posted by ptown_trojans_1Perhaps in the long term. But, people and state after state have rejected your view and understand that they prefer options.
There is a very big difference from papers and real life and choices.
You said my view when I posted a study from biologists was that a mistake or did you not understand the premise?
posted by CenterBHSFanI think Sting made a better heel. Bret Hart turned me away by spitting on somebody. Fuck that guy.
They're ALL better than Bill Goldberg. That stiff ass ended Bret's career.
posted by jmogYou said my view when I posted a study from biologists was that a mistake or did you not understand the premise?
So you would ban Morning after or Plan B pills or any contraceptives that prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting in the uterus.
posted by jmogWhat does biology say, is it a human? And when? That’s what is important.
Not to a statistically significant portion of the participants in your cited article.
posted by geeblockSo you would ban Morning after or Plan B pills or any contraceptives that prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting in the uterus.
Can't speak for everyone but I wouldn't ban those things. I've stated my biggest issue with it.
posted by bigorangebuck22
I say the same exact thing about conservatives. It's easy to pin on Trump but it started well before him. Limbaugh's rise in the early 90s? Gingrich?
Overall, the truth is that national politicians in general have become that way. To me, it doesn't come down to one factor.
Part is, as you alluded to, the rise of voices (in and out of office) who took things to an "our way or no way" level with their stances.
There also are all the politicians entrenched in heavy Red/Blue areas who essentially can look at themselves as royalty because they know they're in office as long as they desire. Get that mentality and you only have to answer to your base and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do?
And I'd say a huge factor is the somewhat recent deluge of both 24/7 news/blog outlets and social media. A lot of politicians can play up to their bases by trying out social media "zingers" directed at the other party that their bases will eat up. And with how anyone can find outlets that cater directly to their beliefs so they can dismiss anything they disagree with as "fake", you get more division, which allows politicians to only have to worry about playing to their base even more.
posted by Heretic
There also are all the politicians entrenched in heavy Red/Blue areas who essentially can look at themselves as royalty because they know they're in office as long as they desire. Get that mentality and you only have to answer to your base and if anyone doesn't like it, what are they gonna do?
A big part of the problem. I know I'm my district it's been very red since the whole Charlie Wilson (D congressman) voted for Obamacare after almost his whole constituency told him not to. It was a huge betrayal because he did it for his party, when he didn't even know what was in the bill. He got voted out the next year. But situations like that, putting party over people, have made my area so distrustful of Dems that they'll vote straight red tickets rather than risk betrayal again. That's probably the biggest reason people in the left/right vote straight tickets - once bitten, twice shy. I personally vote for whoever on the more local stuff, but not every body is willing to do that after they lost their job, lost their home and then get told they have to pay more in taxes.
I also think that if the Dems dropped their tax and spend ideas and decided to plan on spending reformation and other things that the Republicans wouldn't be able to win dog catcher in my district.
Gonna be interesting if RFK actually drops out and backs Trump tomorrow.
posted by iclfan2Gonna be interesting if RFK actually drops out and backs Trump tomorrow.
And funny because it's long been assumed that RFK hurts Dems more, to the point where the "Pro-Democracy Party" tried to keep RFK off ballots, too.
posted by gutAnd funny because it's long been assumed that RFK hurts Dems more, to the point where the "Pro-Democracy Party" tried to keep RFK off ballots, too.
I mean, is it a shock that the Ds just might have shot themselves in the foot?
"We're worried that Brain Worm Guy might pull just enough votes from us to help them, so keep him off the ballot!!! W-w-w-what? He just dropped out and endorsed the other guy as a big F-U to us!?! WWWWWHHHHHHYYYYYYY????????"
With the added bonus that, personally, I wasn't even sure he'd hurt the Ds more. I felt he had a decent chance to pull as many moderate Rs that don't want to deal with the Trump circus as he did to pull the moderate Ds that aren't all about the progressive movement and in the end, he'd take a couple percent from both sides.
posted by HereticWith the added bonus that, personally, I wasn't even sure he'd hurt the Ds more. I felt he had a decent chance to pull as many moderate Rs that don't want to deal with the Trump circus as he did to pull the moderate Ds that aren't all about the progressive movement and in the end, he'd take a couple percent from both sides.
True. Although I think he's polling 5-10% in some swing states, where this election will be decided by only 0.1% of the vote in those states. If Trump nets 50k of RFK's votes in those states that could be more than the difference.
RFK's comments about the Dems no longer being the party of his father are more interesting. You could say the same about the party of Reagan, which is only a sliver in the middle of neocons and MAGA.
Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028. MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.
posted by gutTrue. Although I think he's polling 5-10% in some swing states, where this election will be decided by only 0.1% of the vote in those states. If Trump nets 50k of RFK's votes in those states that could be more than the difference.
