US Presidential Contenders

[Buster's Uncle]

http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2653.msg81183#msg81183

Please discuss site policy there, not here, thank you.  Just felt like I ought to call attention.

[Rusty Edge]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-republicans-strongest-candidates-completely-203505529.html

One of the Republicans' strongest candidates is completely imploding

"Some of the things that he and other candidates are doing to try to associate themselves with positions being taken by [Sleezebag] or other more 'exciting' candidates are hurting them, though," said veteran Republican strategist Liz Mair, who briefly worked for Walker's campaign. "Why vote for the guy perceived as the copycat or watered-down version of something as opposed to the real deal?"

In a May Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll, Walker led the field with 17% of the Republican vote. The same poll taken in August found that his support has been cut in half, with only 8% of likely Republican caucus-goers saying that they still support the governor.

That puts him in a distant third to [Sleezebag] and Carson, who lead the field in the state with 23% and 18%, respectively. It's a far cry from the months of February through mid-July, when he led every public poll of Iowa except one. "

*********************************************************************

Iowa is a neighbor state to Wisconsin. It was his stronghold. The Walker people are spinning it as the influx of new people in support of non-traditional cadidates are diluting his support, not that his support has softened.

I'm not so sure. His support as governor has softened. I think that's because when he campaigned for re-election as governor, he re-assured us he was going to govern. But his January state of the state address sounded like a presidential campaign kick-off, complete with stuff about the Middle East. We haven't seen much of him since, except to sign the budget deal, and appear at the state fair last month.

I'll stand by what I said after the FOX debate. I think his no abortions, no exceptions, not even for the life of the mother, policy is too harsh, even by Republican standards. Likewise, he would have us at war again in Iraq right now, and building up to fight in Iran and the Ukraine. That might be a bit much, too.

[Green1]

There is a reason the Repubs want no abortions and as few social support structures as they can get away with without open unrest. The Republicans are a loose consortium of anarcho-capitalist fringe libertarians, business moguls in fields that have monotonous low paying jobs, fundy religious rural folks, real estate folks, banks, and stock market gamblers.

If abortions or support structures in general, particularly at young age, are available and affordable you can not be as easily screwed into accepting just any kind of job because you have a kid. If no social programs are out there, you will only be at the mercy of Big Charity and churches.

[vonbach]

There is a reason the Repubs want no abortions

Yes the reason is abortion is murder and should be treated as such.

[Green1]

There is a reason the Repubs want no abortions

Yes the reason is abortion is murder and should be treated as such.

Then why do we not have funerals for miscarriages?

[Buster's Uncle]

For that matter, every time a sexually-active woman with an IUD has her period?

-I thought the same thing.-

[Green1]

More seriously. It seems that in the conservative world if you are a fetus you are worth something. Does not matter rape. Does not matter medical need. Does not matter screwing your life. No person in their right mind would use this expensive, surgical procedure as a sole means of birth control. But, once you plop out and you are poor, screw you.

Plus, if you make 8/hr with no insurance you are not going to be able to afford birth control. The 20 something sorority girl will.

I remember some dude years ago that claimed he was going to adopt all the fetuses in Louisiana. Turns out that in addition to the facts that fetuses are not persons and if they were there is still that pesky consent he was behind on child support to his ex-wives.

Once again, a disconnect with reality.

[Buster's Uncle]

I once lived with a guy who was decidedly one of those Reagan Southern Baptists, which makes him sound a little worse than he was - he proved actually not a complete waste of time arguing with occasionally.  I asked him once, and he wasn't the first I've asked, "Why do Republicans want to save all the fetuses and kill all the convicts?"  He shot back instantly with the closest to a good answer to that one I've ever gotten - "Why do liberals want to save the guilty and kill the innocent?"

-Neither position is exactly christlike y'know.


Years later, in a renfair participant parking lot, I saw a car copiously bumper-stickered with both anti-death penalty AND anti-abortion stuff.  I agree wholeheartedly with neither, but I poked around and found the owner and shook his hand - it's a consistent position -which you almost never see on those issues- and people who've thought for themselves and come up with something not crazy/stupid are too rare, and to be encouraged.  Good for him.

