View Full Version : I am disappointed in the Democratic candidate....
gimmethesimplelife
10-15-22, 1:24pm
No, that wasn't a typo. I am disappointed in Katie Hobbs, Democratic candidate for Arizona Governor. She refuses to debate GOP Candidate Kari Lake and it's a tight race. Hobb's refusal to debate may very well cost her the race. Get a backbone or get out of politics is what I say. I really am disappointed here and frustrated that Hobb's decision may very well seal Arizona to another 4 years of MAGA/GOP regime.
Can Arizonans afford this? Rob
iris lilies
10-15-22, 1:25pm
I’m disappointed in many Democratic Party practices, policies, and candidates. Thank you for joining my crowd.
gimmethesimplelife
10-15-22, 1:30pm
I’m disappointed in many Democratic Party practices, policies, and candidates. Thank you for joining my crowd.I have not joined your crowd per se, IL. I am posting of disappointment in this one particular Democrat - not the entire party. I'm not about to.pull a Tulsi Gabbard LOL. Rob
I’m disappointed in many Democratic Party practices, policies, and candidates. Thank you for joining my crowd.
I’m disappointed in many _____ Party practices, policies, and candidates.
We need a bigger crowd.
iris lilies
10-15-22, 1:35pm
I’m disappointed in many _____ Party practices, policies, and candidates.
We need a bigger crowd.
yes so let’s make it happen!
frugal-one
10-15-22, 2:33pm
I’m disappointed in many _____ Party practices, policies, and candidates.
We need a bigger crowd.
Amen. A sane crowd.
I am disappointed in just about all politicians of either party. Voting will be a challenge this year.
frugal-one
10-17-22, 8:36am
I am disappointed in just about all politicians of either party. Voting will be a challenge this year.
Voting will not be a challenge because I cannot accept the republican dogma of eliminating abortion and contraception rights, possible elimination of other rights such as who you love, social security/ medicare reduction or elimination, trying to make sure they stay in power even though the people vote otherwise, gerrymandering, continuing to block needed gun laws, many promoting “the big lie”, conspiracy theorists… these are just a few reasons that come to mind first thing this morning. I do believe we will become an autocratic dictatorship if the republicans take control. IMO there is really no choice. I may not like some the democratic candidates but there is no alternative.
Choose what matters to you most.. IMO principles override candidates in this political climate.
That may prove to be a hard sell politically. At street level, average people are worried about things like crime and the economy. Persuading them that there are Nazis behind every tree and religious fanatics blueprinting a dystopian future may be difficult when voters are concerned with more concrete issues on a daily basis.
I can’t imagine an issue more concerning for 50% of the population than bodily autonomy. All the other issues are tied to it.
The New York Times just released a national poll. 44% responded that the economy was the most important issue. 5% said abortion was.
If women don’t vote like their lives depend on it I suppose they’ll deserve what they get. A bunch of creepy old men telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
Reproductive rights, uniform firearms regulation, fair and humane immigration laws, prosecution of white collar and hate crimes, strict separation of church and state, protecting same-sex and mixed-race marriage, human rights in general, environmentally-protective legislation, respect for the rule of law, reversal of the "privatization of everything" --the list goes on. I will vote for candidates who support the issues I've espoused for decades now.
If women don’t vote like their lives depend on it I suppose they’ll deserve what they get. A bunch of creepy old men telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
:+1:
If women don’t vote like their lives depend on it I suppose they’ll deserve what they get. A bunch of creepy old men telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
At least in my area there are a couple of creepy women in politics that fit that bill, too. At least as the dem's political ads claim. I've assumed it's the religious right's issue rather than any specific gender or age.
The GOP ads here are hitting the inflation issue and gas prices pretty hard. Firearms restrictions don't seem to be as much of an issue.
The GOP ads here are hitting the inflation issue and gas prices pretty hard. Firearms restrictions don't seem to be as much of an issue.
Is the GOP offering any solutions for inflation? Or just complaining?
Is the GOP offering any solutions for inflation?
You mean like the Inflation Reduction Act?
Is the GOP offering any solutions for inflation? Or just complaining?
I suppose they have something up their sleeves, but I've not seen anything in the ads or other news. I suppose there has been talk about open up more lands for drilling to bring down gas prices, but I've not even seen much of that lately, so I don't know.
Fairly or not, the party in power tends to get the blame or credit for the state of the economy. In this case, I think the Democrats damaged their cause with various denials and finger-pointing. At the beginning of this cycle, they talked about “greedflation”, as if thousands of firms simultaneously decided to adopt a price-gouging strategy. Biden’s bizarre attacks on the energy industry and service station operators didn’t seem to get him much traction. Nor did slapping an inflation reduction title on just another spending bill fool many people whose paycheck or ideological narrative did not depend on believing it.
I think this refusal to talk seriously about the economy will hurt them next month. It would require more political incompetence than even the current GOP suffers from to not capitalize on such an unforced error.
You mean like the Inflation Reduction Act?
I’ll take that response to my question as a ‘no, of course they don’t actually have any plans on how to reduce inflation. Their understanding of economics is at about the same level as their understanding of female reproductive anatomy.’
It's folly to vote thinking any party can "Whip Inflation Now" (thank you Jerry Ford). It ebbs and flows according to international events, exacerbated by corporate greed. I've never considered it when voting.
It's folly to vote thinking any party can "Whip Inflation Now" (thank you Jerry Ford). It ebbs and flows according to international events, exacerbated by corporate greed. I've never considered it when voting.
Is it even the government's job to "whip inflation"?
How have previous attempts worked?
Is it even the government's job to "whip inflation"?
How have previous attempts worked?
I've never paid much attention, except to note that it usually more or less self-corrects. And no--I would expect Conservatives would say it's a result of market forces.
frugal-one
10-17-22, 5:06pm
That may prove to be a hard sell politically. At street level, average people are worried about things like crime and the economy. Persuading them that there are Nazis behind every tree and religious fanatics blueprinting a dystopian future may be difficult when voters are concerned with more concrete issues on a daily basis.
IMO you can thank republicans for gun violence… hence crime. The economies across the world are struggling. Don’t see either party being able to fix until the war, etc ceases? Yes the current republicans are following a fascist footstep. There is no denying.
frugal-one
10-17-22, 5:11pm
You mean like the Inflation Reduction Act?
I’ve seen no republicans coming up with a solution! The only thing I have witnessed is their lack of response or deflection to questions asked.
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-22, 5:19pm
The New York Times just released a national poll. 44% responded that the economy was the most important issue. 5% said abortion was.
who is going to break it to them how expensive having a kid is?
I’ve seen no republicans coming up with a solution! The only thing I have witnessed is their lack of response or deflection to questions asked.
I think the is the most recent "official" plan.
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Steps-to-Fight-Inflation-FINAL.pdf
I think the is the most recent "official" plan.
https://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Steps-to-Fight-Inflation-FINAL.pdf
Get America working again?" What's unemployment 3%? Lowest ever. "Fill your shopping cart?" How tone deaf can you get?
Get America working again?" What's unemployment 3%? Lowest ever. "Fill your shopping cart?" How tone deaf can you get?
I know, I know. I was just having a discussion about how some local businesses are having trouble filling decent jobs.
It's unrealistic and lacking sustenance, but it's not to say they don't have a plan. I imagine some find it appealing. It's basically the republican platform inflation or not.
Is it even the government's job to "whip inflation"?
How have previous attempts worked?
See the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
I think bringing down inflation in 1980-81 was one of the great accomplishments of Paul Volcker’s tenure at the Fed.
pinkytoe
10-18-22, 12:48pm
My morning crazy shower thought is that current inflation is a Republican plot to discredit Biden.
My morning crazy shower thought is that current inflation is a Republican plot to discredit Biden.
I like how the GOP cleverly produced inflation in the UK, Europe, and Asia too.
Pretty organized, for a gang that couldn't even manage a decent coup.
ApatheticNoMore
10-18-22, 3:54pm
People are going to find out what real economic suffering is (it's not this, which doesn't mean everything is fantastic now) when we actually hit a recession.
You would think they would remember from the Great Recession, that was a severe recession. Unemployment didn't recover for 5 years. But too many seem not to or easily forget. Maybe some millenials whom it hit hard remember.
I don't want a recession. But I'm not the Fed and have no say in that. Just we have a lot of complaining about the economy now, and it's going to get much worse (and it may not even stop inflation). One can only hope it's not as brutal and long lasting as the Great Recession.
I like how the GOP cleverly produced inflation in the UK, Europe, and Asia too.
Pretty organized, for a gang that couldn't even manage a decent coup.
My NYT front page today highlighted British inflation at over 10%, which they say was driven widely by food costs. Which I suppose intern was driven by fuel and fertilizer costs.
I see that Lake is now narrowly leading Hobbs. I wonder if the Arizona Democrats now regret their assist to Lake in the primary when they made a point of thanking the more conventional GOP candidate for past contributions to Democrats. They also perhaps didn’t consider the advantage a charismatic wingnut might have over a more nebbishy opponent.
frugal-one
10-22-22, 12:20pm
I doubt they have regret. republicans have voted along party lines eliminating things that matter to people ... There is no benefit in these time to vote republican.
iris lilies
10-22-22, 1:03pm
I listened to an episode of This American Life, The classic NPR radio station that exists as a model for hundreds of podcasts now littering the Internet.
It focused on a Republican committee woman in Phoenix who had had that job for 40 years. She was a very hard worker and went door-to-door campaigning every year for candidates. She was pushed out of her position by Steve Bannon fueled Trumpsters.
While I have no regard for Trumpsters and their shenanigans, I have a hard time being sympathetic to people like this woman who wailed “but I’ve been doing it for 40 years! “
That is precisely the problem many of these newly active Republicans are trying to address.
She was shocked and dismayed when Kari Lake won over her own preferred more mainstream candidate.
The .republican party is in for a rough ride. But I also doubt that the new Trumpsters in this precinct will stay the course and stick the landing.
I doubt they have regret. republicans have voted along party lines eliminating things that matter to people ... There is no benefit in these time to vote republican.
And yet in many states the momentum seems to be shifting in favor of some pretty weak Republican candidates. Could it be possible that things like the economy or crime may matter more to people than abortion rage or “the existential threat to democracy”?
I can’t imagine an issue more concerning for 50% of the population than bodily autonomy. All the other issues are tied to it.
And--critical as that is--that's only the beginning.
And yet in many states the momentum seems to be shifting in favor of some pretty weak Republican candidates. Could it be possible that things like the economy or crime may matter more to people than abortion rage or “the existential threat to democracy”?
And again I'll ask, WTF do the republicans actually plan to do about the economy? Other than destroy it by refusing to raise the debt ceiling if they aren't allowed to destroy social security and medicare.
And again I'll ask, WTF do the republicans actually plan to do about the economy? Other than destroy it by refusing to raise the debt ceiling if they aren't allowed to destroy social security and medicare.
I think it boils down to philosophical differences. I think there's something to an observation Rush Limbaugh once said on air: "Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it."
iris lilies
10-22-22, 3:09pm
If women don’t vote like their lives depend on it I suppose they’ll deserve what they get. A bunch of creepy old men telling them what they can and can’t do with their bodies.
You’ll be happy to know that I am voting for the idiot Democrats in my state legislature because they’re the ones that will control abortion laws in my state.
I don’t know how accurate that poll is, But I do know that abortion rights are a new major issue with Pockets of voters who might have been casual about it before Roe vs Wade was overturned.
But I also know that the issue is highly nuanced I never see the nuance discussed here on this forum from either side.
frugal-one
10-22-22, 3:13pm
And yet in many states the momentum seems to be shifting in favor of some pretty weak Republican candidates. Could it be possible that things like the economy or crime may matter more to people than abortion rage or “the existential threat to democracy”?
The economies around the world are having trouble too... don't think it matters who is in office. Crime can be blamed on the republicans for their lack of censure of guns. Hopefully, women will come out in full force and show their objection to the overturning of Roe!
I think it boils down to philosophical differences. I think there's something to an observation Rush Limbaugh once said on air: "Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it."
So they don’t actually have a plan. Other than more tax cuts for corporations and rich people. And destroying social security and Medicare.
iris lilies
10-22-22, 5:59pm
I think it boils down to philosophical differences. I think there's something to an observation Rush Limbaugh once said on air: "Liberals measure compassion by how many people are given welfare. Conservatives measure compassion by how many people no longer need it."
I think this is an interesting observation. Our President Biden has been passing out government money when it wasn’t needed, and illegally overstepping his constitutional authority pushing regulations to further the goal of giving out welfare.
Those are the actions he names as accomplishments.
So they don’t actually have a plan. Other than more tax cuts for corporations and rich people. And destroying social security and Medicare.
I don't have the same sort of insider information you seem to have but I hope the GOP will be able to get out from under undue Trump influence and take positive steps within the legislature to turn things around. It would help if they could effectively convince an increasingly myopic public that a year when the government does not set a new record for handing out money they don't have, regardless of how much it tried, that is not effective deficit reduction. They could then move on to addressing the national budget and affirming that the government is only allowed to spend what it earns in a manner that is constitutionally supported, that no particular group of people have a greater responsibility to contribute than another group and class warfare is only useful in creating a 'us vs them' divide. I believe that would help immensely.
Apparently, Alan, you don’t have the internet either.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEIMvAzNWlcxNy4cI-CqqUVQqGQgEKhAIACoHCAow_NiCCzD5140DMO3i-AY?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
frugal-one
10-22-22, 8:31pm
I don't have the same sort of insider information you seem to have but I hope the GOP will be able to get out from under undue Trump influence and take positive steps within the legislature to turn things around. It would help if they could effectively convince an increasingly myopic public that a year when the government does not set a new record for handing out money they don't have, regardless of how much it tried, that is not effective deficit reduction. They could then move on to addressing the national budget and affirming that the government is only allowed to spend what it earns in a manner that is constitutionally supported, that no particular group of people have a greater responsibility to contribute than another group and class warfare is only useful in creating a 'us vs them' divide. I believe that would help immensely.
We can only hope that his influence has not ruined the GOP forever.
frugal-one
10-22-22, 8:36pm
Apparently, Alan, you don’t have the internet either.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEIMvAzNWlcxNy4cI-CqqUVQqGQgEKhAIACoHCAow_NiCCzD5140DMO3i-AY?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Disgusting…. A GREAT reason not to vote for republicans! What else is on the chopping block?
Apparently, Alan, you don’t have the internet either.
https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEIMvAzNWlcxNy4cI-CqqUVQqGQgEKhAIACoHCAow_NiCCzD5140DMO3i-AY?uo=CAUiANIBAA&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Disgusting…. A GREAT reason not to vote for republicans! What else is on the chopping block?
This article is remarkably short on details. What type of cuts are they imagining, or does it matter?
It occurs to me that there is a difference between eliminating a program and taking steps to ensure its future viability. You imply that only one of those goals is apparent, are you sure you're right?
One of the things I never understood about the Republican resistance to any sort of gun control became clear to me when I saw the coin flipped and democrats, in the wake of Roe being overturned, suddenly became resistant to any sort of additional restrictions on abortion like the bullshit proposed idea that senator graham wants. Whatever reductions the republicans want for social security and Medicare are just first steps to destroying the most popular government programs ever. The goal is to end them entirely. The easiest way to do that is to turn them into just another type of welfare for poor people by reducing benefits for the more well off to the point that wealthier people don’t care about them anymore. That’s what republicans will do if given the chance.
iris lilies
10-22-22, 10:53pm
One of the things I never understood about the Republican resistance to any sort of gun control became clear to me when I saw the coin flipped and democrats, in the wake of Roe being overturned, suddenly became resistant to any sort of additional restrictions on abortion like the bullshit proposed idea that senator graham wants. Whatever reductions the republicans want for social security and Medicare are just first steps to destroying the most popular government programs ever. The goal is to end them entirely. The easiest way to do that is to turn them into just another type of welfare for poor people by reducing benefits for the more well off to the point that wealthier people don’t care about them anymore. That’s what republicans will do if given the chance.
The gestational time period between the law in your own state of California and the Grahm proposal* is 10 weeks. Only 10 weeks. Granted, 10 weeks is a long time in the life of a fetus. But in the big picture I’m not sure that it’s that big of a deal.
I’m not sure it’s that big of a deal because chemical abortions are easy to get, it’s easy to know when you’re pregnant with OTC tests—there’s all kinds of technology now that didn’t exist 50 years ago when Roe v. Wade allowed abortions up to 24 weeks.
But I do understand what you’re saying about the slippery slope and yes I think it’s a valid argument against gun control and has some validity for this abortion argument as well.
As for Republicans messing substantially with Social Security and Medicare, there’s not a chance they will act like the grown-ups in the room and attempt to bring fiscal rationality to our national budget to save the programs. Social Security and Medicare have been the third rail for decades. They’re not gonna touch it. I watched Congressional Republicans flounder in 2017 when they had a chance to take down Obamacare and they were unable to do it, and that was a much newer program with many detractors.
*I am opposed to Republicans OR Democratic Congress taking the decision out of the control of states. I think it is unconstitutional.
The gestational time period between the law in your own state of California and the Grahm proposal* is 10 weeks. Only 10 weeks. Granted, 10 weeks is a long time in the life of a fetus. But in the big picture I’m not sure that it’s that big of a deal.
.
Thanks for the ‘old lady who will never get pregnant’ perspective.
Thanks for the ‘old lady who will never get pregnant’ perspective.
Is it less valid than the 'gay man who will never get pregnant' perspective? What an odd thing to say.
iris lilies
10-22-22, 11:22pm
Thanks for the ‘old lady who will never get pregnant’ perspective.
hey JP as you should know by now that this is a big issue for me and I’m thinking about it carefully and studying it. And for that reason I’m crossing over in my state to vote for Democrat legislators, hard for me to do because my vote will be supporting their work in other topics.
But thank you for your rude comment, greatly appreciated!
iris lilies
10-22-22, 11:24pm
Is it less valid than the 'gay man who will never get pregnant' perspective? What an odd thing to say.
It was beneath him.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 4:20pm
One of the things I never understood about the Republican resistance to any sort of gun control became clear to me when I saw the coin flipped and democrats, in the wake of Roe being overturned, suddenly became resistant to any sort of additional restrictions on abortion like the bullshit proposed idea that senator graham wants. Whatever reductions the republicans want for social security and Medicare are just first steps to destroying the most popular government programs ever. The goal is to end them entirely. The easiest way to do that is to turn them into just another type of welfare for poor people by reducing benefits for the more well off to the point that wealthier people don’t care about them anymore. That’s what republicans will do if given the chance.
We were told when we paid into social security that that was our "old age pension". I don't understand how this can be considered welfare when you paid into it?? It would be more than solvent if it had not been dipped into. When private companies dip into pensions, they are put in jail or fined. Why is the government any different? Many old people are foolish and just have social security to tide them over into old age. Stupid? Of course, especially if the government decides to no longer provide what they promised to do.
Even talk of this by republicans is reason not to vote for them. What else can they cut that will harm or hurt the common man? They need to be voted out.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 4:24pm
The gestational time period between the law in your own state of California and the Grahm proposal* is 10 weeks. Only 10 weeks. Granted, 10 weeks is a long time in the life of a fetus. But in the big picture I’m not sure that it’s that big of a deal.
I’m not sure it’s that big of a deal because chemical abortions are easy to get, it’s easy to know when you’re pregnant with OTC tests—there’s all kinds of technology now that didn’t exist 50 years ago when Roe v. Wade allowed abortions up to 24 weeks.
But I do understand what you’re saying about the slippery slope and yes I think it’s a valid argument against gun control and has some validity for this abortion argument as well.
As for Republicans messing substantially with Social Security and Medicare, there’s not a chance they will act like the grown-ups in the room and attempt to bring fiscal rationality to our national budget to save the programs. Social Security and Medicare have been the third rail for decades. They’re not gonna touch it. I watched Congressional Republicans flounder in 2017 when they had a chance to take down Obamacare and they were unable to do it, and that was a much newer program with many detractors.
*I am opposed to Republicans OR Democratic Congress taking the decision out of the control of states. I think it is unconstitutional.
IMO...It seems a conflict of the country's interest to have different laws for the UNITED STATES of America. Stupid, in fact, to be able, in some instances to drive one mile and have a different law. It makes no sense to me.
IMO...It seems a conflict of the country's interest to have different laws for the UNITED STATES of America. Stupid, in fact, to be able, in some instances to drive one mile and have a different law. It makes no sense to me.
It probably has something to do with that pesky part of the Constitution (10th Amendment) which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
iris lilies
10-23-22, 5:18pm
It probably has something to do with that pesky part of the Constitution (10th Amendment) which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t seem to be popular with a lot of people and I find that sad and kind of scary.
But in the case of abortion, a constitutional amendment can be added to make the universal principal across all states. The constitution lays out of process for that.
Thanks for the ‘old lady who will never get pregnant’ perspective.
As a fellow representative of Iris Lily's voting bloc, I can assure you that many of us are staunch proponents of reproductive freedom, as we have been all along.
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t seem to be popular with a lot of people and I find that sad and kind of scary.
It's the only real check on the government's authority to abuse its citizens, and yet most people only see it as a way to be granted rights. That's a short-sighted view in my opinion.
rosarugosa
10-23-22, 5:46pm
As a fellow representative of Iris Lily's voting bloc, I ca assure you that many of us are staunch proponents of reproductive freedom, as we have been all along.
Same here, Jane. I had a tubal ligation at age 21, but I've always been pretty passionate about reproductive freedom.
Same here, Jane. I had a tubal ligation at age 21, but I've always been pretty passionate about reproductive freedom.
I wonder how long it will be until Republicans try to ban sterilization procedures; I know they're already hard to get in some areas.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 7:15pm
It probably has something to do with that pesky part of the Constitution (10th Amendment) which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The 10th Amendment itself was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and was ratified by the states on December 15, 1791 to become, well, the 10th amendment to make the cut. Since it’s in the Constitution, the 10th Amendment hasn’t changed at all from its original wording, although its relevance and interpretation has been subject to varying opinions. Its interpretation, in fact, has been subject to heated conversations about the Founding Fathers’ intentions.
Much of the discussion of the 10th Amendment revolves around discourse that seeks to explain it. After all, it’s no secret that technical jargon like that present in the Constitution can be tough to understand. It also pops up in discussions about its contemporary use in the current political landscape. For example, in 2016, the 10th Amendment was very relevant with regard to laws about marijuana. On the federal level, it’s an illegal substance, but on the state level, in some cases it’s legal. Another significant example is the decision of some states to allow for marriage equality for LGBTQ+ individuals prior to the Supreme Court case that ruled that excluding these individuals from the ability to marry was unconstitutional (Obergefell v. Hodges).
Obviously, the Amendment needs to be revised. We now have issues that they did not have in 1789. It is totally antiquated. Many current day issues were not considered or even thought of by the Founding Fathers.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 7:20pm
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t seem to be popular with a lot of people and I find that sad and kind of scary.
But in the case of abortion, a constitutional amendment can be added to make the universal principal across all states. The constitution lays out of process for that.
So the Constitution should be changed in your opinion only on issues you think an amendment can be made.... Huh? Obviously, you do not find the Constitution popular on all issues. Make up your mind. It can't be both ways.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 7:23pm
It's the only real check on the government's authority to abuse its citizens, and yet most people only see it as a way to be granted rights. That's a short-sighted view in my opinion.
But many republicans think there should be a countrywide ban on abortions... talking on both sides of their mouths.
So the Constitution should be changed in your opinion only on issues you think an amendment can be made.... Huh? Amendment's are literally the only way to make additions to the constitution. Whatever happened to civics classes?
But many republicans think there should be a countrywide ban on abortions... talking on both sides of their mouths.Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth. One side is focused on saving innocent life and the other is focused on eliminating it if they find it inconvenient. We should be able to reach a middle ground if we try.
iris lilies
10-23-22, 8:17pm
I wonder how long it will be until Republicans try to ban sterilization procedures; I know they're already hard to get in some areas.
Please elaborate on where and why they’re hard to get in some places.
It’s always been a doctor’s call to perform that on very young women.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 8:39pm
Amendment's are literally the only way to make additions to the constitution. Whatever happened to civics classes?
Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth. One side is focused on saving innocent life and the other is focused on eliminating it if they find it inconvenient. We should be able to reach a middle ground if we try.
As IrisLily already pointed out. IrisLily feels the Constitution isn't popular with a lot of people (including her) when it does not conform to her beliefs. It is ok to amend the Constitution when she doesn't agree with it.
There is no middle ground on abortion IMO. It should be up to the people involved and nobody else's business. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. Meaning I don't believe I could have aborted a child except in an extreme case but believe I have no right to push my beliefs on someone else. In this instance, there should be a separation of church and state. Clearly, this is mainly a religious dogma.
Please elaborate on where and why they’re hard to get in some places.
It’s always been a doctor’s call to perform that on very young women.
My evidence is purely anecdotal: women having to get a husband to sign off on the procedure, many women told by their doctors they're too young, they'll change their mind, weren't yet married, had not had enough children, some flatly refused, some rebuffed by doctors' apparent religious beliefs, etc. I was lucky, many years ago, to find a doctor who considered me a rational adult, and performed my procedure at a relatively young age. What is "very young," and why should it be the doctor's call?
Would you like me to write a term paper on the "where?" I'll get started. :~)
"Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth."
Literally NO ONE believes a viable fetus should be aborted.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 8:47pm
My evidence is purely anecdotal: women having to get a husband to sign off on the procedure, many women told by their doctors they're too young, they'll change their mind, weren't yet married, had not had enough children, some flatly refused, some rebuffed by doctors' apparent religious beliefs, etc. I was lucky, many years ago, to find a doctor who considered me a rational adult, and performed my procedure at a relatively young age. What is "very young," and why should it be the doctor's call?
Would you like me to write a term paper on the "where?" I'll get started. :~)
"Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth."
Literally NO ONE believes a viable fetus should be aborted.
Truth be told.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 8:50pm
Please elaborate on where and why they’re hard to get in some places.
It’s always been a doctor’s call to perform that on very young women.
A quick search ...
https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754
"82% of physicians set at least 1 precondition for sterilization, the most common being spousal consent. The average minimum age required is 25 years for vasectomy and 23 years for female sterilization. Nonmetropolitan physicians are more likely to include sexual sterilization in their practices than metropolitan physicians. The largest proportion of vasectomy providers are in the West and Northcentral regions, whereas the largest proportion of female sterilization providers are located in the South."
From:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12267378/
A quick search ...
https://theconversation.com/sexist-barriers-block-womens-choice-to-be-sterilized-99754
This stood out to me: "Currently, the reproductive norm is that women should want to give birth to children and have a duty to do so." This is an attitude I see more and more. I guess it goes hand in hand with white nationalism. What incredible arrogance--don't tell me what you think I should want.
That was a good article.
frugal-one
10-23-22, 9:14pm
JaneV2.0.... also scary is christian nationalism... We definitely need separation of church and state.
JaneV2.0.... also scary is christian nationalism... We definitely need separation of church and state.
I think there's huge overlap there. And you're right--it's incredibly scary.
Sorry Jane, I’m not accepting your anecdote as the broadbrush of the Republicans marching towards a long sterilization. It’s just not true.
They've marched right past blowing up women's right to abortion, and are talking about overturning Obergefell. I'm waiting for Griswold--and sterilization is just another form of contraception. Justice Thomas may have to recuse himself when they go for Loving.
iris lilies
10-23-22, 9:26pm
This stood out to me: "Currently, the reproductive norm is that women should want to give birth to children and have a duty to do so." This is an attitude I see more and more. I guess it goes hand in hand with white nationalism. What incredible arrogance--don't tell me what you think I should want.
That was a good article.
it’s a decent article to sum up the current state of affairs, apparently, but I looked very carefully and saw nothing about the Republican party pushing this agenda or making laws that control it. You have overstated the case and it doesn’t do anyone any good to lie about what’s really happening.
If it is a fact that the medical community and current treatment standards still counsel a cautious approach to this, it is disappointing to me that this attitude has not changed apparently over decades. But I don’t know I haven’t looked at it in depth.
iris lilies
10-23-22, 9:30pm
As IrisLily already pointed out. IrisLily feels the Constitution isn't popular with a lot of people (including her) when it does not conform to her beliefs. It is ok to amend the Constitution when she doesn't agree with it.
There is no middle ground on abortion IMO. It should be up to the people involved and nobody else's business. I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. Meaning I don't believe I could have aborted a child except in an extreme case but believe I have no right to push my beliefs on someone else. In this instance, there should be a separation of church and state. Clearly, this is mainly a religious dogma.
Any amendment to the constitution about abortion wouldn’t necessarily agree with me. I have no idea which way that would go, but I think it’s impossible to get the widespread support that is required to amend.
iris lilies
10-23-22, 9:42pm
My evidence is purely anecdotal: women having to get a husband to sign off on the procedure, many women told by their doctors they're too young, they'll change their mind, weren't yet married, had not had enough children, some flatly refused, some rebuffed by doctors' apparent religious beliefs, etc. I was lucky, many years ago, to find a doctor who considered me a rational adult, and performed my procedure at a relatively young age. What is "very young," and why should it be the doctor's call?
Would you like me to write a term paper on the "where?" I'll get started. :~)
"Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth."
Literally NO ONE believes a viable fetus should be aborted.
you say “ Literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted. “
That does not seem like a true statement. Perhaps it’s the word “should “that’s the problem here and that’s why I dont understand your statement.
If literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted, why do several states allow a viable fetus to be aborted, and that seems to be the desired legislative national standard for many Democrats?
I realize that the congressional bill put forth a few months ago pretty much codified Roe v. Wade which is abortion allowed up to 24-26 weeks, but that is too conservative for many Democrats.
I think if both parties would stop polarizing this issue Americans could come together with reasonable compromise in most states. There will always be outlier states. Even California isnt especially progressive in gestational age allowed for abortion. Like I said elsewhere, Lindsey Graham proposes 10 weeks. Democratic congressmen propose 24 weeks. The two sides aren’t all that far off.
Yes, some feel that way and many Democrats believe there should be no restrictions on abortion right up till birth.
Why do you keep spewing this sad sack dishonest interpretation of what democrats want? Multiple people have posted articles detailing what we actually want and you simply ignore them because they apparently don't fit your preferred fictional narrative.
Is it less valid than the 'gay man who will never get pregnant' perspective? What an odd thing to say.
If I'd posted a comment that "10 weeks is no big deal, get over it" I would expect someone to similarly chastise me. But I would never post such a comment because frankly it's not my ****ing business when or whether a woman decides to get an abortion. Because I believe everyone should have bodily autonomy. You know, freedom and all that.
Why do you keep spewing this sad sack dishonest interpretation of what democrats want? I could ask you the same question about your constant declarations of what republicans want. But in my case, every abortion right proposal put forth by the democrats would allow children like my grandson to be aborted up to the moment of birth. By the way, he'll be 26 in a few weeks and is happy and generally healthy, I hope future others like him have the opportunity to meet those milestones. In the real world there's more to the debate than a woman's autonomy, there's another person's life. I wish you and others would acknowledge that.
JaneV2.0
10-23-22, 10:15pm
"If literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted, why do several states allow a viable fetus to be aborted, and that seems to be the desired legislative national standard for many Democrats?"
Probably so that doctors won't be jailed for intervening in late-term pregnancy emergencies/complications? I really don't know, but the vast, vast majority of abortions (91%) take place within the first trimester.
iris lilies
10-23-22, 10:31pm
"If literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted, why do several states allow a viable fetus to be aborted, and that seems to be the desired legislative national standard for many Democrats?"
Probably so that doctors won't be jailed for intervening in late-term pregnancy emergencies/complications? I really don't know, but the vast, vast majority of abortions (91%) take place within the first trimester.
I’m really not asking about the vast vast majority of abortions. I’m asking about what YOU think should be legislated for gestational age of abortion.
I’ve asked the same question of JP. Neither one of you will answer.
I could guess but there’s no point in me guessing I would like to know what your answer is. I’ll go first: I would like to see no limit on abortion. However, because I don’t expect my conservative state to go along with that, I’d settle for abortion allowance in my state of 16 weeks. I’d be happy with 24 weeks.
What is your preference and what would you settle for?
iris lilies
10-23-22, 10:33pm
Why do you keep spewing this sad sack dishonest interpretation of what democrats want? Multiple people have posted articles detailing what we actually want and you simply ignore them because they apparently don't fit your preferred fictional narrative.
So do I understand your position correctly that you would not support a candidate who limits abortion in any way?
JaneV2.0
10-23-22, 10:42pm
I’m really not asking about the vast vast majority of abortions. I’m asking about what YOU think should be legislated for gestational age of abortion.
I’ve asked the same question of JP. Neither one of you will answer.
I could guess but there’s no point in me guessing I would like to know what your answer is. I’ll go first: I would like to see no limit on abortion. However, because I don’t expect my conservative state to go along with that, I’d settle for abortion allowance in my state of 16 weeks. I’d be happy with 24 weeks.
What is your preference and what would you settle for?
I would prefer to let doctors and patients decide; I'd settle for before viability. Didn't we visit this question before?
iris lilies
10-23-22, 10:53pm
I would prefer to let doctors and patients decide; I'd settle for before viability. Didn't we visit this question before?
I do not recall that you ever answered.
I would like to hear JP answer the same question.
Since the only people who have abortions in the third trimester are those that have something drastically wrong happening I’d prefer that we trust them to make the best decision for their lives. But that’s just me. Letting people have the freedom to do what is best for themselves.
frugal-one
10-24-22, 3:28am
I could ask you the same question about your constant declarations of what republicans want. But in my case, every abortion right proposal put forth by the democrats would allow children like my grandson to be aborted up to the moment of birth. By the way, he'll be 26 in a few weeks and is happy and generally healthy, I hope future others like him have the opportunity to meet those milestones. In the real world there's more to the debate than a woman's autonomy, there's another person's life. I wish you and others would acknowledge that.
Malarky. Show me states where abortion is allowed up to the moment of birth for a viable ... if so, how many are done a year? This is not a democratic agenda ... that you keep spewing.
People like your grandson... Is he a productive member of society (take that to mean what you want)? Can he take care of and support himself? Is he getting financial help in any form other than from his parents? Not everyone wants or can handle the responsibility of a person such as this (mentally, physically or financially). I get that you love your grandson but not all situations are like yours. IMO...You have no right to force anyone to accept this type of lifetime responsibility. It should be a private decision without interference.
frugal-one
10-24-22, 3:31am
you say “ Literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted. “
That does not seem like a true statement. Perhaps it’s the word “should “that’s the problem here and that’s why I dont understand your statement.
If literally no one believes a viable fetus should be aborted, why do several states allow a viable fetus to be aborted, and that seems to be the desired legislative national standard for many Democrats?
I realize that the congressional bill put forth a few months ago pretty much codified Roe v. Wade which is abortion allowed up to 24-26 weeks, but that is too conservative for many Democrats.
I think if both parties would stop polarizing this issue Americans could come together with reasonable compromise in most states. There will always be outlier states. Even California isnt especially progressive in gestational age allowed for abortion. Like I said elsewhere, Lindsey Graham proposes 10 weeks. Democratic congressmen propose 24 weeks. The two sides aren’t all that far off.
Where are you getting this information?
Malarky. Show me states where abortion is allowed up to the moment of birth for a viable ... if so, how many are done a year? This is not a democratic agenda ... that you keep spewing.
It wasn't possible on a state level under Roe but started gaining steam after Roe was overturned, luckily there are majorities in each state repulsed enough by the idea to keep it from happening in the near term. Of course, that didn't stop the Democrats on the Federal level from attempting legislation to that effect in the House of Representatives as recently as a couple of months ago.
People like your grandson... Is he a productive member of society (take that to mean what you want)? Are you and I productive members of society? Are we a drain on resources due to our Social Security and Medicare benefits? What makes us different?
rosarugosa
10-24-22, 9:02am
I could ask you the same question about your constant declarations of what republicans want. But in my case, every abortion right proposal put forth by the democrats would allow children like my grandson to be aborted up to the moment of birth. By the way, he'll be 26 in a few weeks and is happy and generally healthy, I hope future others like him have the opportunity to meet those milestones. In the real world there's more to the debate than a woman's autonomy, there's another person's life. I wish you and others would acknowledge that.
Alan: I don't believe any of us would think for a moment that your daughter should have been forced to abort your grandson. It sounds like she made what turned out to be a wonderful choice for her and your family, and that is great, a story with a happy ending!
Some women, and I am one of them, have very strong feelings against ever bearing a child. If I had ever found myself pregnant, and a safe legal abortion wasn't an option, I am quite certain I would have opted for the unsafe, illegal abortion. So there still wouldn't have been a baby, and perhaps there also wouldn't have been a Rosa anymore.
Childbearing is a long, arduous, dangerous process, and I don't think anyone has the right to demand that a woman go through with it anymore than anyone has the right to demand someone donate a kidney to save the life of another.
frugal-one
10-24-22, 9:34am
It wasn't possible on a state level under Roe but started gaining steam after Roe was overturned, luckily there are majorities in each state repulsed enough by the idea to keep it from happening in the near term. Of course, that didn't stop the Democrats on the Federal level from attempting legislation to that effect in the House of Representatives as recently as a couple of months ago.
Are you and I productive members of society? Are we a drain on resources due to our Social Security and Medicare benefits? What makes us different?[/COLOR]
You better believe I am and have been a productive member of society. I have worked since age 14, paid and pay taxes, and contributed to medicare and social security for years. I do not consider medicare and social security a benefit but a return on my investment! Those that never paid or will be able to pay into the system but draw from it can consider it a benefit and a drain on resources!
catherine
10-24-22, 9:57am
Alan: I don't believe any of us would think for a moment that your daughter should have been forced to abort your grandson. It sounds like she made what turned out to be a wonderful choice for her and your family, and that is great, a story with a happy ending!
Some women, and I am one of them, have very strong feelings against ever bearing a child. If I had ever found myself pregnant, and a safe legal abortion wasn't an option, I am quite certain I would have opted for the unsafe, illegal abortion. So there still wouldn't have been a baby, and perhaps there also wouldn't have been a Rosa anymore.
Childbearing is a long, arduous, dangerous process, and I don't think anyone has the right to demand that a woman go through with it anymore than anyone has the right to demand someone donate a kidney to save the life of another.
Great answer, rosa.
iris lilies
10-24-22, 10:34am
Malarky. Show me states where abortion is allowed up to the moment of birth for a viable ... if so, how many are done a year? This is not a democratic agenda ... that you keep spewing.,.,
Several states now have 0 restrictions of gestational age of abortion. The list off the top of my head includes Colorado and Oregon. There are others.
verify that here:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/it-still-legal-me-get-abortion?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=CK.PPFA.PatientNavP4.MO.SEM.EN.Clinic .b.AL.NA.RSA3&gclid=CjwKCAjw79iaBhAJEiwAPYwoCGSCs7QLvAecQzaHzkzs nBRaSKteHVIScYWpSRUrOv-6nDLopWjrbRoCBMIQAvD_BwE
Alan is wrong. Prior to the Dobbs decision, Colorado legally allowed abortions with no gestational restriction. Roe Vs. wade allowed that.
His grandson could theoretically have been aborted at a gestational age of 8 months 10 days, well past viability. And frankly, with a genetically verified disease, I think it is likely that the late term abortion clinic in Colorado would have taken that case. Colorado was the Mecca for late term abortions. There was at least one other state that allowed the same thing.
People like your grandson... Is he a productive member of society (take that to mean what you want)? Can he take care of and support himself? Is he getting financial help in any form other than from his parents? Not everyone wants or can handle the responsibility of a person such as this (mentally, physically or financially). I get that you love your grandson but not all situations are like yours. IMO...You have no right to force anyone to accept this type of lifetime responsibility. It should be a private decision without interference.
I agree that it is each family’s choice to take on the responsibility and nurturing of a new life regardless of the nature and abilities of that new life.
iris lilies
10-24-22, 10:40am
Since the only people who have abortions in the third trimester are those that have something drastically wrong happening I’d prefer that we trust them to make the best decision for their lives. But that’s just me. Letting people have the freedom to do what is best for themselves.
Since you aren’t answering my direct question, I have to assume you do not support the Democratic Party candidates in your own state who vote to restrict abortion in, for instance, the third trimester. There are plenty of them. I could find a list of some of them if you like, just to get you started in your non-support.
would you like me to do that?
iris lilies
10-24-22, 10:44am
Where are you getting this information?
https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state?utm_source=SEM&utm_medium=PP&utm_campaign=PatientNavigationP4
the map is here
https://reproductiverights.org/maps/abortion-laws-by-state/
When you use this data site it’s important to look for gestational age restrictions since that’s what we are talking about here.
Planned Parenthood lumps several issues as “restrictive “and that’s their call, it’s their data. But the major restriction in abortion that Americans think about and talk about is gestational age. You will note that in this map Colorado is shown as being somewhat restrictive. That is bullshit because it allows abortions up until the day of birth.
Alan is wrong. Prior to the Dobbs decision, Colorado legally allowed abortions with no gestational restriction. Roe Vs. wade allowed that.
I stand corrected, thanks for pointing that out.
frugal-one
10-24-22, 2:08pm
Several states now have 0 restrictions of gestational age of abortion. The list off the top of my head includes Colorado and Oregon. There are others.
verify that here:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/it-still-legal-me-get-abortion?utm_source=google&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=CK.PPFA.PatientNavP4.MO.SEM.EN.Clinic .b.AL.NA.RSA3&gclid=CjwKCAjw79iaBhAJEiwAPYwoCGSCs7QLvAecQzaHzkzs nBRaSKteHVIScYWpSRUrOv-6nDLopWjrbRoCBMIQAvD_BwE
Alan is wrong. Prior to the Dobbs decision, Colorado legally allowed abortions with no gestational restriction. Roe Vs. wade allowed that.
His grandson could theoretically have been aborted at a gestational age of 8 months 10 days, well past viability. And frankly, with a genetically verified disease, I think it is likely that the late term abortion clinic in Colorado would have taken that case. Colorado was the Mecca for late term abortions. There was at least one other state that allowed the same thing.
I agree that it is each family’s choice to take on the responsibility and nurturing of a new life regardless of the nature and abilities of that new life.
Thanks for the info IrisLilies…
iris lilies
10-24-22, 9:47pm
I see that Californians are voting very soon on an amendment to their state constitution about abortion.
The problem is, no one knows what will really happen as a result of the amendment passing. Apparently even the Democratic house leader Anthony Rendon doesn’t know what the amendment does. He was asked in session if the amendment specifically would allow abortion past fetal viability. He never answered.
I don’t see this as a demonstration of political savvy or leadership on the abortion issue.
I’m providing an NPR summary for those who prefer left-leaning sources.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/10/24/1129112123/abortion-is-on-the-california-ballot-but-does-that-mean-at-any-point-in-pregnanc
ApatheticNoMore
10-24-22, 11:24pm
I see that Californians are voting very soon on an amendment to their state constitution about abortion.
I'm not thrilled with it either. I don't know how I'll vote. I support the right to an abortion and I don't much care about fetal viability, but apparently that's 2 trimesters or 6 months in which I think does give the woman time enough to decide. That's what I care about, has the woman had enough time to consider what they would like to do. But I'm not thrilled with it being on the ballot because I don't see the amendment being remotely necessary IN CALIFORNIA. Noone is going to outlaw abortion in California (and if it was outlawed nationally? Well then an amendment in California is not going to make any difference). So I don't appreciate us being made to vote about nothing.
Teacher Terry
10-25-22, 2:02am
Abortion is always such a tough subject because ideally you weigh the rights of the mother versus the life of the baby. While you don’t want to prevent a baby from being aborted that for example doesn’t have a brain, will die painfully shortly after birth, etc. you also don’t want to do a late term abortion because of convenience. Personally I think most late term abortions are heartbreaking situations with a wanted child.
I think 6 months is enough time to make a decision unless there’s situations like I mentioned. Now with chemical abortions it’s much easier to get a early abortion when the fetus is a clump of cells. I think some type of compromise needs to be made and legal in every state. Being pro choice does not mean being pro abortion. On the other hand no one wants to see a mom die for a nonviable pregnancy.
Since apparently Iris doesn’t think I effectively answered her question I will repeat myself.
The whole ‘late term abortion’ thing is made up bullshit to whip up a panic about a non issue. Unlike republicans I understand the facts of the matter, which have been presented here multiple times by multiple different posters. The whole ‘what point would you be on with banning abortions past?’ Is a solution in search of a nonexistent problem. By and large the only women getting abortions in the third trimester are women who couldn’t get one earlier because of onerous regulations and women who were looking forward to the birth of their fetus but have just received devastating news about it.
I trust women far more than some stupid ****tard legislators to know what the best course of action is for their bodies. Unlike republicans I am willing to trust women with this freedom. And I’m certainly not willing to put a hard number on it and force a doctor to say ‘day 181. So sorry miss. You’re one day too late. You should have come yesterday.’
iris lilies
10-25-22, 10:30am
Since apparently Iris doesn’t think I effectively answered her question I will repeat myself.
The whole ‘late term abortion’ thing is made up bullshit to whip up a panic about a non issue. Unlike republicans I understand the facts of the matter, which have been presented here multiple times by multiple different posters. The whole ‘what point would you be on with banning abortions past?’ Is a solution in search of a nonexistent problem. By and large the only women getting abortions in the third trimester are women who couldn’t get one earlier because of onerous regulations and women who were looking forward to the birth of their fetus but have just received devastating news about it.
I trust women far more than some stupid ****tard legislators to know what the best course of action is for their bodies. Unlike republicans I am willing to trust women with this freedom. And I’m certainly not willing to put a hard number on it and force a doctor to say ‘day 181. So sorry miss. You’re one day too late. You should have come yesterday.’
No gestational limit in law for you then, at any time. Got it.
That is fine and is a defensible position, and that overall point of view works for some states. Currently it doesn’t work for your state. That is not the current atmosphere in your own state.
Your inability to compromise is a huge part of our country’s problem with crafting a National, one-size-fits-all approach to abortion law. I think it is wise to keep it in the hands of each state.
iris lilies
10-25-22, 1:03pm
I'm not thrilled with it either. I don't know how I'll vote. I support the right to an abortion and I don't much care about fetal viability, but apparently that's 2 trimesters or 6 months in which I think does give the woman time enough to decide. That's what I care about, has the woman had enough time to consider what they would like to do. But I'm not thrilled with it being on the ballot because I don't see the amendment being remotely necessary IN CALIFORNIA. Noone is going to outlaw abortion in California (and if it was outlawed nationally? Well then an amendment in California is not going to make any difference). So I don't appreciate us being made to vote about nothing.
APN, while you might think an abortion amendment is unnecessary in California, the reality is that it is not legal to perform an abortion on an 8 month old fetus in your state.
In Los Angeles county physicians who do that may not be concerned about prosecution. It is LaLa land after all. But physicians who do that, or who have the skills and ability to do that in more conservative parts of the state may not be as breezy about that as you are because all it takes is a local county prosecutor to go after a physician.
Since apparently Iris doesn’t think I effectively answered her question I will repeat myself.
The whole ‘late term abortion’ thing is made up bullshit to whip up a panic about a non issue. Unlike republicans I understand the facts of the matter, which have been presented here multiple times by multiple different posters. The whole ‘what point would you be on with banning abortions past?’ Is a solution in search of a nonexistent problem. By and large the only women getting abortions in the third trimester are women who couldn’t get one earlier because of onerous regulations and women who were looking forward to the birth of their fetus but have just received devastating news about it.
I trust women far more than some stupid ****tard legislators to know what the best course of action is for their bodies. Unlike republicans I am willing to trust women with this freedom. And I’m certainly not willing to put a hard number on it and force a doctor to say ‘day 181. So sorry miss. You’re one day too late. You should have come yesterday.’
Agree 100%.
iris lilies
10-25-22, 1:46pm
Agree 100%.
I was cheered to see nearby Kansas vote down their amendment to disallow abortion. For sure.
But in your state, abortion is not allowed after 21 weeks of gestation.
https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-kansas
That is even more limiting than the old Roe vs Wade ruling (and I have to wonder how that was allowed since Roe vs Wade specifically forbade states from outlawing abortion prior to 24 weeks. But whatever.)
So, sorry, but you are out of step with your state. As is jp with his state.
I’m planning to complete my ballot this evening. Since my state assembly district is an open seat and both candidates are democrats I will be considering their stance on this issue before deciding. Both are already public officials in other roles and both have been endorsed by planned parenthood and NARAL Pro Choice California. They’ve also both been endorsed by a wide assortment of environmental groups, labor groups, etc. And they are both outspokenly in favor of universal healthcare. That’s probably the biggest issue dividing California democrats at the state level currently and they are both on the right side of the issue in my opinion so I’m not sure how I will decide between them. Either will be fine based on their stated policies so I guess it will come down to which one I think will be more successful at getting their priorities into law.
I’m planning to complete my ballot this evening. Since my state assembly district is an open seat and both candidates are democrats I will be considering their stance on this issue before deciding. Both are already public officials in other roles and both have been endorsed by planned parenthood and NARAL Pro Choice California. They’ve also both been endorsed by a wide assortment of environmental groups, labor groups, etc. And they are both outspokenly in favor of universal healthcare. That’s probably the biggest issue dividing California democrats at the state level currently and they are both on the right side of the issue in my opinion so I’m not sure how I will decide between them. Either will be fine based on their stated policies so I guess it will come down to which one I think will be more successful at getting their priorities into law.
All things being equal, I take gender, age, ethnicity, affiliations, etc. into account when I vote. IOW, cis white males go to the back of the line unless they're outstanding.
iris lilies
10-25-22, 8:00pm
All things being equal, I take gender, age, ethnicity, affiliations, etc. into account when I vote. IOW, cis white males go to the back of the line unless they're outstanding.
Oh good lord. Well you get to vote for whoever you want, so go forth and vote. At the Aldermanic level I like having candidates with some experience because I can know exactly how they voted, how they work with my neighborhood in various issues close to home, how responsive they are. The state legislators are not ones I’m plugged in to as much.
But before I vote for my Democratic Party Legislative candidates here in Missouri I will double check to make sure of their positions on abortion is. It would be ridiculously embarrassing, and deeply ironic, if I pull the D lever for a Democrat who is pro life. It COULD happen here in rural Missouri. Three out of 10 politicians running do not agree with their party’s position about abortion.
iris lilies
10-25-22, 8:27pm
Carrying on the theme of this thread:
Here is the female candidate for St. Louis Aldermanic President, a Democrat who disappoints me. This image, an appropriate reminder of where she stands on crime, has been going around St. Louis in the past 24 hours. We had a school shooting. Police officers dressed in formal attire who were nearby for a colleague’s funeral all rushed into the school, and shot the gunman dead.
4896
The only reason I wanted to vote in St. Louis is to vote against her. She is lame brained, and the person who’s running against her has been a very good alderman for my neighborhood. He is a white cis man so I doubt he will survive politically in the next few years, thanks to identity politics voters. Really too bad because he attended nearly every neighborhood meeting while the other alderman who represented a part of our neighborhood, a female, attended only 2 of 12 meetings. Her track record was not good at this or in responding to phone calls.
I've filled out my ballot, but not yet mailed it.
My identity is gimpy geezer lady; I don't get to vote for many of those--Dianne Feinstein doesn't live here. :D
Reading more about my two choices for assemblyman one has stronger backing from statewide organizations and politicians and the second one has more backing from local/county officials and organizations. The second one has more actual governing experience at the "make the trains run on time" level, but the first one has more experience in the "bigger picture, pulling broadly diverse groups of people statewide together" level. This isn't surprising since the first one currently holds a position on the coastal commission, which makes decisions for the whole state, while the second is a longtime politician here in Marin county, having been a city councilor, then mayor and currently a county commissioner.
I'm leaning towards the first one because she seems to have a more developed plan on dealing with water both to our local benefit and also statewide. That's not surprising given her current job on the coastal commission. And in a drought prone state where water causes fantastic fights, a very important part of any candidate for state office's platform.
Accck. California. The only state where kidney dialysis is on the ballot every freaking time. We've already voted this down twice. How many more times are the dialysis centers going to keep pushing their crap at us.
One wonders why there is a kidney dialy$i$ facility on every corner now. Another huge, bloated cash cow for Pharma.
iris lilies
10-25-22, 9:57pm
Accck. California. The only state where kidney dialysis is on the ballot every freaking time. We've already voted this down twice. How many more times are the dialysis centers going to keep pushing their crap at us.
What about kidney dialysis are you being asked to vote on?
One wonders why there is a kidney dialy$i$ facility on every corner now. Another huge, bloated cash cow for Pharma.
I don't know the ins and outs of dialysis centers but the gist of the three ballot issues that the dialysis centers keep pushing is that they want a full MD on site anytime anyone is getting dialysis or something to that effect. The whole thing strikes me as an effort to make the process as expensive as possible so that they can make as much profit as possible. Just as the goal of requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of outpatient surgical centers, with doctors always on duty that have admitting privileges at hospitals nearby, seems to be a solution in search of a nonexistent problem this too seems to be a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. I've not read any stories about dialysis patients facing terrible outcomes because there wasn't a doctor on site while they were receiving treatment.
What about kidney dialysis are you being us to vote on?
Basically a requirement for senior level medical people to always be on site during dialysis treatments. It also has an assortment of other stuff in it to try and prevent dialysis centers from closing as a result of it. From what I've read dialysis patients and public health advocates are very mixed in their opinion about it (and the two nearly identical measures that failed two and four years ago). Some think the increased safety might be a good thing. Some think the increased cost will result in reduced access to dialysis. None has pointed to any situations where people have been dying at dialysis centers currently.
Teacher Terry
10-25-22, 10:17pm
The only thing I am concerned about when voting is the candidate’s stance on the issues I consider important. I don’t care about race, color, religion, etc.
ApatheticNoMore
10-26-22, 12:24am
Accck. California. The only state where kidney dialysis is on the ballot every freaking time. We've already voted this down twice. How many more times are the dialysis centers going to keep pushing their crap at us
right voting that garbage down again. Go away. It's some kind of labor dispute I gather but I don't want to resolve your labor dispute, strike or whatever, just stop holding the voters of CA hostage. I've think we need a measure on the ballot next time to ban all dialysis measures from the ballot. I'd vote for that!
People will make a big deal out of people getting too demoralized and lazy to vote, but dialysis for the 3rd time, yea no wonder people are completely demoralized by the garbage that keeps showing up on the ballot. Other than pot legalization I can't even think of a case where referendums have actually accomplished anything worthwhile. I think some of the bond funding measures were worthwhile, but I mean pure referendums that aren't about funding public works, I don't mean bond funding. It's a completely captured process that keeps throwing nonsense at us. Although in theory it's supposed to allow people to accomplish what legislatures can't, in actuality it doesn't represent anything grassroots, it's all about who has money to fund this stuff. We need a 3 strikes your out measure for dialysis measures.
iris lilies
10-26-22, 9:37am
Agreed. I nearly always vote No on amendments because they annoy me.
The abortion one would be one I would vote in favor of though, because even if it is ill defined as to details, it at least seems to establish abortion as a constitutional right.
But then (and what I never understand about these state amendments) if the populace can vote FOR something, can’t they as easily vote AGAINST that same issue, removing it from the state constitution?
We have five amendments on our fall ballot in my state and I will be voting NO on every one of them.
iris lilies
10-26-22, 10:24am
I am disappointed in Democrat John Fetterman continuing to run against Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania after his debilitating stroke. That medical incident is tragic because he is a young guy, but he needed to get out of the race in May to let a better candidate in. Fetterman cannot fully participate in effective communication.He is not a suitable person for U.S. Senate.
The Democrats’ lack of appropriate action is giving a weak candidate, Dr. Oz, traction in this race.
Agreed. I nearly always vote No on amendments because they annoy me.
Me too, plus the complicated and wordy descriptions usually require extra research to figure out what they actually are saying. I did vote to legalize magic mushrooms, supposedly to be used under medical supervision.
JaneV2.0
10-26-22, 11:21am
I'm a big fan of initiatives, as they've resulted in several positive changes in Washington, including marijuana legalization, a Death with Dignity bill, and codifying right to abortion until viability.
iris lilies
10-26-22, 11:26am
I'm a big fan of initiatives, as they've resulted in several positive changes in Washington, including marijuana legalization, a Death with Dignity bill, and codifying right to abortion until viability.
I heard a discussion about your state’s “death with dignity” law and it’s full of caveats and gotchas. I’m not sure it’s the salve you think it is.
According to this NPR program you have to be within six months of death’s door to do the deed. You have to be wholly cognizant of the action you take.That pretty much eliminates patients in the mid to end period of dementia and many other diseases I can think of.
The subject of the NPR show ended up going to Scandinavia where the six-month rule does not apply. They did however require that the subject be able to physically take the medicines himself. And that would eliminate several physical maladies right there.
These feel good actions often backfire when you examine the devil that’s in the details.
JaneV2.0
10-26-22, 11:35am
I heard a discussion about your state’s “death with dignity” law and it’s full of caveats and gotchas. I’m not sure it’s the salve you think it is.
According to this NPR program you have to be within six months of death’s door to do the deed. You have to be wholly cognizant of the action you take.That pretty much eliminates patients in the mid to end period of dementia and many other diseases I can think of.
The subject of the NPR show ended up going to Scandinavia where the six-month rule does not apply. They did however require that the subject be able to physically take the medicines himself. And that would eliminate several physical maladies right there.
These feel good actions often backfire when you examine the devil that’s in the details.
I think that's fairly standard among DwD laws; it was probably modeled on Oregon's. They can always be modified.
gimmethesimplelife
10-28-22, 10:44am
I'm really becoming concerned that Kari Lake will win in Arizona BUT......with her threats to cancel the Super Bowl, I'm thinking she'll be like impeached former Governor Ev Mecham who made many enemies his first day in office by rescinding MLK's holiday. I would not be surprised to see her impeached - why don't Arizonans EVER learn?
Now here's a kicker - I watched a recent rally of hers in which an audience member had some kind of 911 needed health issue and was very impressed as to how she handled it. Were it not for her radical too far right stances and quickness to bully, she might not be.bad for Arizona. She DOES have a spine - she just goes way way way too far. I'm in the Central Phoenix Jump In The Crowd. (As in jump in the lake, Lake). Rob
gimmethesimplelife
10-28-22, 10:48am
I am disappointed in Democrat John Fetterman continuing to run against Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania after his debilitating stroke. That medical incident is tragic because he is a young guy, but he needed to get out of the race in May to let a better candidate in. Fetterman cannot fully participate in effective communication.He is not a suitable person for U.S. Senate.
The Democrats’ lack of appropriate action is giving a weak candidate, Dr. Oz, traction in this race.I agree with you here. Much like Gabby Giffords stepped down due to the job's requirements being too much for her given the fallout from her being shot at a Tucson appearance, Fetterman should step down with class as Giffords did. Rob
I agree with you here. Much like Gabby Giffords stepped down due to the job's requirements being too much for her given the fallout from her being shot at a Tucson appearance, Fetterman should step down with class as Giffords did. Rob
I think John Fetterman is arguably much less impaired than Herschel Walker, who asserted in an autobiography that he had dissociative disorder and rage issues (not to mention possible traumatic brain injury). . There are other stroke survivors currently serving in Congress.
iris lilies
11-30-22, 6:20pm
More “gerrymandering” as frugal-one likes to point out. The Democrats in Nevada redrew lines which greatly aided there victory in House races. Tell me again how the Democrats don’t draw lines to favor themselves.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevadas-three-vulnerable-house-democrats-survive-re-election-challenges
“… last year’s redistricting process, which saw Democratic state legislators redraw district lines to pull thousands of Democratic voters from deep-blue District 1 into neighboring Districts 3 and 4, appears to have paid off for the incumbents.”
frugal-one
11-30-22, 8:21pm
[QUOTE=iris lilies;417722]More “gerrymandering” as frugal-one likes to point out. The Democrats in Nevada redrew lines which greatly aided there victory in House races. Tell me again how the Democrats don’t draw lines to favor themselves.
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nevadas-three-vulnerable-house-democrats-survive-re-election-challenges
“… last year’s redistricting process, which saw Democratic state legislators redraw district lines to pull thousands of Democratic voters from deep-blue District 1 into neighboring Districts 3 and 4, appears to have paid off for the incumbents.”.
[/QUOTE
Don’t remember saying they never did… only that republicans do it on a grand scale in comparison
Haha. You’ve never seen the Dems gerrymander in IL. In Chicago, the blacks and Hispanics were fighting over who would get more wards with their group as the majority when ward boundaries were redrawn.
I think the point is that both parties gerrymander. They're required to adjust districts every ten years if census data indicates increases or decreases in population so whichever party is in power within the state adjusts in ways that they hope will benefit them. The only odd thing I see is that we only hear about it here when Republicans do it, which leads me to believe it's not worthy of comment when Democrats benefit themselves. Do I have that right frugal-one?
Don’t remember saying they never did… only that republicans do it on a grand scale in comparison
If it weren't for the fact that more states democratically elect Republican legislatures than Democratic legislatures, I'm pretty sure the "grand scale" would tilt the other way. Too bad we'll probably never know.
frugal-one
11-30-22, 11:32pm
In the “why not to vote republican” thread I previously posted the stats on how egregious the republican gerrymandering is/was in comparison to democrats. Of course, I can’t find the post now but we already have had this discussion.
In the “why not to vote republican” thread I previously posted the stats on how egregious the republican gerrymandering is/was in comparison to democrats. Of course, I can’t find the post now but we already have had this discussion.
I remember that post, mainly because it didn't make sense. How can Republicans gerrymander 42 or 44 states when they only control something like 34? I'm guessing that's the stat you reference but no one has ever explained, not even the guy who made it.
I agree that frugal's post a few weeks ago about that seemed curious. But I'd be interested to see what the real numbers are. California, the state that represents more than 10% of the entire US population and also the most staunchly blue state in the country, has a nonpartisan redistricting commission.
I doubt there is any Democratic party gerrymandering that approaches the appalling level of Wisconsin. But if anyone can show me the numbers that say otherwise I'd be interested in seeing them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.