Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:43 pm

It was with regards to abortion.

Ryan basically said he'd overturn Roe vrs Wade and ban it.
Biden said that his personal religious beliefs are that it is wrong, but he doesn't believe the government should have the power to impose those beliefs on people who don't agree.

And note that I said the "Founding Fathers", not "the Constitution". The Constitution makes zero mention of judicial review and the 3-branch system of checks and balances, but the system was set in place by the Founding Fathers nonetheless. And has worked just fine for more than 200 years. But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.

If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.
Overturning Roe vrs Wade would clearly be judicial activism, because it would be expanding the power of the government in a way that has zero basis in the constitution. There is no rational way to claim that the opposite is true; that somehow saying "the government doesn't have the power to ban X, since that power isn't granted it in the Constitution" is legislating from the bench.

You can be morally opposed to abortion all you want, and that's fine. I'd disagree with you, but no one is forcing anyone to GET abortions they don't want. If you think abortions are wrong, then DON'T GET ONE. Pop out as many fundamentalist evangelical babies as you like and teach them all that men lived with dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old and that they should be ashamed for masturbating. I think that is an abomination and an abuse of the rights of those children, but that is your right, because they are your children.

To me, the GOP position on banning abortion is MASSIVE government overreach.
Which is ironic, considering the totally fictional self-narrative the Republicans have created for themselves.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Thalia » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:39 pm

Ryan NEVER said he would BAN abortion. He did say that he though that un-elected judges should not decide that fate, that it should be left up to a vote of elected congressional peoples.

I have read this thread in and out but have not chosen to participate in it since I am center right, and it is quite obvious that 90% of this thread's participants are left leaning and I don't want to get a headache debating over the internetz.

But please don't say that he said he would BAN it, because he didn't, you are being very misleading by putting words in his mouth, I know you want Obama to win, but that doesn't mean you have to make things up. He has no power to BAN it. Even if the courts ever sent it back to the states, it would be a state issue, and a Vice President would have no power to BAN it. About the only thing he could do would be to cast a tie breaking vote in the Senate which is super highly unlikely.
User avatar
Thalia
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:00 am

He has said quite explicitly that he wants to see abortion banned. He has repeated this over and over many, many times in the past. There's no mystery or ambiguity there. With Romney, perhaps, Ryan no.

And the GOP ticket DOES have the power to ban abortion, albeit indirectly. The next President is likely to have 1, maybe 2 nominations to the Supreme Court. Filling those seats with pro-life crusaders is enough to tip the balance, and is 100% within the President's power, Congress or not.

A overturning of Roe vrs Wade would, as you said, push things to the states because Congress is too inconveniently filled with Democrats to pass a national ban. And the end result would be a flurry of state bans in most of the red states, which is no less abominable a regression of civil liberties simply because it is non-universal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this equivocating about "exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother" is a pretense trying to make their position seem more moderate than it really is.
There is, effectively, little difference between a "ban with exceptions for x, y, z", and a total and complete ban.


Say a law in the state of North Xissippi is put in place, banning abortion "except in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is threatened".


Who gets to decide whether one of those exceptions is applicable?

-Is a woman who is raped forced to wait through lengthy legal proceedings for proof of the rape to be established, which is almost certain to take longer than 9 months?

-If not the legal system, then some (statistically male) state government official gets to decide if it was "legitimate rape" or not?

-Or alternatively, if there is no burden of proof on whether an exception applies, why pass a ban at all? Anyone who wants an abortion can simply claim that it was due to rape. I doubt the people who would pass such a ban in the first place would stand for this, which would lead to increasingly restrictive and invasive regulations.

Not to mention, Doctors would simply no longer provide the service, regardless of the exceptions. And if the procedure is not available, there is de facto no difference from there being a total ban.

Currently, few doctors perform an abortion procedure, and if a ban-with-exceptions was passed, they would likely all stop offering it entirely.
If a doctor performs an abortion in the case of a women whose health is endangered due to the pregnancy, and then it is later determined that her life was not endangered *ENOUGH* (according to who?) to warrant the exception, suddenly that doctor has performed an illegal abortion and is facing jail time. It is unlikely doctors would be willing to risk it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a massive, massive, massive issue, and the Republican party does its self a disservice by seeming to care about fetuses, but not actual children once they have been born.
A true enemy of abortion would want to prevent it by any means. And the most effective means of preventing abortion is through available contraception, effective and science-based sexual education for children before they become sexually active, and through empowered family planning and health services. ALL of which the GOP has actively undermined.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:12 am

The answer to your first question is yes, I'm ok with government stimulus. The short answer to your second question is that my biggest complaint was the lack of infrastructure spending. I think it was a very very rushed plan with almost no reason to hurry in such a way, and the result was a significant missed opportunity. WIthout the infrastructure spending, we are kind of left with a big bill for a bit of a one time bump, not something that provides as much returns long term as we could have had.

An economic system has inertia. The $1m given in $10 chunks (on a much bigger scale, of course, $1m is nothing on a federal level) is going to create demand, and kick back up the spiral.
Economic systems are not temporally stalled: If a stimulus creates economic activity, the activity has not a date of expiry (until the involved parties find something better to do: When that happens, the crisis' out. I think we can all agree to nearly any level of spending would've been justified in 2009 to get the USA out of the depression immediately, even 100-150% of the gdp. (Yes, there were economists proposing that.. Krugman first. Obama wanted a much bigger stimulus package, or so his officials claim, but that got blocked by the usual idiots)
Any spending that actually gets spent (and not locked up in savings) would work. Welfare, infrastructure, public services.. anything.

For abortion: Yes, Ryan has said he wants to ban it. During a nationally televised debate. Multiple times. Is that even up for claims?

On left-and-right: There's no left in the USA. There's center-right (Dems) and Far-Right (Reps).
As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on.
Perhaps if the GOP dies down, you guys can get a real left party attacking the dems from the left.. but i fear you'll have to wait the boomers to die down for that.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Brekkie » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:38 am

I don't mean to imply that the GOP are the only ones who can be hypocritical when it comes to reverting to other levels of government when a decision goes against them. The Dems are guilty of the exact same thing when it comes to gay marriage and legalization of weed.

In general, though, those efforts are different because again it boils down to government overreach into people's lives. In general, I feel like "banning things" is something the government should do as little as possible, and ONLY for good, substantiated, data-supported reasons.
"Tradition", "Religious beliefs", and "it makes me feel icky" are not good enough reasons.
Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.
Brekkie
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Torquemada » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:01 am

Brekkie wrote:It was with regards to abortion.

Ryan basically said he'd overturn Roe vrs Wade and ban it.
Biden said that his personal religious beliefs are that it is wrong, but he doesn't believe the government should have the power to impose those beliefs on people who don't agree.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm on a FOB with about 300 US personnel, and the only channels the DFAC ever shows are sports. I hate sports, and even I'm starting to track team progress for MLB and the NFL.

Brekkie wrote:And note that I said the "Founding Fathers", not "the Constitution". The Constitution makes zero mention of judicial review and the 3-branch system of checks and balances, but the system was set in place by the Founding Fathers nonetheless. And has worked just fine for more than 200 years. But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.

There are a couple of SCOTUS decisions I'm not a fan of. The eminent domain ruling, Citizen's United, the incredibly retarded rationale of John Roberts on the ACA(At least the libs on the court were honest about their thinking, and I can respect that even if I don't agree). There's a pretty good video on Youtube of Penn Gillette espousing his atheism and his libertarianism, which both happen to identify my personal thoughts on both subjects rather well. I'm not going to dig up the link, because Sniper Hill sucks the ass.

Brekkie wrote:If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.
Overturning Roe vrs Wade would clearly be judicial activism, because it would be expanding the power of the government in a way that has zero basis in the constitution. There is no rational way to claim that the opposite is true; that somehow saying "the government doesn't have the power to ban X, since that power isn't granted it in the Constitution" is legislating from the bench.

You can be morally opposed to abortion all you want, and that's fine. I'd disagree with you, but no one is forcing anyone to GET abortions they don't want. If you think abortions are wrong, then DON'T GET ONE. Pop out as many fundamentalist evangelical babies as you like and teach them all that men lived with dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old and that they should be ashamed for masturbating. I think that is an abomination and an abuse of the rights of those children, but that is your right, because they are your children.

Actually, I agree with you. I am morally opposed to the concept of abortion in most cases, and would never condone it had I put myself in the situation where it were an option. That said, I support its legality, and that it should be an option. My personal choice has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with two women I've known who had them, and the pure trauma the whole ordeal put them through. I couldn't wish that on anyone, but I support that it needs to be an option if women and their partners need to go through with it, and it's none of my damn business if it is. That said, I also don't want to pay for it in most cases either. Additionally, I am not a single-issue voter.

In reference to the Penn comment I made earlier, just because I don't think publicly funded libraries are absolutely vital to the existence of society, I'm not advocating that we torch them and rely on Wikipedia. Similarly, I'm not advocating the removal of the safety net. There are constructs and institutions that are entirely engrained on our culture, and even if we wanted to phase them out, it would have to be done... progressively. What bothers me at this point is that there are now apparently only two options in this conversation, extremly stupid A, or extremely stupid B. My personal and political beliefs involve support for as much individual liberty and responsibility as society can rationally and realistically handle. Neither side offers me that. So I'm going with the lesser of what I perceive to be as two evils, since the Libertarian party never really holds much interest for me, and I like to be able to vote for a candidate that has a chance of implementing at least SOME of the policies I support. Unlike the extreme Left or Right, I'm ok with a partial solution and working towards a better one.
User avatar
Torquemada
 
Posts: 1678
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:00 am
Location: Virginia

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:18 am

aureon wrote:As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on.

And this is where the debate gets really stupid. Keep this utter nonsense out of this thread so it doesn't digress into the shitfest such ridiculous opinions are bound to create.

Brekkie wrote:And the GOP ticket DOES have the power to ban abortion, albeit indirectly.
That's somewhat doubtful as those vacancies would have to come from the left, and we really don't know exactly how each justice would vote on the issue now. I don't suspect any of them save maybe Scalia are likely to be quick to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not to mention, that if the Dems thought a proposed justice was going to vote to overturn Roe vs Wade, the GOP would have to have a filibuster proof majority to get him/her confirmed, and that's simply not going to happen.

Brekkie wrote:But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.
This is where you lose me, I think it's a massive reach to be honest. Conservatives have always been very critical of the court system citing judicial activism. A VP nominee suggesting that one decision is better handled as a legislative manner instead of a judicial manner does not constitute "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution wanting to overturn the entire thing." Conservatives, outside of the religious right are generally OK with abortion, by the way.

I really wish conservatives could get away with picking bits and pieces like that and wrapping the entire left in them as doctrine...

Brekkie wrote:If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.
That assumes that you are looking at the issue through the prism of the left. Admittedly they control the debate, so unquestionably this issue is considered a "woman's right". I think that those opposed to abortion look at it through the rights of the human that is being killed.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby aureon » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:32 am

Fridmarr wrote:
aureon wrote:As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on.

And this is where the debate gets really stupid. Keep this utter nonsense out of this thread so it doesn't digress into the shitfest such ridiculous opinions are bound to create.

Sure, let's ignore everything i say because i have expressed my incredulity that far-right parties still get high votes on the other side of the atlantic.
The beauty of truth it's that it's still valid, whoever believes it. There's videos of Romney flip-flopping on every issue known to man, but that's not allowed to be said in civilized debates, right? Better spout lies to defend sport-team thinking.

Conservatives don't get away with picking bits and generalizing the left because they do not allow their 'bits' to become mainstream thinking supported by presidential nominees.
There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, or right-wing. But if you support a bullshit-spouting canditate, and/or his party, you can't really bemoan people blaming the party for what's in it's platform.
It's not that "A few nutheads" in the GOP are against abortion: It's right there in the official platform.
If there was liberal "Atomz are bad, let's all live on wind/solar starting TOMORROW!!!!!" in the official Dem platform, you think it wouldn't be called out?
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/ wrote:We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.

We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.




Ignore that, if you will, and get back to the economic side:
Any spending that actually gets spent (and not locked up in savings) would work. Welfare, infrastructure, public services.. anything.

This was the main point. And it's the main point that disputes the whole "Romney is more able than Obama to handle the economy".
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:15 am

No, if you want to argue something specific that's fine. If you literally want to call them evil and sum it up in something as stupid as FUCK YOU I GOT MINE, then no that's not reasonable discourse. It's merely hatemongering of the closed minded, and we don't have a place for that here.