RFK's comments about the Dems no longer being the party of his father are more interesting. You could say the same about the party of Reagan, which is only a sliver in the middle of neocons and MAGA.
Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028. MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.
Which is why I really wanted the Dems to have a primary and select Gavin Newsome as their nominee. Because the only way for the Dem voters to learn a damn thing is to let them feel it. But instead there "was a process" and we are getting Kamala. Well, that's fine by me, too. One of the most sadistic politicians in the US, hard to find another one to compete with her level of sadism. And she's vowing to continue that work. Bloody fabulous!
posted by gut
Kamala winning might just be good for voters on both sides in 2028. MAGA fades away, and the rest of the country gets a taste of failed far left policies.
Which is why I really wanted the Dems to have a primary and select Gavin Newsome as their nominee. Because the only way for the Dem voters to learn a damn thing is to let them feel it. But instead there "was a process" and we are getting Kamala. Well, that's fine by me, too. One of the most sadistic politicians in the US, hard to find another one to compete with her level of sadism. And she's vowing to continue that work. Bloody fabulous!
I do wonder if Kennedy planned for his running mate to spill the beans about their crossroads. If so, he will endorse Trump to get a cabinet position. If not, he will just drop out and tell both parties to fuck off.
posted by CenterBHSFanI do wonder if Kennedy planned for his running mate to spill the beans about their crossroads. If so, he will endorse Trump to get a cabinet position.
That would cause such an epic meltdown on the left. I'm sure as we speak the NY AGs are coming up with a way to charge that quid-pro-quo as a felony. Man, Trump and Kennedy and if they can somehow bundle Joe Rogan and Elon Musk in the deal....
Of course, there probably should be some sort of law against that kind of horse trading. Except that kind of horse trading has been going on for ages.
posted by geeblockSo you would ban Morning after or Plan B pills or any contraceptives that prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting in the uterus.
I didn’t say what I would do at all. I said when science says it’s a human life the type of conversations about when you are allowed to kill said life need to be had. Whats the difference between killing…
A 75 year old
A 45 year old
A 25 year old
A 15 year old
A 5 year old
A 5 month old
A 5 day old
A 5 hour old
A fetus at 9 months ready to be born
A fetus at 7 months
A fetus at 3 months
A fetus at 1 month
A zygote at 3 days
All of those are different stages of human life and development. When can we electively kill any of them?
It’s a serious and hard question to answer. Any logical answer to why we can kill a fetus can be said most of the time about certain adults (age, senility, comas, life support, etc) or even new born babies themselves.
posted by queencitybuckeyeNot to a statistically significant portion of the participants in your cited article.
Did you read it? It was well over 70% of even the admittedly most pro choice crowd and 95% overall.
posted by jmogI didn’t say what I would do at all. I said when science says it’s a human life the type of conversations about when you are allowed to kill said life need to be had. Whats the difference between killing…
A 75 year old
A 45 year old
A 25 year old
A 15 year old
A 5 year old
A 5 month old
A 5 day old
A 5 hour old
A fetus at 9 months ready to be born
A fetus at 7 months
A fetus at 3 months
A fetus at 1 month
A zygote at 3 days
All of those are different stages of human life and development. When can we electively kill any of them?
It’s a serious and hard question to answer. Any logical answer to why we can kill a fetus can be said most of the time about certain adults (age, senility, comas, life support, etc) or even new born babies themselves.
I think the question is about consciousness, a soul, a heartbeat?
posted by geeblockI think the question is about consciousness, a soul, a heartbeat?
You lost me at soul
posted by geeblockSo geeblock favors abortion bans at 6 weeks. Truly a shocker.I think the question is about consciousness, a soul, a heartbeat?
Why do all big announcements have to happen on Friday's?
posted by geeblockI think the question is about consciousness, a soul, a heartbeat?
Historically, it's always been a question of when life begins. That's why so many people want to call the unborn a clump of cells. It makes sense to use that phrase because it emotionally distances the thinker.
posted by BR1986FBThey're ALL better than Bill Goldberg. That stiff ass ended Bret's career.
I respect you for saying Bill Goldberg, not just "Goldberg" (like Hart does)
"Lemme tell you something about Bill Goldberg"
posted by jmogI didn’t say what I would do at all. I said when science says it’s a human life the type of conversations about when you are allowed to kill said life need to be had. Whats the difference between killing…
A 75 year old
A 45 year old
A 25 year old
A 15 year old
A 5 year old
A 5 month old
A 5 day old
A 5 hour old
A fetus at 9 months ready to be born
A fetus at 7 months
A fetus at 3 months
A fetus at 1 month
A zygote at 3 days
Don’t forget:
jmog’s sock at 35 seconds
posted by CenterBHSFanI think Sting made a better heel. Bret Hart turned me away by spitting on somebody. Fuck that guy.
In the Screwjob debate.... I'm 100% on the side of HBK