Discussion in 'The Red Room' started by shootER, Nov 30, 2019.
Anti-Abortion Bill Requires Doctors to Perform Procedure That They Say Does Not Exist
It would seem that Flint, Michigan is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fucked up drinking water. From the sound of it, the whole state of Ohio has something weird in their water.
One of the proponents of the bill is from our district, too. Ugh.
Tell them the medical community needs a multi-million dollar government grant to fund the research for this technology and watch how fast they run away.
State law. Jordan's a Congressman.
Sorry didn’t read the article, thought it was Congress. Jordan is the only Ohio politician I know.
Hmmm, bat shit and nuts. One of the main staples of the right wing.
Let's not forget this is the party whose senator brought a snowball into Congress to "prove" that climate change is a myth. That the - to borrow a phrase - "silent majority" of them just pat Inhofe et al. on the head and smile is indicative of the party mindset as a whole.
One of the things I sort of appreciate about the trump days is that it has forced certain independent and middle ground conservatives away from the nutbars. There is a reality that certain things run on a scale and debate is good to overcome problems. There is a debate between lots of government spending, and making sure we can pay the bills. The right was ever overly honest about that with the MIC and bloated military budget that ignored things like the soldiers benefits and vets over expensive government contracts. I think there is a good argument there, along with welfare and disability programs and limiting cash benefits while providing a true safety net and public advancement programs for all like education, medicine, food, shelter, and childcare. I think there is a good debate over what should be socialized and what should be private business, along with what regulations are proper, and what regulations are made to protect monopolies and prevent competition in the private sector.
There are good conservative and liberal points when we get down to what the government should be. I think the right needs to cut their dead weight and get back to the areas where their influence is necessary and welcome.
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Der Drumpfenfuhrer said he would "drain the swamp." He's inadvertently brought all of his cohort floating to the surface. Let's hope we can skim them off before any more damage is done.
It is what happens when you flood the swamp. He clearly just put a ton of corruption into it.
Obama's comments last week were about not alienating those people, which is what the current crop of Democratic candidates is doing. You can see how that advice was soundly dismissed out of hand by the Warren and Sanders camps. You can also see it in the headlines surrounding Bloomberg's entrance to the race. Bloomberg is a "Nanny State" Liberal by any definition but the reporting is how he's "running" to the center. That's because, in reaction to Trump, the Democrats have accelerated their run to the left and it's demonstrated when they say that a "Nanny State" billionaire, something which many in the Democratic party don't think should even exist, is towards the "center."
Apropos of nothing in your comment, I came to a conclusion many years ago. I may have voiced it here before. I don't recall. During my formative years, we were taught about a political spectrum that could be thought of as a straight line, something akin to a timeline. You had the middle and then various flavors of conservative on the right and liberal on the left. The extremes of these scales were dangerous, with the far right being fascism and the far left being communism. We were taught that going to far in any one direction was bad and that one of the benefits of our system was that the pendulum tended to swing in a reactionary fashion. If we started drifting to far to the right, the population would assert itself and we would start to swing back to the left, towards the center. Ideally, there would be equilibrium and only minor swings to the right and left.
Now, if we set all of that aside for a moment we know real life isn't like that. The political spectrum would probably be better off thought of as a circle because it becomes problematic to place certain groups on a straight line. For instance, what do you do with anarchists? Historically, there have been anarchists on both the extreme right and the extreme left. But, I digress. Lets use the straight line for a moment.
Starting in the 1960's, Barry Goldwater and others removed the safeguards on the political right that we had held to for a long time. They convinced us that there was nothing wrong with going to the right and continuing to go right indefinitely. That fascism could never happen in this country. Unfortunately, and perhaps it's merely a reaction to the right, but I think the Democrats have finally done the same on their side of the scale. There is no limit on how far the Democratic Party should go left according to many of its more vocal activists (again, see Obama's comments). Obama, who was a two-term President just three years ago, would likely not get the nomination today if you compared policy to policy on paper. Think about that for a moment.
How quickly you've forgotten former Ohio governor (and US Representative as well as MSNBC talkshow host) John Kasich.
Your point would be valid if it was not for the reality that the mean is not the median. What you are talking about is the mean, or average, point on the scale which is not the median, or actual middle of the scale. You are confusing the two to pretend the left has gone extreme which it has not. The left is just where it was. All that is actually changing is the mean which is moving back towards the median. That correction is not becoming more extreme, but rather less extreme.
Now that we have corrected your problem you can feel free to express this more along the lines of reality and not incorrectly assuming the mean is the median as they are not the same.
Thanks a bunch.
Will they do a svu episode about jim Jordan?
It is SVU, do you know they haven't? I am not current on their 12 billion episodes.
Richard Belzar is your father!
you remind me of a very young corky.