Believe me, there's plenty of those bits available from mainstream democratic politicians, and they'll get their run on talk radio which seems to be dominated by the right, but on most other platforms they'll get no traction.

Economically, you seem to be munging what provides the most "stimulus" with more sound long term economic policies. You can't tax yourself to prosperity, and neither can you cut taxes to prosperity. Taxes aren't complicated, there's a price point at which they are effective, like pretty much everything else. And if you want to argue that Obama has a better grasp on that than Romney, that's great your input is welcome.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Aubade » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:54 am

Hmm. I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but I agree with Aureon. I think the GOP is so far off the Deep end of the right it's almost sad. I think the Dems have gotten a little crazy too though, so I'm not specifically attacking the GOP (Although I think they are by and far way worse for civil/human rights then the Dems).

Some days lately I've been wanting to run around Washington DC With a huge mallet. This mallet will have "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" Written on it, and I will bash it into the heads of all of our politicians until they understand what it means.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4877
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Oct 13, 2012 11:59 am

I also agree with the other guys... The perception overseas of the GOP is that they're a bunch of loons (to say the least). The GOP made their bed, now they need to lie in it -- and very few things can be said or done to dispel that perception of the GOP at this point.

Not saying that the Dems are without fault -- but the things they're loony about seem benign in comparison.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11012
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:07 pm

Aubade wrote:Hmm. I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but I agree with Aureon. I think the GOP is so far off the Deep end of the right it's almost sad. I think the Dems have gotten a little crazy too though, so I'm not specifically attacking the GOP (Although I think they are by and far way worse for civil/human rights then the Dems).

Some days lately I've been wanting to run around Washington DC With a huge mallet. This mallet will have "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" Written on it, and I will bash it into the heads of all of our politicians until they understand what it means.

Well that's not playing devil's advocate, that's just disagreeing, but my point isn't that on a particular issue that the GOP isn't wrong. My point is that if your answer is the silly crap he put forward then this isn't a discussion. I hate you because you are evil, isn't going to advance the discussion.

I'm no GOP fan and conservatives tend to get lumped in with them. As you may have noticed I constantly have to battle with folks to articulate what the conservative perspective is, because they enter the conversation believing that the worst example among us is the prevailing opinion because that's what the media seizes onto.

I mean good lord, just look at that article Klaud linked a few pages back that surmised Romney thinks corporations are people and teachers are not. That was from the mainstream media and should have been insulting to anyone with a critical thought process, but I'm sure it's been repeated constantly and in some circles has unfortunately become the prevailing wisdom. That sort of crap is all over the place, so it's easy to have the thought that Romney hates teachers and loves corporations yada yada yada. I'd like to think that we are smarter than that.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Lieris » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:14 pm

Klaudandus wrote:The perception overseas of the GOP is that they're a bunch of loons (to say the least).


That would be putting it politely, yes.

You had the Birther movement, the Tea Party thing and now the Republican party has completely gone off the rails (and yet probably half of all voters are so utterly cretinous that they will still vote for them). Your politics is something we read about to feel better about ours.
Lieris
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:49 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:23 pm

The birther movement... Seriously?

How come there isn't the obvious balance, with Bush and the Reserves, the Occupy Whatever and the like?

In fairness, I think notion that "your politics is something we read about to feel better about ours" is probably a two way street, but that's just the homer in everyone.

EDIT: I'm beginning to think I need to hold a primer on what exactly the conservative logic is on an issue, versus what the prevailing reporting on it actually is.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Election 2012

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:35 pm

I'd say this, if you don't like how people perceive the GOP, or how people lump conservatives with GOP, then the conservatives should put a stop on the most radical, vocal and spotlight whoring members of the GOP.

You might say "well, a bunch of conservatives are not against abortion", but I don't really see any splinter groups within the GOP that say "abortion is a right", instead its rank and file even if its against their best interest (see log cabin republicans) and allow questionable figures to pretty much dictate the party platform

I encourage people to mock Texas and the GOP party because they have hijacked the education system here in Texas, where trying to teach the controversy is more important than Neil Armstrong or Andrew Jackson...

And this is why the GOP is a joke overseas.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11012
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest