Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fair enough.

I don't buy the whole PP clinics were mainly placed in minority districts to practice eugenics. It's simply just that the black population tends to live in major cities (where the PP clinics are likely operating from).

Marguarette Sanger... ho boy... she was a piece a work back in the day. But, she ain't running that show anymore.


Anyhoo... let's be honest. Carson isn't getting nominated on any ticket.

Throw a bit of clarity into Carson research in 1992

Dr. Carson’s involvement in this 1992 study was supplying tumors that he removed from patients,” Watts wrote.

“The microscope slides of those tumors were compared with pre-existing microscope slide of fetal tissues by pathologists,” he continued. “Those slides have existed for decades and are often compared to diseased tissue for clues in pathology. Dr Carson had nothing to do with the acquisition of these potentially decades old fetal tissue slides.”

His statement

“There is absolutely no contradiction between the research I worked on in 1992 and my pro-life views. The issue of fetal tissue has everything to do with how the tissue is acquired. My primary responsibility in that research was operating on people to obtain diseased tissue for comparison to banked tissue samples. Killing babies and harvesting tissue for sale is very different than taking a dead specimen and keeping a record of it, which is exactly the source of the tissue used in our research.

Edit

Forgot link

http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/ben-carson-used-fetal-tissue

And despite numerous investigations trying to prove otherwise, PP is not killing babies in order to harvest cells to sell. So that's lie #1.

PP is doing exactly the kind of thing that provided the samples used in his research, so him trying to deny that is lie #2.

Posting over and over again that he is trying to claim that PP broke the law and is running an illegal fetal tissue harvesting business doesn't change that, neither are his attempts to somehow make his use of fetal tissue seem different than "using aborted fetal tissue".

 whembly wrote:

Kasich/Christie ain't that moderate. They're savvy politicians that can get gak done in a purple/blue state.

The ability to navigate politics in a purple state is one possible criterion for determining who is a moderate.

 whembly wrote:

Please don't tell me that you buy that any one of Sanders, O'Malley, HRC, potential democratic bench are bastions of "moderates".

On a 2 dimensional spectrum which considers the last 40 years of American politics Clinton sits center left. Considering the same spectrum Sanders sits way left, and O'Malley falls somewhere in the middle of the two; probably right around the same spot as 90's Hillary Clinton.

Now, if we consider only the last 10 years of American politics the picture changes. The massive swing to the right undertaken by the GOP, and conservatives in general, has pulled the entire spectrum to the right. This makes guys like Kasich and Christie seem like moderates if for no other reason than the fact that many of their colleagues have locked themselves into intransigence by building their political success on the backs of equally intransigent voters. Obviously this also makes anyone left of the 40 year center seem like a raving socialist.

But the thing is what we've seen in the last decade is unlikely to be a long term trend. Rather it is largely the result of a confused Republican Party doubling down on "Reagan!" rhetoric, and conservative social issues because it doesn't know how to move away from them without compromising it's strength in Congress. This is especially true for individual GOP politicians who know very well there's someone waiting right behind them with a RINO horn.

Which bugs the crap out of me because for the Republicans to ever even attempt to get my vote they would need to at least attempt to represent people outside of reactionary Christians. I understand why they pander so hard to them. They can mobilize voters with their mega churches by making it seem like the non-republican is somehow the antichrist (or Muslim ). I still refuse to believe that they represent anything but a small percentage of voters.

I really do no enjoy voting towards Democrats because the Republicans can't figure out how to be conservative. If they would just leave out their religious convictions as a compass to what they do in a representative democracy where they are representing people of every background I would be happy.

Republicans have almost no appeal to a moderate.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

I really do no enjoy voting towards Democrats because the Republicans can't figure out how to be conservative. If they would just leave out their religious convictions as a compass to what they do in a representative democracy where they are representing people of every background I would be happy.

Republicans have almost no appeal to a moderate.

So, if they figure out how to be conservative you would vote for them. But instead vote for the party which is the complete opposite of conservative.

