Dems Rebuild

[BigRedBuster]

I think they're lumped together because Planned Parenthood is the primary target of the anti-abortionists and they provide all of those services. Abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide, so they demonize all of it to keep the fires stoked when they're protesting. Not to mention the fact that most churches as recently as 100 years ago were virulently anti-contraception, and many are to this day.

I think that is part of it.

 

I also think for some reason people think conservatives should be totally against anyone teaching their kids about how little Johny plays with little Cindy.

 

Like kids aren't ever going to think about sex until a teacher in a school brings it up.

 

Sometimes I honestly ask myself why certain view points are considered "conservative". It makes no sense.

[Kiyoat Husker]

The guy may be the best person in the world. But, I'm not believing America is ready for a Muslim President any time soon.

 

Agree. Although it is unfortunate. The fact that we had a black president is actually astonishing given the amount of racism present in America. No way an actual muslim gets enough votes.

[TGHusker]

 

"The next Obama only "more' outwardly Muslim."

 

I'm pretty sure Obama is and always has been a christian. Maybe he is "inwardly" a muslim? Whatever that means...

 

I know you are just quoting the email, but sheesh, its time for this myth to die.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories

 

sorry for the tangent (again)

 

No tangent - I was just coping the eml and that was the quietest 'alarm bell' in the email - no need to stir up too much passion by coping the whole thing. I'm sure the eml was started by some study group and they used the best words to use to stir up opposition.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

I think they're lumped together because Planned Parenthood is the primary target of the anti-abortionists and they provide all of those services. Abortions are a tiny fraction of the services they provide, so they demonize all of it to keep the fires stoked when they're protesting. Not to mention the fact that most churches as recently as 100 years ago were virulently anti-contraception, and many are to this day.

I think that is part of it.

 

I also think for some reason people think conservatives should be totally against anyone teaching their kids about how little Johny plays with little Cindy.

 

Like kids aren't ever going to think about sex until a teacher in a school brings it up.

 

Sometimes I honestly ask myself why certain view points are considered "conservative". It makes no sense.

 

 

Agree. With the system we have now, where a two-party system is reinforced, I think you will always see some "strange bedfellows" under the umbrella of a party line. Like evangelical christians and supply-side economics.

[zoogs]

Yeah, I think a lot of that makes no sense at all. Growing up in this country, it's impossible to not be imbued with a big heaping of 'Judeo-Christian values', I guess, the kind often trumpeted by religious conservatives. Whether or not one is religious; I certainly am not. For me, compassion is chief among these and it is uncompromising. It's a core common thread that transcends faiths and other barriers and it's what has drawn me so regularly over to the 'liberal' side of the political debates of our time.

 

We should recognize the good that organizations on both side do. Crisis pregnancy centers across America have helped many women who didn't want to go the abortion route - they should be funded. If the Dems are pro-choice they should be open to funding these organizations as well as PP. Giving birth to the baby either to adapt out the baby to a caring family or to the raise the baby herself is a choice as well. If the Dems make room to see the value of crisis pregnancy centers, then I'll truly believe that they want a big tent and also believe in a full list of 'choice options'. I've supported and have talked to many ladies who have gone through a CPC - everyone that I've talked to was so glad for the existence of these centers and the opportunity for them to make a choice they could live with and have the physical, mental, emotional and often the spiritual support they needed at a time of crisis. This is both prolife and prochoice in my book.

I was going to look up what crisis pregnancy centers were and turned up this result from my bookmarks from last May: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11760670/crisis-pregnancy-center

 

By and large they are not medical facilities. And the blanket, one-sided push they give women, while being explicitly their mission, seems irresponsibly agenda-based.

 

I don't believe women in these situations should be counseled by those who already have an answer for them. They should instead be given all the best resources, support, etc. so that they can make their own decision. That's by definition not what a CPC does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center

[TGHusker]

 

We should recognize the good that organizations on both side do. Crisis pregnancy centers across America have helped many women who didn't want to go the abortion route - they should be funded. If the Dems are pro-choice they should be open to funding these organizations as well as PP. Giving birth to the baby either to adapt out the baby to a caring family or to the raise the baby herself is a choice as well. If the Dems make room to see the value of crisis pregnancy centers, then I'll truly believe that they want a big tent and also believe in a full list of 'choice options'. I've supported and have talked to many ladies who have gone through a CPC - everyone that I've talked to was so glad for the existence of these centers and the opportunity for them to make a choice they could live with and have the physical, mental, emotional and often the spiritual support they needed at a time of crisis. This is both prolife and prochoice in my book.

I was going to look up what crisis pregnancy centers were and turned up this result from my bookmarks from last May: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11760670/crisis-pregnancy-center

 

By and large they are not medical facilities. And the blanket, one-sided push they give women, while being explicitly their mission, seems irresponsibly agenda-based.

 

I don't believe women in these situations should be counseled by those who already have an answer for them. They should instead be given all the best resources, support, etc. so that they can make their own decision. That's by definition not what a CPC does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_pregnancy_center

 

No they aren't medical operations. never claimed that they are. Most of the clients have already made their choice before going into CPC.

[zoogs]

They're there to help women make one choice; the 'right' choice, always the same choice. Thus I think it's impossible to see them as genuine support centers. They have their beliefs and their mission is to spend energy to push those choices onto women who might be contemplating otherwise. So I can't see a reasonable case to be made that they are 'pro-choice' and should be supported in a bipartisan way.

 

Furthermore, they're already nonprofits, as a large class of organizations can be -- and funded/operated by religious groups. Isn't that enough? To me, it looks from the Wikipedia page that there's actually a shocking amount of public and federal money flowing to these organizations. I'd very much like to see them stand on their own legs entirely. Well, not entirely: NPO status is already a pretty sweet perk.

 

I've zero interest in seeing my tax dollars being spent on such efforts both because I disagree with the mission and especially because this seems like a real separation of church/state issue. De facto there's not nearly as much of that as I'd like, and I suppose in such a heavily Christian country it can't be helped...but it's still, to me, a worthy cause.

[TGHusker]

Yes, hard to justify it under the separation of church and state debate. The organizations that I've seen in Tulsa aren't the type that hang around abortion clinics with the signs. Actually, I believe one of them for sure does have medical facilities and on staff nurse etc,

Here is one example in Tulsa

http://mendpregnancy.org/services/

[RedDenver]

Yes, hard to justify it under the separation of church and state debate. The organizations that I've seen in Tulsa aren't the type that hang around abortion clinics with the signs. Actually, I believe one of them for sure does have medical facilities and on staff nurse etc,

Here is one example in Tulsa

http://mendpregnancy.org/services/

Maybe instead of the crisis pregnancy centers, we could accomplish the same thing by better funding adoption agency and orphanages that could work in cooperation with Planned Parenthood and other medical groups. I'm in favor of your concept but am leery of the partisanship on the issue.

[Danny Bateman]

 

"The next Obama only "more' outwardly Muslim."

 

I'm pretty sure Obama is and always has been a christian. Maybe he is "inwardly" a muslim? Whatever that means...

 

I know you are just quoting the email, but sheesh, its time for this myth to die.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_religion_conspiracy_theories

 

sorry for the tangent (again)

 

That line made me chuckle as well.

 

It's honestly difficult for me to comprehend that is some people's reality.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Yes, hard to justify it under the separation of church and state debate. The organizations that I've seen in Tulsa aren't the type that hang around abortion clinics with the signs. Actually, I believe one of them for sure does have medical facilities and on staff nurse etc,

Here is one example in Tulsa

http://mendpregnancy.org/services/

Maybe instead of the crisis pregnancy centers, we could accomplish the same thing by better funding adoption agency and orphanages that could work in cooperation with Planned Parenthood and other medical groups. I'm in favor of your concept but am leery of the partisanship on the issue.

Your last sentence is the problem. Nobody trusts the other side.

 

Funny thing. The political parties benefit from that.

[zoogs]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/3/16084132/democrats-trade-schumer-china-trump

 

Democrats, not Donald Trump, are the real populists on trade in Washington.

That’s the major takeaway from the Democrats’ bold new trade platform that they unveiled on Wednesday morning, the second rollout of their “Better Deal” messaging agenda in the runup to midterm elections in 2018.

 

Ugh. I think.

[zoogs]

From an interview I posted in Trump's America about sex education policy; Dan Savage also has this spot on bit of advice that sums up how I feel about voting and coalitions:

 

There is a strain of the left that is really invested in show trials and purity testing and virtue signaling. And would rather lose surrounded by perfect allies than win with an army that includes imperfect allies. And it is self-defeating and it is exhausting and it is a real problem for the left.

(...)Voting is not a platform on which you perform or call attention to your purity. (...)

Don’t drive people out by attacking them for not being as pure and woke as you are. The less evil you have at the top, the better direction the country is going to go in. The lie the Greens peddle every four years, “If we can just election Ralph Nader or Jill Stein everything will be glorious and wonderful tomorrow.” That’s just not how things play out politically.

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/8/3/16078980/dan-savage-trump-pence-abstinence-sex-education

 

It is so self-defeating. The answer is so clear to me, and in a nation of diverse wants and needs you'll never have exactly your total set of views in power. However, the stark choice presented to us is 'which fights are possible to have in this proposed world'. Currently our eleventh hour political upsets are over not destroying healthcare, for crying out loud. We have a chance to keep going slowly in reasonable directions if we stop voting such that we're instead dominated by questions of "Should we completely blackslide?" and "Hey, maybe all this lying is OK and normal?"

[RedDenver]

 

From an interview I posted in Trump's America about sex education policy; Dan Savage also has this spot on bit of advice that sums up how I feel about voting and coalitions:

 

 

 

There is a strain of the left that is really invested in show trials and purity testing and virtue signaling. And would rather lose surrounded by perfect allies than win with an army that includes imperfect allies. And it is self-defeating and it is exhausting and it is a real problem for the left.

 

(...)Voting is not a platform on which you perform or call attention to your purity. (...)

 

Don’t drive people out by attacking them for not being as pure and woke as you are. The less evil you have at the top, the better direction the country is going to go in. The lie the Greens peddle every four years, “If we can just election Ralph Nader or Jill Stein everything will be glorious and wonderful tomorrow.” That’s just not how things play out politically.

 

https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/8/3/16078980/dan-savage-trump-pence-abstinence-sex-education

 

 

It is so self-defeating. The answer is so clear to me, and in a nation of diverse wants and needs you'll never have exactly your total set of views in power. However, the stark choice presented to us is 'which fights are possible to have in this proposed world'. Currently our eleventh hour political upsets are over not destroying healthcare, for crying out loud. We have a chance to keep going slowly in reasonable directions if we stop voting such that we're instead dominated by questions of "Should we completely blackslide?" and "Hey, maybe all this lying is OK and normal?"

 

It's ridiculous that Savage says it's not ok to attack people for not being as "woke" but then goes on to attack the "lie the Greens peddle". Pot meet kettle.

[zoogs]

Why?

 

A vote for the Green Party presidential candidate is a vote trashed. Such voters often cite 'purity' as their justification for throwing their vote away. He's not targeting the Green platform in any way, though he may well disagree with it. But these two comments seem consistent to me for his argument for voting pragmatically rather than idealistically.