slugsrbad wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I have often thought that if the Dems want to win elections, they should just let Roe V. Wade go and de-motivate a huge section of the right's coalition. Abortion is and will be forever legal on the west coast and in New York and New England, to say nothing of Canada and Europe. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is ridiculous because people believe it is about the law and it is not: it is about access, which ultimately is about price. Rich people will get their abortions, and the right will succeed in what it succeeds at best: screwing poor people royally.

Of course I don't particularly lavish the thought of screwing millions and millions of poor women, but if real honest-to-goodness pro-labor progressive Dems started winning elections because of it, maybe on balance it would be a net positive.

This is such a bad post. I do not even know where to start while remaining civil.

If you think for one second dropping women's right to choice would be a net positive for Democrats than you're just insane. Just from the political calculus, where in the history of current politics did you get the inkling that the right would drop the anti-choice rhetoric even if Democrats stopped campaigning on pro-choice? They would still paint Average Iowan Democratic house candidate as a California/New York liberal unless he was virulently anti-choice. It is also disgusting that you would condemn millions and millions of poor women to the choice between an unwanted pregnancy or an unsafe abortion and hope that the affects of electing these mythical Democrats who escape the pro-choice label anyway balances the scale. What is that, the trickle down effect of morality?

BAD POST and oh thank you for remaining civil that's mighty kind of you to do that.

smh




might not agree with wolf but saying that shit... you owe him an apology

az becoming the civility police is not the 2020 turn i saw coming

and yeah that post is bad but im not sure he actually believes that is a strategy to be pursued. playing politics with womens lives is obviously not.

JUburton wrote:az becoming the civility police is not the 2020 turn i saw coming

lol

momadance wrote:

Even for those of us who are all too wearily familiar with President Donald Trump’s disdain for journalists, his administration’s latest attack on the free press is a bit of a jaw-dropper.

In a heretofore unpublicized memo, the Pentagon delivered an order to shutter the Stars and Stripes, a newspaper that has been a lifeline and a voice for American troops since the Civil War. The memo orders the publisher of the news organization (which now publishes online as well as in print) to present a plan that “dissolves the Stars and Stripes” by Sept. 15 including "specific timeline for vacating government owned/leased space worldwide.”

“The last newspaper publication (in all forms) will be September 30, 2020,” writes Col. Paul Haverstick Jr., the memo’s author.

Eh, whatever. At least conservatives are getting their judges.

azrider wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I have often thought that if the Dems want to win elections, they should just let Roe V. Wade go and de-motivate a huge section of the right's coalition. Abortion is and will be forever legal on the west coast and in New York and New England, to say nothing of Canada and Europe. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is ridiculous because people believe it is about the law and it is not: it is about access, which ultimately is about price. Rich people will get their abortions, and the right will succeed in what it succeeds at best: screwing poor people royally.

Of course I don't particularly lavish the thought of screwing millions and millions of poor women, but if real honest-to-goodness pro-labor progressive Dems started winning elections because of it, maybe on balance it would be a net positive.

This is such a bad post. I do not even know where to start while remaining civil.

If you think for one second dropping women's right to choice would be a net positive for Democrats than you're just insane. Just from the political calculus, where in the history of current politics did you get the inkling that the right would drop the anti-choice rhetoric even if Democrats stopped campaigning on pro-choice? They would still paint Average Iowan Democratic house candidate as a California/New York liberal unless he was virulently anti-choice. It is also disgusting that you would condemn millions and millions of poor women to the choice between an unwanted pregnancy or an unsafe abortion and hope that the affects of electing these mythical Democrats who escape the pro-choice label anyway balances the scale. What is that, the trickle down effect of morality?

BAD POST and oh thank you for remaining civil that's mighty kind of you to do that.

smh




might not agree with wolf but saying that shit... you owe him an apology

Thanks for the defense az but I can understand why slugrs reacted the way he did. I don't think it's a position I could or would seriously take, I am just trying to speak to the frustration of watching so many Catholics - of which I am one - vote against their own interests and even beliefs when it comes to social justice, the dignity of labor, etc. because of one fucking issue, one Supreme Court decision that even if overturned would do zip, zilch, and nothing to actually end abortion or make it illegal or whatever, only shift the price so that it will be guaranteed even more than it already is that only certain people will be able to afford proper birth control and health care and everybody else will just have to fend for themselves.

The funny thing is even the Catholic Church didn't much give a shit about abortion until 1980, 7 years after Roe V. Wade. Look it up.

Good article at NPR.org yesterday noting that Non-College Educated Whites represented 45% of eligible voters in 2016 and will represent only 41% of eligible voters in 2020. That seems like a significant stat to me. College educated whites increase from 24% in 2016 to 26% in 2020.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

azrider wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I have often thought that if the Dems want to win elections, they should just let Roe V. Wade go and de-motivate a huge section of the right's coalition. Abortion is and will be forever legal on the west coast and in New York and New England, to say nothing of Canada and Europe. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is ridiculous because people believe it is about the law and it is not: it is about access, which ultimately is about price. Rich people will get their abortions, and the right will succeed in what it succeeds at best: screwing poor people royally.

