I think there are as many extremists on the pro-choice side as the other. And they won’t accept a ban on PBA, or parental notification laws. And they have the power, in the Democratic party, to preserve the status quo. So, in order to get a reasonable compromise, voters are impelled towards the Republicans.
Radical pro-abortionists won’t be happy as long as there is any restriction on abortion anywhere in this country, for any reason, at any time, for anyone, under any circumstances. And they won’t stop pushing. And that includes things like PBA.
In theory, it can be, but they tend to be more concerned with ideological purity than winning elections. And half a loaf is better than none, in my view, and therefore I would rather reform the existing parties and thereby drag the yellow dog Democrats into sanity without their realizing it. Or the Republicans, if you like - I would like to see a balanced budget, and hope that if the Republicans adopt this as a core issue, the religious right will support it by default.
Yes, I do. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing anyone’s campaign, and I don’t care to contribute to political campaigns unless I agree with their positions.
How do you figure? I don’t see how getting someone else to pay is going to force a campaign of more than soundbites.
No, I don’t think we can make the federal government more responsive. And a good thing too - the federal government shouldn’t work too well - it has too much power already.
What I object to mostly is not necessarily “big government”, but “unlimited government”. The genius of the Founding Fathers was to enumerate the functions and powers of the feds - and make it clear that this was all they were to be allowed to do.
That idea has largely been abandoned, by both parties. I want a party that identifies most of my life as none of the government’s business. Which is one of my objections to universal health care - once the feds are paying my doctor’s bills, there is nothing about my life that they cannot regulate under the excuse that it will save them money - what I eat, what I drink, whether or not I have a cigar on Friday nights, if I use a condom - nothing is off limits. All that is needed is a study that such-and-such is associated with a better health outcome, and hey presto! I have to do it, or stop doing it.
Yes, I do. Government should not be in the business of subsidizing anyone’s campaign, and I don’t care to contribute to political campaigns unless I agree with their positions.
How do you figure? I don’t see how getting someone else to pay is going to force a campaign of more than soundbites.
No, I don’t think we can make the federal government more responsive. And a good thing too - the federal government shouldn’t work too well - it has too much power already.
What I object to mostly is not necessarily “big government”, but “unlimited government”. The genius of the Founding Fathers was to enumerate the functions and powers of the feds - and make it clear that this was all they were to be allowed to do.
That idea has largely been abandoned, by both parties. I want a party that identifies most of my life as none of the government’s business. Which is one of my objections to universal health care - once the feds are paying my doctor’s bills, there is nothing about my life that they cannot regulate under the excuse that it will save them money - what I eat, what I drink, whether or not I have a cigar on Friday nights, if I use a condom - nothing is off limits. All that is needed is a study that such-and-such is associated with a better health outcome, and hey presto! I have to do it, or stop doing it.
No thanks.
And a belated welcome to the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
i don’t see what the great problem is with public financing of campaigns. that would inherently get rid of some corruption right away. of course, it may be a tad idealistic, and would probably never get used in the real world, but in our make believe world, why not? besides, it wouldn’t be “making somebody else pay”, it’s “making campaigns equal”. if everyone has the same amount of money to use in a campaign, then they have to resort to…oh…i don’t know…having an actual stance on issues.
i think that taking the step to say that one “doesn’t agree with party x’s stands and shouldn’t contribute” isn’t such a far cry from “i don’t like party x and because party x is a minority, they should have a lesser role”, which is a very slippery slope. now, if we’re talking about not wanting to help fund other campaigns from a libertarian standpoint, i’m cool with that. on that vein, what are your feelings towards public schools? should someone who sends their kids to private schools pay for public schooling?
the feds do have a lot of power and, once again, i don’t know if i mind them having more, so long as checks and balances (that can’t be circumvented, if that’s freaking possible) see to it. i fail to see why a more responsive federal government is a bad thing. after all, aren’t some branches of the fed a little too archaic? isn’t it time to streamline it a little bit and have a minimal amounf of largely ceremonial titles?
i’m with you on the last part. a person should be free to do whatever the hell they want to do as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s rights to do the same. i think we’re missing a connection on universal health care, though. i don’t see the government paying for health care has anything at all to do with buying the proper amount of vegetables in a supermarket. that last part does sound like the slippery slope guy, that starts with a premise, and then sends it through so many hypothetical chutes and ladders that the original idea looks goofy by comparison. why in the hell would the government care about what you do as long as they’re paying for health care? sticking points are digarettes and exercise. the government should have places across the country to get clean of cigarettes if you feel it’s time for you to stop and places for you to better yourself physically then. it’s the old “taking the horse to a stream but not being able to make it take a drink” (god, i hate bad cliches). we should be surrounded with streams!
if that’s (cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, etc.) the case, then we should tax the shit out of them even further. same with alcohol, tax that further. i believe that’s exactly the spot where we digress, however. i think everything should be legalized and regulated. i don’t do any of those things, and never have, but it doesn’t mean i should stop others from doing it. the way i see it, the federal government should be more “parent” as opposed to “big brother”. enable the populace to do as they please within the rules, but punish fairly when leaving thouse boundaries. when a member of the population goes too far, there should be safety nets in place to solve such problems.
just on this level, this sounds a lot more like the “kind heart, strong head” party you described. now, if that is the case, what (outside of little things that we let separate us) is the difference between us/the two parties?
That’s part of the problem. Government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding which campaigns have a chance and which do not - that should be up to the electorate. If more people want to donate to the Dems or the Republicans instead of the Socialist Worker’s Party or the Libertarian party, and therefore the Libs and the SWP-ers don’t have a chance - tough. I don’t want to increase the voice that the Greens have in American elections, because I think they are idiots. So I don’t contribute to them, and I don’t subsidize them.
Again, I don’t see how making things more even would change the focus of campaigns. Why wouldn’t they just do more of the same?
And I think you slipped in something that I also object to - the idea that the government is going to limit the amount that campaigns can spend. Set aside the kind of shenanigans that are happening already to get around spending limits. Donating to campaigns is a part of free speech - a darn important part, a nearly central part. And the government is warmly invited to butt out of trying to limit it.
I am not sure I follow you. I don’t like most political parties, and I don’t want them to play a role. So I don’t vote for their candidates, and I don’t give them any money. I do support some parties, and I do give them money and vote for them. What’s the slippery slope you mean?
I am not much of a libertarian, but I am a big supporter of vouchers. Does that address the question?
I have no problem with public funding of education, but it ought to be entirely student-centered. If a public school has to shut down because it sucks, good. Let the students take their funding elsewhere.
I have no problem with taxpayer funding of many things considered a common good, like education, but the list is pretty darn limited.
That is pretty much all I have time to post at the moment. I will probably be back tonight.
but doesn’t the public give to the two main parties because they know they’d (essentially) be wasting their money by giving it to the small party especially if you know they won’t win?
there’s still free speech even if you limit finance contributions. would you agree that there are some certain things that one party tackles that another party does not adequately tackle for another? not to put words in your mouth, but i’m sure you do, that’s why you vote for one as opposed to the other. problems in politics are rarely a black or white issue; there’s tons of grey area. why can’t we level the playing field and have everyone in the deomcracy represented? undoubtedly, you’d say that you don’t want to throw into the pot for that, and that’s a valid argument. but couldn’t you argue that not buying into this scheme curtails free speech in an equally, if not, more important area? i don’t see limiting cappaigns by setting a limit on how much you can spend to be a bad thing, and as a decent compromise, how about we leave it at that? would you be okay with having a government that set a limit for how much you could spend for a campaign? yes, there’d be problems figuring out exactly what those numbers would be, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that these numbers have already been agreed upon.
the slippery slope wasn’t very important anyways. it was an example pushed to its extreme in which one party destroyed the other, which would never happen, and therefore is a stupid argument.
give me a list (long or short, whichever you feel the need) of things for the “common good”.
odd how this sprouted from “how would you change the deomcratic party?”
Shodan, I see your points, but respectfully disagree – maybe. I can see a need for moving even more toward the center to pull in some Republican votes. At the same time, many of us are sick to death of two parties that look too much alike.
We can agree that something has to be done about spending. I am no economist and can’t tackle that one beyond the usual pleas to cut the obvious waste that infuriates every reasonable citizen.
I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice. If the country messes too much with Roe v. Wade, it is not going to be just “radical feminists” who are disturbed at the change. The party would be in shambles.
The Boomers are still a large group and we are getting a little creaky. Democrats better be thinking about health issues or we will hit them with our canes. We want our medical marijuana too.
Support embryonic stem cell research. I think Democrats need to correct the misinformation that is out there.
Find some new blood. