pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

uhhhhhmmmm.... we're talking about tampon confiscation here, aren't we?

59% agree that this unconstitutional law makes sense. and they also hate tampons. gross.

Jerz seems genuinely surprised that abortion displeases most people

what also displeases most people is psycho legislators elevating this kind of legislation above trivial stuff like workplace safety or economic security measures or things they actually should spend a lot more time & attention on

but that's changing the frame of his contrived view of how ardently people favor more restrictive abortion legislation

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

uhhhhhmmmm.... we're talking about tampon confiscation here, aren't we?

59% agree that this unconstitutional law makes sense. and they also hate tampons. gross.

I think there's a pretty good chance this would be OK at the court. And I think it's clear that it should be OK.

Its basis is on the concept of some unscientific non peer reviewed 'studies' that fetuses feel pain. Seem hard for me to believe that's going to be the basis for overturning what the sc has previously ruled. Unless it's just all political. ..

drsmooth wrote:

pacino wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Barry, the point is that authoritarian preversions of representative government are fine, unless they're brought about by some nut in venezuela

I think a democratically elected government should generally be allowed to make laws supported by solid majorities of their people, yeah

uhhhhhmmmm.... we're talking about tampon confiscation here, aren't we?

59% agree that this unconstitutional law makes sense. and they also hate tampons. gross.

Jerz seems genuinely surprised that abortion displeases most people

what also displeases most people is psycho legislators elevating this kind of legislation above trivial stuff like workplace safety or economic security measures or things they actually should spend a lot more time & attention on

but that's changing the frame of his contrived view of how ardently people favor more restrictive abortion legislation

How am I genuinely surprised that abortion displeases most people?

I don't think most people are upset that legislators are legislating legislation they favor.

jerseyhoya wrote:
I don't think most people are upset that legislators are legislating legislation they favor.

things like this only happen in isolation in your world

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't know if anyone has been following the Sean Trende/Ruy Teixeira debate about immigration reform and the Republican prospects for the future. I think many of Trende's conservative defenders miss an important implication of what he's suggesting--the Republicans would actually have to pursue policies that appeal to working class voters. It seems to me that's a bigger shift in the prevailing Republican ideology than moving to embracing immigration reform, where at least you'll find pro-business support. In addition, Trende seems to leave out the fact that the voters he's talking about are dying--their percentage of the electorate is shrinking. Further, these voters live in Northern and Midwestern rural counties, places that are losing population.

That's because immigration reform does not easily map onto basic left-right ideology. Lots of pro-business groups are strongly in favor of immigration reform; labor has only recently tentatively embraced it. Yes, there's an identity politics element to it, but playing that game does present problems on the Dem side as well--I've not seen breakouts, but I'd guess that African Americans in the main are skeptical about immigration reform. And if I were an elected official with a largely African American constituency, I would view a path to citizenship as a threat. Sure, if Hispanics make up 15% of my electorate I can say the right things. But I start to lose the identity politics game as those percentages approach 50%.

Add to that the fact that there are substantial differences on the immigration experience among Puerto Ricans (who are citizens) Cubans (who get special treatment) and Mexicans. And of course there are lots of Asian illegal immigrants as well which no one really talks about.

The point is, even supposedly sophisticated analysis presented for consumption oversimplifies the issue.

the last line is directed at trende, right? there have been many articles with plenty of nuanced analysis calling him out

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2013/ ... s-missing/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1137 ... t-save-gop

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I don't know if anyone has been following the Sean Trende/Ruy Teixeira debate about immigration reform and the Republican prospects for the future. I think many of Trende's conservative defenders miss an important implication of what he's suggesting--the Republicans would actually have to pursue policies that appeal to working class voters. It seems to me that's a bigger shift in the prevailing Republican ideology than moving to embracing immigration reform, where at least you'll find pro-business support. In addition, Trende seems to leave out the fact that the voters he's talking about are dying--their percentage of the electorate is shrinking. Further, these voters live in Northern and Midwestern rural counties, places that are losing population.

That's because immigration reform does not easily map onto basic left-right ideology. Lots of pro-business groups are strongly in favor of immigration reform; labor has only recently tentatively embraced it. Yes, there's an identity politics element to it, but playing that game does present problems on the Dem side as well--I've not seen breakouts, but I'd guess that African Americans in the main are skeptical about immigration reform. And if I were an elected official with a largely African American constituency, I would view a path to citizenship as a threat. Sure, if Hispanics make up 15% of my electorate I can say the right things. But I start to lose the identity politics game as those percentages approach 50%.

Add to that the fact that there are substantial differences on the immigration experience among Puerto Ricans (who are citizens) Cubans (who get special treatment) and Mexicans. And of course there are lots of Asian illegal immigrants as well which no one really talks about.

The point is, even supposedly sophisticated analysis presented for consumption oversimplifies the issue.

the last line is directed at trende, right? there have been many articles calling him out

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2013/ ... s-missing/
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1137 ... t-save-gop

I think those two arguments you linked are flawed. The Trende argument isn't about white voters exactly, it's about working class voters who happen to be white--Trende seems to think that in capturing those voters, the Republicans will also make some inroads among non-white working class voters. And I think he's right about that. The real issue with the Trende argument is that it's going to be harder for the Republicans to pivot on economic issues than on immigration. There's already a pro-immigration reform in the Republican party. There's no serious constituency for economic redistribution. What are they going to do--embrace labor unions or something? There's practically no serious constituency for the kind of economic policy you'd need to accomplish what Trende wants to accomplish in the Democratic party.

And that's the real story behind Trende's analysis--working class whites don't see what either party has to offer them. It doesn't matter whether government is divided, Republican, or Democrat. They're falling farther and farther behind. Trende's argument is like a loose thread--you start pulling on it, and soon lots of things become unraveled.

It's also important to note that it's pretty clear Trende's target is the Rove/Establishment Republicans. But you could also say the problem is that Southern Evangelical conservatism doesn't really resonate elsewhere in the country. The working class voters Trende wants to attract are much more Catholic than Evangelical. And even on social conservative issues there's suspicion and wariness between the two groups.

Another problem with Trende's argument by the way is he talks about the 2004 coalition as if it's a thing. A coalition to be a coalition has to hold together for more than one election--The New Deal Coalition lasted from 1932 until the mid-sixties. The Reagan Coalition held up more or less from 1980 until 2008. There's no Bush coalition. (There's no Obama coalition either, at least not yet.)

fair enough but i'd say those arguments Are more "incomplete" than "flawed," but i think we're pretty much on the same page.

jerseyhoya wrote:... security people who are dealing with jars of poop and used tampons ...

The BSG Flophouse has security?

pacino wrote:Its basis is on the concept of some unscientific non peer reviewed 'studies' that fetuses feel pain. Seem hard for me to believe that's going to be the basis for overturning what the sc has previously ruled. Unless it's just all political. ..

What would need to be overturned? I thought 2nd trimester abortion law could vary state-to-state.

jerseyhoya wrote:Confiscating... used ones in for protesting?

The thing is, Rick Perry is one of the very few people on Earth who could benefit from having a few used tampons hurled at him.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:Its basis is on the concept of some unscientific non peer reviewed 'studies' that fetuses feel pain. Seem hard for me to believe that's going to be the basis for overturning what the sc has previously ruled. Unless it's just all political. ..

What would need to be overturned? I thought 2nd trimester abortion law could vary state-to-state.

it has previously ruled 24 weeks is the limit

Harry Reid grew balls, remembered he was a boxer in a past life, and is going to finally mildly change the rules so that the president can actually get people he nominated to work for our country.

pacino wrote:Harry Reid grew balls, remembered he was a boxer in a past life, and is going to finally mildly change the rules so that the president can actually get people he nominated to work for our country.

I understand and sympathize with the sentiment. I also think this is going to crack open a door that McConnell, or some more sincere right-winger (McConnell having no real principles other than a loathing of campaign finance rules and, weirdly, a tolerance for flag-burning), will utterly blow off its hinges if and when the Republicans get any kind of Senate majority. Is the potential for a future Senate to jam through Paul Ryan's budget with only 51 votes worth confirming a few presidential appointees?

Harry Reid also completely lost his shit when Republicans talked about doing this 8 years ago.

not really, since that was about judicial nominees, and he isnt enveloping those into this. he refuses to take full measures.

dajafi - Republicans will do that regardless of whatever Reid does now, this is just allowing Democrats to actually get a few things done before that happens. either reid can do nothing, again, and wait until a potential Republican Senate uses the option anyway, or he can just preempt them since they've already systematically changed how the Senate conducts business over the past 20 years.

Lindsey Graham suggests boycotting the Winter Olympics in Russia over the Snowden incident.

slugsrbad wrote:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/0 ... ?mobile=nc

Fincher can nourish himself with my fecal eggs, but I'd consider plugging Kristi Noem's loophole almost anytime

speaking of fraud & other shenanigans, how about that goofy gus Bob McDonnell? He would have given Honest John Rowland a run for his money

('run for his money', whadda kneeslapper)

I mean, Cuccinelli is dog nuts, but McDonnell, he's got a hair outta place, maybe a few

pacino wrote:his wife was upset that there might be some sexual woo woo going on, but NOOOO, there was no sex-discrimination going on here in her firing. the wife would've been just as mad if he had a male employee texting back and forth. so, firing someone for putting the moves on them and them saying no is illegal; firing someone because you WANT to put the moves on them but didnt is completely fine.

i understand the idea of precedent, but doesnt precedent usually start somewhere?

I was thinking this yesterday because my wife sent me a different (more one-sided) article.

Most employees can be fired for absolutely no reason at all. That he told her that it was because of the strain their personal relationship had on his marriage doesn't make it illegal, for the reasons that the court gave. It clearly wasn't because of gender, because all of the other employees were females. I'm guessing that it wasn't even due to pure attractiveness, as there were likely other attractive hygienists in his office. It was due to their personal relationship.

Can you imagine if the Court had ruled the other way, and that she couldn't be fired because she was good looking? I think that would open up a huge can of worms, and I don't think we'd be in a better position as a society. I'm glad that gender is a protected class of people, but attractiveness is not.