Of course I don't particularly lavish the thought of screwing millions and millions of poor women, but if real honest-to-goodness pro-labor progressive Dems started winning elections because of it, maybe on balance it would be a net positive.

This is such a bad post. I do not even know where to start while remaining civil.

If you think for one second dropping women's right to choice would be a net positive for Democrats than you're just insane. Just from the political calculus, where in the history of current politics did you get the inkling that the right would drop the anti-choice rhetoric even if Democrats stopped campaigning on pro-choice? They would still paint Average Iowan Democratic house candidate as a California/New York liberal unless he was virulently anti-choice. It is also disgusting that you would condemn millions and millions of poor women to the choice between an unwanted pregnancy or an unsafe abortion and hope that the affects of electing these mythical Democrats who escape the pro-choice label anyway balances the scale. What is that, the trickle down effect of morality?

BAD POST and oh thank you for remaining civil that's mighty kind of you to do that.

smh




might not agree with wolf but saying that shit... you owe him an apology

Thanks for the defense az but I can understand why slugrs reacted the way he did. I don't think it's a position I could or would seriously take, I am just trying to speak to the frustration of watching so many Catholics - of which I am one - vote against their own interests and even beliefs when it comes to social justice, the dignity of labor, etc. because of one fucking issue, one Supreme Court decision that even if overturned would do zip, zilch, and nothing to actually end abortion or make it illegal or whatever, only shift the price so that it will be guaranteed even more than it already is that only certain people will be able to afford proper birth control and health care and everybody else will just have to fend for themselves.

The funny thing is even the Catholic Church didn't much give a shit about abortion until 1980, 7 years after Roe V. Wade. Look it up.

If you really want to reduce the number of abortions (and while you wouldn't know it from the news, abortions have been declining substantially throughout the 21st century at least to 2017) you'd favor access to birth control and better sex education as well as access to health care generally. Since Republicans favor neither, they cannot seriously be considered pro-life. Add to that the fact that at least some prominent Republicans are pushing a herd immunity strategy for Covid 19, a strategy which could add a couple of million deaths, I think in fact to be a Republican today is actually to be pro-death.

Wolfgang622 wrote:
Thanks for the defense az but I can understand why slugrs reacted the way he did. I don't think it's a position I could or would seriously take, I am just trying to speak to the frustration of watching so many Catholics - of which I am one - vote against their own interests and even beliefs when it comes to social justice, the dignity of labor, etc. because of one fucking issue, one Supreme Court decision that even if overturned would do zip, zilch, and nothing to actually end abortion or make it illegal or whatever, only shift the price so that it will be guaranteed even more than it already is that only certain people will be able to afford proper birth control and health care and everybody else will just have to fend for themselves.

The funny thing is even the Catholic Church didn't much give a shit about abortion until 1980, 7 years after Roe V. Wade. Look it up.

If you feel you are owed an apology I will apologize to you, but not because azrider is clutching pearls. If I actually believed you were actually advocating for those things instead of running out a hypothetical then I would have said something along the lines about telling my parents/siblings to note vote for you again if you run for school board. I did not because I think you're still a good/honest dude and I like knowing that you're on the school board for the district my nieces and nephew are enrolled. And you can still depend on me doing my best to convince all 5 eligible voters in the slugsrbad extended family in the CSD to vote for you again if you run.

that's a little harsh. I would say "not anti-death" is more apt.

TenuredVulture wrote:If you really want to reduce the number of abortions (and while you wouldn't know it from the news, abortions have been declining substantially throughout the 21st century at least to 2017) you'd favor access to birth control and better sex education as well as access to health care generally. Since Republicans favor neither, they cannot seriously be considered pro-life. Add to that the fact that at least some prominent Republicans are pushing a herd immunity strategy for Covid 19, a strategy which could add a couple of million deaths, I think in fact to be a Republican today is actually to be pro-death.

This is a very good post. I think there is an education/ignorance gap. Prior to the internet communities might have been able to take the ostrich approach to sex ed and safe safe, but it's impossible now. Communities need to be less prude and accept that and teach safer, smarter sex.

wolf, i like to hear thoughts and opinions. we shouldn't belittle them. interesting opinion and something debatable. definitely think your opinion was a valid one in the 80-90s, today i don't think as much.

but this intolerance from the far left....

there are so many good ideas from the far left and ones i hope we have an opportunity to implement. it's like i am on a train going "left" and i'm trying to convince those to come and join me. i kind of want to get off somewhere around europe. unfortunately, those from the far left scare people away. it's like "we're hijacking this train and going straight to china or north korea."

their ideas don't scare as much as their tactics. claim to be anti-fascist, yet i don't think they've looked at themselves in the mirror. things take time here in america. once in a while, we do need the occasional kick in the ass to wake us up. but we have to know when to let up and let things absorb. we have to understand our audience and the DNA of this country.

we need ideas and opinions from all over the spectrum, not thought police.

TenuredVulture wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

azrider wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:I have often thought that if the Dems want to win elections, they should just let Roe V. Wade go and de-motivate a huge section of the right's coalition. Abortion is and will be forever legal on the west coast and in New York and New England, to say nothing of Canada and Europe. The entire debate over Roe v. Wade is ridiculous because people believe it is about the law and it is not: it is about access, which ultimately is about price. Rich people will get their abortions, and the right will succeed in what it succeeds at best: screwing poor people royally.

Of course I don't particularly lavish the thought of screwing millions and millions of poor women, but if real honest-to-goodness pro-labor progressive Dems started winning elections because of it, maybe on balance it would be a net positive.

This is such a bad post. I do not even know where to start while remaining civil.

If you think for one second dropping women's right to choice would be a net positive for Democrats than you're just insane. Just from the political calculus, where in the history of current politics did you get the inkling that the right would drop the anti-choice rhetoric even if Democrats stopped campaigning on pro-choice? They would still paint Average Iowan Democratic house candidate as a California/New York liberal unless he was virulently anti-choice. It is also disgusting that you would condemn millions and millions of poor women to the choice between an unwanted pregnancy or an unsafe abortion and hope that the affects of electing these mythical Democrats who escape the pro-choice label anyway balances the scale. What is that, the trickle down effect of morality?

BAD POST and oh thank you for remaining civil that's mighty kind of you to do that.

smh




might not agree with wolf but saying that shit... you owe him an apology

Thanks for the defense az but I can understand why slugrs reacted the way he did. I don't think it's a position I could or would seriously take, I am just trying to speak to the frustration of watching so many Catholics - of which I am one - vote against their own interests and even beliefs when it comes to social justice, the dignity of labor, etc. because of one fucking issue, one Supreme Court decision that even if overturned would do zip, zilch, and nothing to actually end abortion or make it illegal or whatever, only shift the price so that it will be guaranteed even more than it already is that only certain people will be able to afford proper birth control and health care and everybody else will just have to fend for themselves.

The funny thing is even the Catholic Church didn't much give a shit about abortion until 1980, 7 years after Roe V. Wade. Look it up.

If you really want to reduce the number of abortions (and while you wouldn't know it from the news, abortions have been declining substantially throughout the 21st century at least to 2017) you'd favor access to birth control and better sex education as well as access to health care generally. Since Republicans favor neither, they cannot seriously be considered pro-life. Add to that the fact that at least some prominent Republicans are pushing a herd immunity strategy for Covid 19, a strategy which could add a couple of million deaths, I think in fact to be a Republican today is actually to be pro-death.

If it were up to me birth control pills would be available at every street corner in those things you put a quarter in and turn the crank and they spit out pellets or whatever to feed to animals at kiddie zoos, or like old fashioned candy/gum vending machines.

And you wouldn't need the quarter.

honestly cant tell if az is trolling with this SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT LEFT stuff when the formerly extreme right wing is moving to the mainstream with such tolerance as 'michelle obama is a man' and 'black lives matter is a terrorist organization'

Yes, I am hoping that AZ isn't angling to be the next JTK.

hate can not drive out hate, only love can do that.

same goes with extremism.

If men could have abortions (a) it probably wouldn’t be a political issue at all or at least (b) almost no one on the pro choice side would look at it as a negotiating point.

slugsrbad wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:If you really want to reduce the number of abortions (and while you wouldn't know it from the news, abortions have been declining substantially throughout the 21st century at least to 2017) you'd favor access to birth control and better sex education as well as access to health care generally. Since Republicans favor neither, they cannot seriously be considered pro-life. Add to that the fact that at least some prominent Republicans are pushing a herd immunity strategy for Covid 19, a strategy which could add a couple of million deaths, I think in fact to be a Republican today is actually to be pro-death.

This is a very good post. I think there is an education/ignorance gap. Prior to the internet communities might have been able to take the ostrich approach to sex ed and safe safe, but it's impossible now. Communities need to be less prude and accept that and teach safer, smarter sex.

One plausible reason why abortions have declined is that kids are too busy snap chatting each other and don't have time for sex and drugs.

azrider wrote:hate can not drive out hate, only love can do that.

same goes with extremism.

"When they go low, we go high" got us nowhere.

Wolfgang622 wrote:Rich people will get their abortions, and the right will succeed in what it succeeds at best: screwing poor people royally.

meh, never mind.

This may be a little not serious enough for the politics thread, but I don’t think disrupting the “is he for real?” talk about azrider’s schtick is a big deal.

Two months out and I’m feeling like this: