Which, you must admit, has become far more prevalent in the last couple decades. I'm sure I don't actually have to go dig up any of a half dozen threads we've had on abortion and present examples of this, do I? That's what I mean by "pro-abortion".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Sep 23 2015 at 5:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Pro-abortion meaning that the focus of the right isn't on a woman to control her own body, but rather on the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy (ie: "right to abort").

Those would be one and the same. Unless she has the right to terminate a pregnancy, she doesn't actually have control over her own body.

Sounds like an imaginary distinction made up solely so you can yell "Pro-Abortion!" because you don't like the optics of being against "choice".

"Pro-abortion" by any rational reading of the word would be someone who was actually advocating directly for abortion. Not merely for the choice to be there, but for abortion as the primary and hopefully sole choice, just as someone "pro-life" would argue exclusively for the pregnancy to be carried to term.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 6:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Sep 23 2015 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,244 posts
I'm not so much pro-choice as anti-pregnancy, said no one ever.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#50 Sep 23 2015 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,230 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I don't know how you people do it, I gave up on Colbert after the first episode.

Oh, and Biden is probably angry he's late to the party and doesn't get to be the angry uncle nominee.

Edited, Sep 23rd 2015 11:56am by lolgaxe


The writing/show direction is awful; 3-5 minutes of content for a 1hr show.

Where the **** is Jon Stewart?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#51 Sep 23 2015 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Pro-abortion meaning that the focus of the right isn't on a woman to control her own body, but rather on the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy (ie: "right to abort").

Those would be one and the same. Unless she has the right to terminate a pregnancy, she doesn't actually have control over her own body.


No. They're not the same thing. In the same way that the right to defend yourself from injury may cover shooting and killing someone, is utterly different from a right to shoot and kill someone. Termination of a pregnancy is an action which may result from the right to control one's body and health. It is not itself a right. Because, as I thought I clearly explained above, once you define that action as a right, you get people trying to rationalize why anything which may infringe that right must be wrong (like that pesky 3rd trimester viable baby).

A right to abort would include doing so at any point in the pregnancy. A right to control one's body/health (actually a privacy right), does not. That's a pretty critical difference. And one that speaks directly to the limits placed in the Roe v. Wade decision. Specifically:

Roe v Wade wrote:
Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.


There is, nor has there ever been a "right to abort". That the language has changed such that so many people today think so, is exactly what I'm talking about. Most people who identify themselves as pro-choice, and who hail the Roe v Wade decision, have never read it, and have no clue what it actually says. They honestly believe that it codified an absolute right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy, and argue (quite passionately) for that right. It did not, does not, and anyone arguing that it does is just flat out wrong.

When I talk about pro-abortion, I'm speaking about those who actually think that the act of aborting a fetus is itself a right. And, as I just said, the number of such (extremely ignorant) people has grown to an alarming number.

Quote:
Sounds like an imaginary distinction made up solely so you can yell "Pro-Abortion!" because you don't like the optics of being against "choice".


No. It's an understanding that the law supports my position on the issue, but not the position that many others have adopted, primarily because they mistakenly think that there is an actual right to abort. Hence, why I pointed out the distinction. It's not imaginary, it's written into the freaking decision. Just read it.

Quote:
"Pro-abortion" by any rational reading of the word would be someone who was actually advocating directly for abortion. Not merely for the choice to be there, but for abortion as the primary and hopefully sole choice, just as someone "pro-life" would argue exclusively for the pregnancy to be carried to term.


Interesting, so when people call themselves "pro guns", they aren't just talking about protecting the right to bear/own a firearm, but that everyone must bear and own one? Cause that's not actually true. We're talking specifically within the context of rights here (or at least I am), so when someone talks about being pro something, they're talking about the right in question. A pro-life person is talking about the right of the fetus to live. A pro-choice person is talking about the right of the woman to make choices with her own body (which in context includes abortion). A pro-abortion person is therefore talking about the right of the woman to have an abortion. Seems quite logical and consistent to me.


Pro-life doesn't mean advocating for making babies, just as pro-abortion isn't about advocating the abortion of pregnancy. Both are about rights. I get that you're trying to wedge the round peg of language into the square hole of whatever angle you're working at, but it doesn't make any sense. We're talking about rights here, not actions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)