[Green1]

I once lived with a guy who was decidedly one of those Reagan Southern Baptists, which makes him sound worse than he was - he proved actually worth arguing with occasionally.  I asked him once, and he wasn't the first I've asked, "Why do Republicans want to save all the fetuses and kill all the convicts?"  He shot back instantly with the closest to a good answer to that one I've ever gotten - "Why do liberals want to save the guilty and kill the innocent?"

Neither position is exactly christlike y'know.


Years later, in a renfair participant parking lot, I saw a car copiously bumper-stickered with both anti-death penalty AND anti-abortion stuff.  I agree wholeheartedly with neither, but I poked around and found the owner and shook his hand - it's a consistent position -which you almost never see on those issues- and people who've thought for themselves are to be encouraged.  Good for him.

A liberal who was adopted would have that opinion. It is not that uncommon and has some merit.

Unfortunately, there are some people you need to put down fo the good of society. BUT... not more people in jail than the whole population of some small countries just for one state!

And, what they do not tell you about adoption is there is no unwanted baby. There are waiting lists and extreme background checks for even special needs babies of unfashionable types. But, its a pain in the ass and to be honest, someone would have to have strong faith or convictions or a lot of cash to go through giving up a baby after carrying it. Selling babies I believe is illegal (with the exception of adoption agency fees. But none to birth mom), so it is easier if stuff messes up to abort. If not expensive as hell and maybe dangerous because of zealots parked 24/7 in front of the place.

As far as the liberal "save the convict, kill the innocent", that is not entirely accurate. It is more like "create helpless victims so we can pimp them out for lay out desk jobs but do nothing to solve the root of the problem so we can have security." But, even the conservatives do that. Salvation Army anyone? If it come to the director's payment on his McMansion and those dudes eating more than chicken broth and the employees paid, who wins? But, they seem to have the money to lobby.

[Buster's Uncle]

...I didn't say he was right, exactly, and it was a non-answer of the "but YOU guys" sort that righties love to make themselves obnoxious with, absolving themselves of all responsibility for their own shortcomings - but he did have a valid point, nonetheless...

[Yitzi]

For that matter, every time a sexually-active woman with an IUD has her period?

That's not a good example, since then it never reached the point where it can then go all the way to birth without any further conscious action.

[Buster's Uncle]

IUDs cause fertilized eggs to not attach to the uterine lining, or be rejected or something.  It's an induced semi-natural miscarriage/abortion that washes out with her period.

If you don't know for sure when God attaches a soul and it becomes a person, you sorta have to assume either conception or birth, yes?  QED.

[Yitzi]

IUDs cause fertilized eggs to not attach to the uterine lining, or be rejected or something.  It's an induced semi-natural miscarriage/abortion that washes out with her period.

If you don't know for sure when God attaches a soul and it becomes a person, you sorta have to assume either conception or birth, yes?  QED.

Or "conception that, if no further action is taken, can lead to birth".

[Buster's Uncle]

That's moral compromising, isn't it?  It's an induced abortion, and it's murder if you think a fertilized egg is a person.  Is it moving the goalpost for your own convenience to come up with a soul-attachment ANYwhere in the middle?

-I happen to actually take a stance very close to what I think you mean -the second the baby has a better than 50% chance of surviving a caesarian, it gets murder-y to abort- and am sorta just exploring the philosophical underpinnings.  Scripture talks about souls a lot, but doesn't actually define them or provide details...

[Yitzi]

That's moral compromising, isn't it?  It's an induced abortion, and it's murder if you think a fertilized egg is a person.  Is it moving the goalpost for your own convenience to come up with a soul-attachment ANYwhere in the middle?

The question of where the soul-attachment happens is a complicated one, and I don't think there's really a clear argument against any non-arbitrary position...and "after the last required conscious activity to create a person" is certainly not arbitrary.