All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[aja_christopher]

For the most part, I'd agree.

Framing it as a monolith where there are no instances where a woman should be able to choose? That is just a little bit more complicated.

http://time.com/4211007/republican-d...new-hampshire/

Only a fool would leave it up to a bunch of old men to decide what's best for women -- especially Republican men like Trump or Pence or whatever conservative justices they appoint.

That's exactly how you lose your rights in a democratic society

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's why Gavin Newsom has the credibility that he does. Should he become California's next Governor, he'll end up running for President. Are you ready to support him right now?

Edit: I should also add that I have no problem with political pragmatism myself. I care about results.

Gavin Newsom? Yeah I'd vote for him if he got the nomination. Can't guarantee he'd be my first choice out of the primary depending on who runs (kind of hoping Warren goes for it).

The pragmatism matters to me on two fronts. If I think it's going to stop somebody from taking action on issues that matter to me. Let's face it, if you and I both believe in something, but you're not going to openly support it to win an election or to have political cover, you're kind of useless to me as a voter. Also in cases like now where I think the pragmatism directly effected the results. I think Democrats lost elections largely off of it.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Only a fool would leave it up to a bunch of old men to decide what's best for women -- especially Republican men like Trump or Pence or whatever conservative justices they appoint.

That's exactly how you lose your rights in a democratic society

http://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/p...n-on-abortion/

In 2017, 38% of women said they believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. 42% of men do as well. That's not a massive difference. Gender is actually one of the areas where support doesn't differentiate much if at all. The differences manifest along racial, religious, educational, and ideological backgrounds. Again it's more complicated than you are trying to frame it to make your point.

[numberthirty]

Only a fool would leave it up to a bunch of old men to decide what's best for women -- especially Republican men like Trump or Pence or whatever conservative justices they appoint.

That's exactly how you lose your rights in a democratic society

I'll just let someone else handle this one...

Can't ever lose if you keep fighting strawmen, right?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The issue of choice (politically speaking) isn't complicated -- a woman either has the right to choose or she doesn't (Roe v. Wade).

One side believes in said choice -- the other doesn't.

One side threatens to reverse said decision if they get the opportunity to do so -- the other does not.

-----
"45 years after Roe v. Wade, White House threatens landmark abortion ruling"

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy by ruling that Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated privacy guarantees under the Constitution. Yet 45 years later, the watershed decision continues to come under fire from pro-life advocates, including the nation’s chief executive.

“Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the right to life,” President Donald Trump told thousands of anti-abortion advocates at a March for Life rally in Washington D.C., on the eve of the one-year anniversary of his inauguration last week.

Vice President Mike Pence, a staunch opponent of abortion, called Trump “the most pro-life president in American history” the day before the rally.

Trump, who previously vowed to nominate pro-life judges to help the high court overturn Roe v. Wade, said the case resulted in some of “the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world.”

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...195706209.html

Again you're over simplifying it and your explanation largely isn't indicative of the country. There's millions of people who would be defined as pro choice that have limitations on how far they would extend the right to choose. There are also people who would self identify or be labeled as pro life that might have an exception they are willing to budge on. It's far from the "either/or" scenario you are laying out. Getting dangerously close to a no true Scotsman.

[aja_christopher]

Again you're over simplifying it and your explanation largely isn't indicative of the country. There's millions of people who would be defined as pro choice that have limitations on how far they would extend the right to choose. There are also people who would self identify or be labeled as pro life that might have an exception they are willing to budge on. It's far from the "either/or" scenario you are laying out. Getting dangerously close to a no true Scotsman.

Like I said before -- I'm not here to debate this.

Go ahead and let people like Trump, Pence and Sessions decide what rights you have in this country while you sit here and trash the Democrats all day -- Trump plays tic tac toe while Putin plays chess.

Say what you will about the man -- he knows exactly what he's doing.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Like I said before -- I'm not here to debate this.

Go ahead and let people like Trump, Pence and Sessions decide what rights you have in this country while you sit here and trash the Democrats all day -- Trump plays tic tac toe while Putin plays chess.

Say what you will about the man -- he knows exactly what he's doing.

Well if you aren't here to debate it, I don't know why you would respond overtly simplistic points about certain issues that clearly don't align with the reality of it to make a point. By and large me and you probably agree on most issues. I suspect we both voted the exact same way in the last election and many elections prior.

However, it's not helpful to ignore an actual problem that is impeding the Democratic party under a pretense that by taking them to task for their shortcomings is implicitly helping Republicans. We have a large electorate and you can't box everyone into narrowly defined ideologies and demand allegiances based on that. It backfires. People vote for a third party that speaks to them more, they protest vote, they stay home. Clearly that mindset doesn't work. If it did, Democrats would never lose an election anywhere but the most rural red areas of the country.

I want the Democrats to win Congress in the midterms. I want them to win the Presidency in a landslide in 2020. I don't want them to make it too close for comfort because they don't know what the hell they are doing.

[aja_christopher]

Well if you aren't here to debate it, I don't know why you would respond overtly simplistic points about certain issues that clearly don't align with the reality of it to make a point.

Because at this point I think there are basically two choices -- support the Democrats or support the Republicans.

I know there are grey areas between the two (libertarians, blue dogs, Nader, Stein, Bernie, etc) but this isn't the time for engaging in the same kind of stupidity as we did during the last election -- pick a side and move forward.

Get the people back in power who you know at least want to give you the right to choose -- not the ones who are actively working to take away your rights (abortion, marijuana, whatever) -- and then work out the details: the stakes are just too high now to play the same games we did before Trump was elected.

And that's why I'm not going to debate this -- I was an independent before, but now I've made my choice.

I want the Democrats to win Congress in the midterms.

Then act like it and stay focused on attacking your opponents instead of your allies.

[numberthirty]

However, it's not helpful to ignore an actual problem that is impeding the Democratic party under a pretense that by taking them to task for their shortcomings is implicitly helping Republicans. We have a large electorate and you can't box everyone into narrowly defined ideologies and demand allegiances based on that. It backfires. People vote for a third party that speaks to them more, they protest vote, they stay home. Clearly that mindset doesn't work. If it did, Democrats would never lose an election anywhere but the most rural red areas of the country.

I want the Democrats to win Congress in the midterms. I want them to win the Presidency in a landslide in 2020. I don't want them to make it too close for comfort because they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Let alone that being honest about how the "National" element of The Democratic Party slow dragged on eventually getting to the right place on marriage equality is "Thrash The Democratic Party"/"Hate".

If I can "Thrash" you with the truth, you've got way bigger problems than that I am "Thrashing" you.

[numberthirty]

Because at this point I think there are basically two choices -- support the Democrats or support the Republicans.

I know there are grey areas between the two (libertarians, blue dogs, Nader, Stein, Bernie, etc) but this isn't the time for engaging in the same kind of stupidity as we did during the last election -- pick a side and move forward.

Get the people back in power who you know at least want to give you the right to choose -- not the ones who are actively working to take away your rights (abortion, marijuana, whatever) -- and then work out the details: the stakes are just too high now to play the same games we did before Trump was elected.

And that's why I'm not going to debate this -- I was an independent before, but now I've made my choice.

"Pick A Side", but don't seriously address any of the things that could wind up being a drag on the "Right" side being able to win elections.

That nonsense is utterly counterproductive.

They need to be asking every single person that is anywhere close to being on the fence what they need to get to work on to get their votes. Anything except that? You are absolutely risking throwing away votes that might win elections.

[numberthirty]

Example of that sort of thing...

Sanders on CNN talking "Tariffs" tonight. I really wish that there were more Democrats out there getting anywhere near what he is talking about when it comes to that. Never mind what he was talking about when it came to the current "Dodd-Frank" situation. Never mind when he brought up DACA.

As long as they have that guy with any exposure taking that approach, it's a potential weakness.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Because at this point I think there are basically two choices -- support the Democrats or support the Republicans.

I know there are grey areas between the two (libertarians, blue dogs, Nader, Stein, Bernie, etc) but this isn't the time for engaging in the same kind of stupidity as we did during the last election -- pick a side and move forward.

Get the people back in power who you know at least want to give you the right to choose -- not the ones who are actively working to take away your rights (abortion, marijuana, whatever) -- and then work out the details: the stakes are just too high now to play the same games we did before Trump was elected.

And that's why I'm not going to debate this -- I was an independent before, but now I've made my choice.



Then act like it and stay focused on attacking your opponents instead of your allies.

One I can act however I want. I held my nose for someone who I couldn't care less if she fell off a cliff or not, so nobody can give me a guilt trip.

And yeah in YOUR OPINION there are only two choices. For the majority of Americans, there's at least 3. Democrat, Republican, and I don't want to waste my time getting up early so I can wait in a long line to fill in an oval next to a name of somebody I don't really care about. Then for a smaller amount there's the "I'm going to prove a point by voting for a third party or write in because I don't believe in either of these THAT MUCH". Then there's the people who would rather see the two party structure just fall apart.

On the issues you are talking about, those just aren't really even the stakes to worry about. Democrats aren't exactly knocking down the door for marijuana legalization, Roe v. Wade isn't getting overturned by anything but a Supreme Court vote (and this court isn't doing that) nor is gay marriage. What you should care about more is weather Trump screws up the economy and/or let's China take a more prominent role in international discourse. Those are the things he could directly influence RIGHT NOW that could be irreparable and cause the most devastation. Obamacare is pretty much dead and or dying so that;s another thing.

[aja_christopher]

One I can act however I want.

I know you both can and will, so have at it.

Adios.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I know you both can and will, so have at it.

Adios.

Well this is the third time you bowed out so I'll talk to you later.

[aja_christopher]

Well this is the third time you bowed out so I'll talk to you later.

Bowed out about what? You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.

You're so busy trying to fight people that you can't even just agree to disagree.