Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I wouldnt. Mostly because their social views I find repugnant as well.
But then. My problem is my identity identifies closest with the politically non-starter Green party.
I've lived so long in conservative american i find all their social and economic views absolutely vile, sickening, and downright despicable.
if anything, my identity is one of hating conservativism.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:28:56 AM by Midgetsnowman
I am indeed quite attached to not electing a candidate who believes that the willful killing of a certain group of people, while tragic, should be legalized because it is socially expedient to do so. It goes beyond even the horrible situation currently in progress: it's a basic ethical problem if someone doesn't value individual life.
It does put me in the rather awkward position of feeling like the country would benefit massively if Romney died in office, even though I obviously could never wish for such a thing.
That said, it was a very close call. It basically came down to a matter of my specific electoral situation being such that a third party vote would be more likely to push the GOP away from me than to force them to move back towards me. That and the fact that the next president may appoint one or two Supreme Court Justices and I know what kind Obama will appoint.
<><
Ones that arent scumbags like Scalia?
Granted, for me. My feelings on Ryan are the same ones I had for Palin. I'd rather die myself than see him anywhere near the presidency.
people like Ryan remind me of why I hate my hometown. because half of them are just like him aqnd every last one of them i consider an evil, malicious human being who perverts the bible to their personal agenda.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:31:56 AM by Midgetsnowman
I'm more worried about someone's right to live free and happily.
Forcing women to have babies they dont want while simultaneously supporting destroying the social safety net strikes me of "we dont really care about children. we just want to use unborn children as a way to tug on people's hearstrings so we can get into office"
And people like you prove it works. In my view, the republican party doesnt really give a shit about a person's life. Its just Abotion is a convenient way to get into office on the backs of people who are more worried about never aborting a baby ever than whether that child will have a good life once its out of the woman's uterus.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:34:48 AM by Midgetsnowman
pro-Lifers I dont consider necessarily malicious, just delusionally obsessed. Christian conservatives (and related politicians) I do.
The two groups arent necessarily the same thing. Pro-Lifers come off to me as so obsessed with abortion that they completely ignore any questions about quality of life after the fact or just scream NO ABORTIONS even louder. (like you)
Conservative Christians on the other hand, hold a special place in my heart as everything thats wrong with Rural america.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:38:59 AM by Midgetsnowman
No dialogue really happens anyhow. Every time I've raised the question of "okay. why is contraception education and ensuring a child isnt a gigantic financial burden on a parent less important than the abortion itself" your only real response has been "NO ABORTION EVER"
Thats not a dialogue. Thats me asking questions while you cling to your view in face of any evidence that perhaps a more nuanced view might aid your goals.
It doesnt help that you keep making snide half-remarks implying that those of us on the pro-choice side consider unborn people to be nothing more than random bits of atoms we can mercilessly kill with no emotion.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:47:01 AM by Midgetsnowman
EG: One has to wonder what life experiences would lead a person to adopt such a position.
EDITED FOR CLARITY: I'm trying to lead the discussion away from the less-than-productive abortion derail and towards the question of whether or not rural conservatives understand the reasons urban liberals disagree so vehemently with their policies. The inverse (do urban liberals understand why rural conservatives disagree so vehemently with their policies) could also be asked. Given how close to a thumping we're cruising, I realized subtlety might not be the best approach.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:46:33 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Every time my answer has been "oppressed > murdered". I prioritize fixing problems by how bad they are, and if a party says the only way to fix social problems is to allow the killing of innocents, then they don't get my vote, or my trust that they'll even do a job of fixing social problems if I did vote for them.
<><![]()
I understand to some degree, given I used to be a rural conservative as a small child. I just discovered that a lot of what rural conservatives see as a common base of reference (strong support net of fellow christians and rural folk, small wage gaps if any due to most labor positions being low level or entry level, cheap, quality housing) tend to evaporate away the second you dont agree with them politically, or morally, or dont exist at all in the city because cheap housing in the city is ramshackle at best, and the wage gap is HUGE in the middle class and up.
