|
theflyingorc posted:Because the person who posted it is a friend I care about who has enough respect for me that I can probably actually get him to back down on this specific conspiracy theory. I suspect this friend will be sending you a whole bunch more bullshit like this in the future. The fact that he took it seriously enough to post to you in the first place suggests he's nuts. Anything you can Google, he could. Good luck. It's a lost cause.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:So if Trump is smart I found the flaw in your argument. Regardless, doubling down on abortion will just give Clinton an excuse to dig up that "women should be punished clip" again. If he's smart (again, a flawed premise) he'll talk about the need for a conservative court without specifically mentioning his views on abortion any more than absolutely necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:So if Trump is smart, this is his way to the top of the polls. He just has to say "If you elect Hillary, these abortion cases are only going to get further and further from banning abortion." Except that the more he pushes the abortion issue, the more he motivates moderates/liberals to vote in swing states. In the US, if turnout is high, Democrats win. The only way for Trump to win is for something catastrophic to happen or cause voter turnout to wither and fall to historic lows. Reviving abortion as a national issue in a Presidential election will make him lose harder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, alienating women even more, THIS is truly the electoral strategy that will lead to a Trump victory. Men and women's support/non-support for abortion aren't radically different:  I think the current gap is probably more caused by the right's attack on birth control being tied into the whole mess
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Glad to wake up to the Supreme Court telling Texas to get hosed. Even better it's nice to see that it didn't take the gift that is Scalia's rotting carcass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:Way to undermine your entire post in two words. Fracking is so underregulated we still don't know what's actually in fracking fluid, and we've been doing it for over five years. There's enough anecdotal evidence to understand it's straight loving our ecology. It is damaging in its current form, but that's because of cost-cutting measures - for example, the wells should be sealed with cement but that isn't currently required. If regulations were in place to require well cementing and other things, fracking would not be any dirtier than conventional natural gas extraction. It's not regulated near enough, but the solution to that is obviously to regulate it. The lack of regulations is because of Bush-era congressional acts (and Cheney), not some inherent feature of fracking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Men and women's support/non-support for abortion aren't radically different: Does that chart drill down any further, though? I'd be curious if the difference gets bigger when you start getting into more specifics (in cases of rape, after 20 weeks, etc etc). Even just identifying as "pro-choice" doesn't give you a good picture because you have people like Kaine who wouldn't support most restrictions but considers himself "personally" pro-life so it depends a lot on how the question is worded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
defectivemonkey posted:Does that chart drill down any further, though? I'd be curious if the difference gets bigger when you start getting into more specifics (in cases of rape, after 20 weeks, etc etc). Even just identifying as "pro-choice" doesn't give you a good picture because you have people like Kaine who wouldn't support most restrictions but considers himself "personally" pro-life so it depends a lot on how the question is worded. There's tons of stuff on it all over the place, but most things I've seen show little massive difference based on gender for any particular part of the abortion debate Here's a breakdown from 2012 on a bunch of data points: http://spectator.org/30346_do-men-and-women-view-abortion-differently/ quote:Bottom line: Men and women hold very similar views on abortion and under which circumstances it should be available. Women are slightly more likely to hold an absolutist view — either that abortion should be “legal in all circumstances” or “illegal in all circumstances.” I was actually surprised that the chart I posted had any notable difference towards women at all because I hadn't done any investigation in a few years, and it's only very recently that I'd call the difference worth noting. Again, I think the origins of the difference are the weird over-the-top positions that some conservative politicians have taken in the last few years causing some women to basically reflexively say "I reject all of your ideas". theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Also, it's been a real bad year for social/movement conservatives so far huh. It's only gonna get worse
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It is damaging in its current form, but that's because of cost-cutting measures - for example, the wells should be sealed with cement but that isn't currently required. If regulations were in place to require well cementing and other things, fracking would not be any dirtier than conventional natural gas extraction. It's also worth noting that "conventional" natural gas extraction is currently really loving dirty because the regulations and their enforcement is very lax. Of course, the natural gas companies are just fine with people thinking it's only fracking that has the problem...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There's tons of stuff on it all over the place, but most things I've seen show little massive difference based on gender for any particular part of the abortion debate Yeah, I think this is where highlighting the "punishing women" soundbyte could push more women away from Trump than men. I wish the Spectator piece drilled down into more about reasons and how much people care about the issue relative to others. I'm also surprised about the gap because with TRAP laws came a much stronger (though completely bullshit) "this is to protect women's health" argument which seems like it would be a good way to get women on board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
A win for abortion? Countdown to Trump losing all women voters across the entire country
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
defectivemonkey posted:I'm also surprised about the gap because with TRAP laws came a much stronger (though completely bullshit) "this is to protect women's health" argument which seems like it would be a good way to get women on board.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Trump coming hard against abortion wouldn't be bad because it would turn women off to him by itself, it's because it would give HRC a second round of now-enhanced attack ads using the "all women who get an abortion will be THROWN IN loving SUPER JAIL TO ROT" Plus women are primed to loathe Trump like they weren't with Mittens so who knows