Julian Bashir is yours.
It is true, I think, that the current Democratic frontrunners are farther from the current middle of the road as represented by the current media than the gap as represented by mainstream media in the past. And that can be a problem in terms of alienating voters.
But I think your historical perspective is off. What the media portray as the current middle ground might not be the actual current middle ground; it is certainly not the middle ground of the times of Goldwater & Co. that you reference. The most extreme tax plans of the current Democratic frontrunners are still far, far below the taxation that the US had before Reagan. Getting the government into financing college education basically recreates the GI bills. Universal healthcare was a Nixon scheme when he ran. Abortion used to be no big deal to anyone except tiny fringe groups, and many of those were on the left at the time.
So to turn this around: Do you see any policy in the platforms currently discussed in the Democratic party that you consider to be to the extreme left, veering into Communism, by a historical standard of, say, anything post-Civil Rights Act?
WTF is with that headline?
It's not a procedure that "they say" doesn't exist ... it's a procedure that just plain factually doesn't exist.
Fun fact: Richard Belzer actually had a talk show in the 80's that most people forget.
It was in the style of David Letterman, and was devoted to mocking every breath Ronald Reagan took.
It was the Daily Show of its day.
The world wasn't ready.
It only lasted about a season.
It's possible. I concede that I could be wrong.
However, I see no proof for this claim. That said, I consider myself having moved towards the center in the last several years with a few key distinctions. I'm in favor of college financing reform and universal healthcare. However, I can not and will not support any party or candidate that supports abortion. Now, make no mistake. Do not take that statement and assume I'm running to the busom of the GOP. That's not the case at all and, in fact, I think the GOP has done irreparable harm to their party with their shameful behavior over the last three years.
I'm paraphrasing, of course, but when Ronald Reagan was asked why he left the Democratic Party, his response was along the lines of "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." I feel much the same way about the GOP.
Being on what I would call "extreme left" isn't necessarily Communism. I said Communism was the extreme end, not that everything left of center is Communist. There are degrees that are on the fringe but don't quite dive into full-fledged Communism. For instance, 27 of the 50 State Attorneys General are Democrats. Only one of those, Jim Hood of Mississippi, self-identifies as a pro-life Democrat. Two weeks ago, abortion became the new litmus test for the Democratic Attorneys General Association. The author mentions "...the changing mores of a national party that has moved sharply to the left in the Trump era and embraced a set of purity tests on divisive social issues."
I would not necessarily place communism on the left. I think that is a false placement based on american prejudice. I would place communism vs capitalism on a scale being more accurate as liberal and conservative values tend to be more left and right, and both liberal and conservatives can have communistic or capitalistic beliefs. I guess it all depends on how we are defining the scales and what are on the scales. That is something that ends up being different until we establish a firm grasp on what the scale is.
This is why things like median and mean become problematic when you do not have an agreed upon scale like you do in a more scientific discussion. That is why the first thing that needs to be set up is what are our definitions for the sake of discussion. Given the current climate we have not yet come to such a conclusion.
So do I. Which is why it's worth talking to you.
Well, here is some evidence at least:
Mainstream media reports on the Democrats moving to the far left name (by a quick Google search; tell me if you disagree with the list and I'll do it more thoroughly) as some of the core issues universal health care, climate protection, gun control, decriminalizing immigration, and college finance reform. A minimum of half, usually a majority of the US population have supported universal healthcare over the last decade (1), almost two thirds support the Green New Deal (2), a similar proportion supports stricter gun control (3), and "free college" (4). Only for immigration is there a majority against (5). On abortion, which you present as your litmus test, a firm majority supports the legality of abortion. (6) The Democratic policies in each case do not amount to an extreme platform as compared to general opinion.
So to me, it looks as if there is good evidence to show that what the media present as a huge difference between Democratic platforms and public opinion is in fact only a small difference by degree, often bordering on identity. As for the historical perception, i.e. how do current Democratic policies compare to the middle ground of the last half-century or so:
This would put you on par with the positions of the Republican Party circa-1960-1970.
Again, this only became a left/right-wing issue in the 1970s. So if that defines your political allegiance, then you are well removed from the middle ground pre-Goldwater, from which you say the Democrats have moved to the extreme left; and you are on the extreme right of that middle ground, while the Democrats are squarely in that middle.
The American left pushing further left than they have in the last couple of decades is the logical response to the Republicans going hard right.
Most democracies end up as defacto two party states, and the US is no exception. When that is the case, the Overton window is generally thought of as lying around the midpoint between the two parties policies. If one party goes in one direction it drags that "sensible center" with it.
If you don't react by pulling harder in the other direction you will inevitably lose ground.
But, doesn't that make for an argument of a viable multi-party, coalition style government?
Separate names with a comma.