See, the problem there, is that we want neither oppression nor "murder"
We just also acknowledge that an imperfect solution is better than a solution we know is guaranteed to fail. Suppose abortion does get utterly outlawed. Do you think that will honestly bring the abortion rate to zero? What about miscarriages? We';ll probably need to treat all of them as criminal investigations just in case, you know. Outlawing abortion wont stop abortions. It just sends them right back to the street doctor in a back alley, or the girl trying to abort via staircase.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:53:40 AM by Midgetsnowman
Prohibition and the current Red Terror of Illegal Downloading-slash-P 2 P both failed horribly. A government abortion ban would fail so hilariously badly, Grizz. All you're going to see is probably the rate of life-threatening abortions skyrocket, and/or people going over the border or to underground abortion clinics.
Also probably a rise in the next election cycle of "Congressman/Senator [X] supported a law to having an abortion, but without making pregnancies safer and not a drain on you!" ads. Or probably "We'll take back a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body! Let Congress know you don't want them dictating to you how to use your body!"
edited 26th Oct '12 10:12:11 AM by PotatoesRock
But even if I accept the contention that fetuses are humans...apart from those fetuses that exist currently, the ones affected by legislative efforts to ban abortion are all potential humans, while there are a lot of already existent humans that could be helped with attention to other issues?
Not to mention, some ideas for helping already existent humans also reduce the number of potential humans at risk from abortion.
re identity politics: identity politics doesn't work that way. It's more like "I'm [race], so I'll support a candidate of [that race]" or "I'm a fan of [thing], so I'll support a candidate who's also a fan of [that thing]."
Unless you consider things like political activism for a social safety net a core part of your identity.
![]()
We have laws against murdering people. Killing people is explicitly justifiable under certain circumstances. Same with taking people's stuff. Rape has actually been a major uphill struggle to get made illegal (or more properly, get people punished for it).
However, it is not morally inconsistent to permit abortion while decrying murder. It depends on several things, among them the point where an agglomeration of replicating cells can be considered a human being with full rights, and a healthy dose of practicality.
edited 26th Oct '12 10:19:35 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think this thread would be better off without the abortion talk. Yeah, yeah, it's on-topic and everything, but you know. Maybe we can move on to other issues. EG has explained that abortion is the issue that decided his vote. I think the rest of us can just accept that this one vote isn't going for Obama, and we can move on.
Seriously, I'm not against discussing abortion as an issue, and I agree that it's important, but it does look like it's going nowhere right now and we're just filling the thread with what amounts to noise in terms of how useful it is for everyone involved.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82925.html?hp=l1
Fine then, US Economy has grown by an 2% annual rate of GDP for Q3 2012.
It's more that a lot of people consider abortion as mainstream as alcohol and illegal downloading, and is pretty much going to get politicians who supported it kicked out next election cycle by an enraged electorate affected by it. It's a law that can be tried to be passed, but it's going to sink like a freakin' stone within a year or two.
Maybe it should be rephrased: "Legislating against behaviors that the vast majority of people consider acceptable is stupid as shit. And is bound to suck."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/look_ma_im_tied.php?ref=fpblg
One last detour on this, it does look Mourdock's statement potentially cost him the election, or has a heavy chance to cost him it.
edited 26th Oct '12 10:48:03 AM by PotatoesRock
EG- as I have said before, in more detail, I want to see abortion go, but I want it to stay gone- not be brought back and reinforced for centuries in reaction to a bungled attempt to ban it without dealing with the humanitarian disaster it currently preempts. IOW, it's entirely noble to want to stop the sacrifice of maidens to placate the dragon, but you had better have a plan to slay the dragon.
That in mind, what are your opinions about such matters as a family safety net, mandated maternal leave, contraception and its place in sex ed?
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?

@Fighteer: Let's flip it around so you'll see where he's coming from:
I'm gay. If the Republicans completely supported gay rights at all levels and the Democrats were against even one gay rights related issue, I would support the Republican party even if I disagree with their economic message entirely and their stance on abortion.
It's identity politics.
edited 26th Oct '12 9:24:26 AM by Completion