Why do I suspect you really wouldn't vote for a real conservative?

 CptJake wrote:
So, if they figure out how to be conservative you would vote for them. But instead vote for the party which is the complete opposite of conservative.

You are conflating conservative with ultra-orthadox Christian which is a problem the party is dealing with at the moment as well.

 CptJake wrote:
Why do I suspect you really wouldn't vote for a real conservative?

Why do I suspect you wouldn't know what a "real conservative" is?

 Ahtman wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
So, if they figure out how to be conservative you would vote for them. But instead vote for the party which is the complete opposite of conservative.

You are conflating conservative with ultra-orthadox Christian which is a problem the party is dealing with at the moment as well.

No, I am not.

 Ahtman wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Why do I suspect you really wouldn't vote for a real conservative?

Why do I suspect you wouldn't know what a "real conservative" is?

You would be very wrong. A history of my posts would tend to show I am pretty damned conservative, and not in the social/religious way you want to attribute to me.

But bluntly, someone willing to vote for Sanders or Clinton will not be voting for a conservative. You don't go full tilt left to protest a lack of a conservative candidate.

What is a "real conservative"? I suspect that definition changes from demographic to demographic. I would argue that the problem that the Republican party faces these days, is that they just don't understand that it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Instead, they double down on being conservative on both, arguably to their own detriment, since they have to pander to a base that demands social conservatism because their religion says so. In spite of that whole separation of Church and State concept.

 CptJake wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:

I really do no enjoy voting towards Democrats because the Republicans can't figure out how to be conservative. If they would just leave out their religious convictions as a compass to what they do in a representative democracy where they are representing people of every background I would be happy.

Republicans have almost no appeal to a moderate.

So, if they figure out how to be conservative you would vote for them. But instead vote for the party which is the complete opposite of conservative.

Why do I suspect you really wouldn't vote for a real conservative?

Well no Republican candidate is conservative but all of them are reactionary. That shifts the spectrum way right. Which is why conservativism is mostly called liberal in the US. Which isn't to say Democracts are conservative or liberal. They are mostly the same.

Either party you vote for you get the same thing different color.

I'd vote for Rand Paul but he can't stop pandering to reactionaries. I'd vote for his dad but that went nowhere either.

And I have the feeling you wouldn't vote for a "real conservative" either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
What is a "real conservative"? I suspect that definition changes from demographic to demographic. I would argue that the problem that the Republican party faces these days, is that they just don't understand that it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Instead, they double down on being conservative on both, arguably to their own detriment, since they have to pander to a base that demands social conservatism because their religion says so. In spite of that whole separation of Church and State concept.

Social conservatism isn't conservative its reactionary once we start throwing personal religious faith in as being better than others in a democracy.

 CptJake wrote:
You would be very wrong.

And yet your words say otherwise.

 CptJake wrote:
A history of my posts would tend to show I am pretty damned conservative

Which of course has feth all with deciding who is a True Scotsman and who isn't.

 CptJake wrote:
and not in the social/religious way you want to attribute to me.

The only thing attributed to you was a complete lack of ability to tell others what a "real conservative" is.

 CptJake wrote:
But bluntly, someone willing to vote for Sanders or Clinton will not be voting for a conservative.

You figured out that people that vote Democratic don't tend to vote Republican, and vice-versa? Well you deserve a cookie. Of course your failing is the assumption of what conservative is and that somehow the Republican party is that thing.

If we go by the fairly "standard" Political Science meaning of the term Conservative...

A conservative is a person who does not change without cause. Often times that "cause" is found in the history of that people, country, nationality, ethnicity, etc.

As such, you can have 2 conservatives sitting at a table, disagreeing over the subject of SSM. One is for it, because America has traditionally been about "family values" and believes that the nuclear unit is still attainable whether the children are natural to that family. The other one is against it because he/she feels that our country, though not officially Christian, has strong Christian ties and that the religious traditions of the country would say that SSM isn't right and that there can be no "traditional family" in a SSM situation.

Each one is a Conservative by definition, even though each will say the other isn't.

 Ahtman wrote:

You figured out that people that vote Democratic don't tend to vote Republican, and vice-versa? Well you deserve a cookie. Of course your failing is the assumption of what conservative is and that somehow the Republican party is that thing.

Yeah, and I typed that as a reply to a guy who implied otherwise. Because it is clear he wouldn't.

And you'll have a hard time pinning me to a claim the Rs at this point represent conservatism. A very hard time.

Maybe my definition is wrong, but I consider conservatives to be for less big gov't, attempting to keep the Federal gov't in particular doing the things the constitution gives them authority to do and staying out of as much else as possible, keeping gov't out of folks daily lives to the largest degree possible. I'll think that especially at the federal level the congress critters and Pres need to work within a system that has become bloated and massively inefficient and churn out laws/regulations without much of a grasp of the existing laws and regulations. They've instituted a tax code that even professional CPAs have trouble with at this point.

You'll find I have been against militarization of the police, against forcing folks on gov't assistance to take piss tests, against wasteful efforts overseas that expend $$$ and lives but are not tied to any real national objectives (and a disgusting inability to apply all the elements of national power and instead overly rely on the military). I think the 'war on drugs' is a great example of Good Intent filtered through a bloated and inefficient system doing way more damage at a much higher cost than any benefits we get from it merit.

Show me a R candidate with similar positions. And if you could, show me one that has the will to actually fight for those positions.

Congrats, you are a liberal to Foxnews Republican "values", despite being an ideological conservative in the American democracy.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

You figured out that people that vote Democratic don't tend to vote Republican, and vice-versa? Well you deserve a cookie. Of course your failing is the assumption of what conservative is and that somehow the Republican party is that thing.

Yeah, and I typed that as a reply to a guy who implied otherwise. Because it is clear he wouldn't.

And you'll have a hard time pinning me to a claim the Rs at this point represent conservatism. A very hard time.

Maybe my definition is wrong, but I consider conservatives to be for less big gov't, attempting to keep the Federal gov't in particular doing the things the constitution gives them authority to do and staying out of as much else as possible, keeping gov't out of folks daily lives to the largest degree possible. I'll think that especially at the federal level the congress critters and Pres need to work within a system that has become bloated and massively inefficient and churn out laws/regulations without much of a grasp of the existing laws and regulations. They've instituted a tax code that even professional CPAs have trouble with at this point.

You'll find I have been against militarization of the police, against forcing folks on gov't assistance to take piss tests, against wasteful efforts overseas that expend $$$ and lives but are not tied to any real national objectives (and a disgusting inability to apply all the elements of national power and instead overly rely on the military). I think the 'war on drugs' is a great example of Good Intent filtered through a bloated and inefficient system doing way more damage at a much higher cost than any benefits we get from it merit.

Show me a R candidate with similar positions. And if you could, show me one that has the will to actually fight for those positions.

Rand Paul might be your man. He doesn't hit every one of your checkboxes, but he does hit alot of them, and I don't think anyone would argue that he's not willing to fight for his positions.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

You figured out that people that vote Democratic don't tend to vote Republican, and vice-versa? Well you deserve a cookie. Of course your failing is the assumption of what conservative is and that somehow the Republican party is that thing.

Yeah, and I typed that as a reply to a guy who implied otherwise. Because it is clear he wouldn't.

And you'll have a hard time pinning me to a claim the Rs at this point represent conservatism. A very hard time.

Maybe my definition is wrong, but I consider conservatives to be for less big gov't, attempting to keep the Federal gov't in particular doing the things the constitution gives them authority to do and staying out of as much else as possible, keeping gov't out of folks daily lives to the largest degree possible. I'll think that especially at the federal level the congress critters and Pres need to work within a system that has become bloated and massively inefficient and churn out laws/regulations without much of a grasp of the existing laws and regulations. They've instituted a tax code that even professional CPAs have trouble with at this point.

You'll find I have been against militarization of the police, against forcing folks on gov't assistance to take piss tests, against wasteful efforts overseas that expend $$$ and lives but are not tied to any real national objectives (and a disgusting inability to apply all the elements of national power and instead overly rely on the military). I think the 'war on drugs' is a great example of Good Intent filtered through a bloated and inefficient system doing way more damage at a much higher cost than any benefits we get from it merit.

Show me a R candidate with similar positions. And if you could, show me one that has the will to actually fight for those positions.

Gotta agree with BrotherGecko, to the Republican Party, you're a stinkin' commie liberal scum (join the club, we've got jackets).
Besides, even if someone did check all of those boxes, without more members of the party to support it, they won't get very far.

But, like I said earlier, I think the definition of conservative changes from person to person.

Tanner... there's a sort of schism going on with the establishment GOP vs the regular GOP voters.

That's part of the reason why Trump/Carson (and not Bush) leading the polls now.... they're not playing ball right now with the GOP bigwigs.

 whembly wrote:
That's part of the reason why Trump/Carson (and not Bush) leading the polls now.... they're not playing ball right now with the GOP bigwigs.

The two bigger reasons are that and they are absolutely terrible politicians with no chance of making it through the primary and the other is that their followers have the political efficacy of infants. I suppose the third reason would be that we aren't even actually close to any election at this time and so the sound and fury candidates will get more attention momentarily since there really isn't much else to pay attention to at the moment.

The other 80% that are not following Trump & Carson are divided between the more legitimate political candidates. It's easy to lead the polls when you just need 20% to be "the favorite".

 d-usa wrote:
The other 80% that are not following Trump & Carson are divided between the more legitimate political candidates. It's easy to lead the polls when you just need 20% to be "the favorite".

That's true... folks forget... fething Michelle Backmann was leading in the polls this early.

whew... we dodged one there!

The point is not that he is leading the polls early, it's that "leading the polls" is a useless metric considering that he leads with less than 20%. Of all the people nobody wants to vote for, he has the least detractors. It's hard to take "leads in the polls" seriously when 4 out of 5 people are not choosing you.

 d-usa wrote:
The point is not that he is leading the polls early, it's that "leading the polls" is a useless metric considering that he leads with less than 20%. Of all the people nobody wants to vote for, he has the least detractors. It's hard to take "leads in the polls" seriously when 4 out of 5 people are not choosing you.

Yeah... I see that.

So when's Biden jumping in? How soon does he have to jump in?

I doubt Biden jumps in. If he does, it's nothing but uphill for him. For diverse reasons, hardly anyone wants a third Obama term, and I can't think of another Democratic politician who would represent a third Obama term more than Biden.

 jasper76 wrote:
I doubt Biden jumps in. If he does, it's nothing but uphill for him. For diverse reasons, hardly anyone wants a third Obama term, and I can't think of another Democratic politician who would represent a third Obama term more than Biden.

You mean, aside from Hillary?

This election is still more than a year away and I can't help but feel mightily depressed about it

 Vaktathi wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I doubt Biden jumps in. If he does, it's nothing but uphill for him. For diverse reasons, hardly anyone wants a third Obama term, and I can't think of another Democratic politician who would represent a third Obama term more than Biden.

You mean, aside from Hillary?

This election is still more than a year away and I can't help but feel mightily depressed about it

I noticed in the GOP debates some candidates are presenting Clinton as a third Obama term....if they're doing that with Clinton, what would they do with Biden? But then again, what would the Clintons do with Biden? Itd be easy for her to paint Biden as the Obama candidate, because it would have the added virtue of being true. And Biden would have to get through Clinton first.

They'd almost assuredly do it with Biden, I'm not sure how a Clinton/Biden showdown would go, I don't think it really would be in either's interest however. Biden is, I think, the backup "establishment" candidate in the off-chance Hillary implodes,

 CptJake wrote:
If the murder victim was an organ donor there would not be an issue as the victim, prior to being a victim, agreed to provide organs when dead. In fact, without that consent I don't think the organs can be used.

And if they're under 18, it is up to the parents to give consent. And if they died without saying one way or the other, then it is up to the next of kin to decide. So the framework is basically the same whether it's an aborted fetus, or a 16 year old killed in a drive by.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Wasn't my intention. Just trying to gauge the mood before starting a separate thread.

Just read some of the countless threads we've had on this. Shouldn't be too hard to find one, just search for locked threads on Off Topic. Most of them are 2nd amendment threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't know. I've had Australian beer, and it's even worse than American beer, so it's possible their BBQ is better.

But I doubt it.

Australian beer is pretty decent. It's a bit like what's claimed in the US, 'don't drink the mainstream stuff, our boutique beers are really good!'... except in Australia it's actually true.

Our BBQ is really crappy though. The US leaves us for dead there.

 whembly wrote:
Tanner... there's a sort of schism going on with the establishment GOP vs the regular GOP voters.

What we're seeing within the GOP right now isn't so much a schism as it is a reality check. GOP politicians are coming to grips with the waning efficacy of the strategies they've employed for the last four decades, and GOP voters are being forced to acknowledge that the ideology they've bought into won't produce the results they're after. The latter, of course, will happen much more slowly than the former as the natural response of any group that has a core component of its identity threatened is to double down on it; hence all the RINO nonsense.

 whembly wrote:
Fair enough.

I don't buy the whole PP clinics were mainly placed in minority districts to practice eugenics. It's simply just that the black population tends to live in major cities (where the PP clinics are likely operating from).

Not just major cities, but also in poorer areas where PP is more likely to operate. Because that's what PP is about - providing services to pregnant women who don’t have the resources to access those services normally.

And that’s what gets me really pissed off about these PP scandals every time they happen – the services provided include scans and early intervention that saves a lot of babies, far more than the number who request abortion services. The basic reality is that if people wanted to make sure as many babies lived as possible, they’d support funding for PP.

But, as I’ve said a whole lot of times before, the anti-abortion movement really just does not give a gak about savings babies.

Marguarette Sanger... ho boy... she was a piece a work back in the day. But, she ain't running that show anymore.

I think she was pretty representative of the politics of the time. We don't like to think about it now, but people believed a lot of really crazy, really nasty gak not very long ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Now, if we consider only the last 10 years of American politics the picture changes. The massive swing to the right undertaken by the GOP, and conservatives in general, has pulled the entire spectrum to the right. This makes guys like Kasich and Christie seem like moderates if for no other reason than the fact that many of their colleagues have locked themselves into intransigence by building their political success on the backs of equally intransigent voters. Obviously this also makes anyone left of the 40 year center seem like a raving socialist.

You make good points, and it’s a decent summary of what’s happened in US politics, but I think there’s another way to look at it as well. I think it’s problematic to look at a political spectrum just in terms of the population. I mean, the political spectrum is problematic in general, but doubly so when we define it in terms of a general political group. It leads to the odd situation just as you describe - in which someone goes from being centre left to an extremist despite standing still, just because everyone else moved to the right.

So the other way to look at the issue is to describe characteristics that make someone extreme. This list is hardly conclusive, but features such as being highly combative, basing policy on ideology over real world practicalities, being fixated on ideological purity, these are characteristics that I think define an extremist, no matter what their actual policies are.

 sebster wrote:


But, as I’ve said a whole lot of times before, the anti-abortion movement really just does not give a gak about savings babies.

O'yes, please tell me more about how you know exactly what millions and millions of people actually want.

If there was an option for all those services without abortions being funded and offered as well, I, and millions of others who oppose PP, would be all for it. But the abortions are the rotten apple that spoils the whole barrel.

Nothing justifies state sanctioned murder, even if it also happens to save other lives. Especially when all those good things could be done without offering abortions too. Its not like we have to have abortion to also have those services.

Doing some good things doesn't excuse doing some things that are monstrously horrible.