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Summary of the dem platform https://demconvention.com/news/democratic-platform-drafting-meeting-concludes/ Seems pretty good to me
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
i thought the $15/hr language was rejected?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:
Fascists aren't people
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:20
|
|
Jesus that
|
paranoid randroid posted:i thought the $15/hr language was rejected? The stronger version that would index it to inflation was rejected, but the press release says it should be indexed, so I don't know what that is about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i thought the $15/hr language was rejected? The language with it being tied to a inflation increase too. They said both were in the platform so it was redundant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i thought the $15/hr language was rejected? Looks like it made it back in. My WAG is that they rejected a draft of the 15 dollar min wage plank and people starting arzying. Let's be real, Hillary came out in favor of the fight for 15, it was going in the platform in form or another.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The stronger version that would index it to inflation was rejected. Ugh who does Hillary think she isn't, not letting Bernie write the entire platform!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Fascists aren't people Then let them be dealt with by the state, not some dumb mob.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Then let them be dealt with by the state, not some dumb mob. Do you wait for the state to cut the head off a poisonous snake in your yard? Or a rabid raccoon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
The platform is meaningless nonsense and I never understand the uproar about what is or isn't included.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Most of it seems like pretty reasonable moderate progressing / mainstream liberal positions. The two big changes that might get people riled up are that this is the first time the Democratic Party platform explcitly calls for abolishing the death penalty in all cases (which is more left-wing that Hillary who wants to keep the death penalty for terrorism charges) and the  APOLOGY to Native Americans and saying that the American government had racist policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Do you wait for the state to cut the head off a poisonous snake in your yard? Or a rabid raccoon? I don't kill any snakes as a general rule. And a rabid raccoon, yeah, I probably would as I'm pretty sure that's not going to fly as an excuse for discharging a firearm inside city limits. Let the professionals deal with it. WampaLord posted:The platform is meaningless nonsense and I never understand the uproar about what is or isn't included. Optics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Im a big fan of anti-TPP being left out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:the
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Optics? What's the point when the candidate doesn't have to abide by the platform in any meaningful way? In my mind, the platform is the Issues section of Hillary's website.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What's the point when the candidate doesn't have to abide by the platform in any meaningful way? Yes, that's what a platform is. The original issues page for the party. Still shows what the Democrats want even if some specific Democratic candidate doesn't perfectly agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What's the point when the candidate doesn't have to abide by the platform in any meaningful way? Because it also gives downticket people a thing to point to when they talk about what they stand for. Also it gives some media coverage when it comes out. Finally it outlines what the party generally wants to work towards and that's important because the President isn't king and individual legislators on committees can push and draft legislation. Hillary's priorities will matter a great deal, but they are not the end all be all of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:lol. Even the people spouting that line are aware that it is complete bullshit. It was developed specifically to fit within a legal framework that they hoped the judicial system would accept; not a single person actually believes it. But the people hearing it who don't know the specifics don't know it's bullshit and absolutely believe it. I'd love to see a poll asking people what they think Gosnell's sentence is. Saying no one believes it is like saying no one actually believes that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts and whacking apart preemies. After Fiorina's BS in the debate about the video she definitely for real saw I had a coworker who came up to me horrified about it and couldn't be talked down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Beat up all Nazis imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Everblight posted:"had"? Incremental change. Although, the weed section does say that drug laws have a disparate racial impact. It doesn't actually say racist like the Native American section does though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
MC Nietzche posted:Because it also gives downticket people a thing to point to when they talk about what they stand for. I would hope a downticket candidate would be able to articulate their own issues instead of pointing to the platform and going "Yea, I support all of that."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Have national minimum wage increases in america ever been proposed to be tied/indexed to inflation? Have any attempts to tie minimum wage increases to inflation ever gotten anywhere?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Do you wait for the state to cut the head off a poisonous snake in your yard? Or a rabid raccoon? You shouldn't be getting close enough to a rabid animal to cut it's head off. Go inside and call animal control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Have national minimum wage increases in america ever been proposed to be tied/indexed to inflation? Have any attempts to tie minimum wage increases to inflation ever gotten anywhere? California's recent minimum wage increase has it tied to inflation after hitting $15/hour in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
A $15 minimum wage is below a living wage and shame on Bernie Sanders for tying the Democrats to sub-living wages while claiming to do the opposite
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
ReidRansom posted:I don't kill any snakes as a general rule. I've definitely shot gophers in my backyard with a .22 and I'm in city limits. I guess it depends on where you are. Me and my dad sat outside drat near all day and got three of the sons of bitches
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2016 18:52
|
|
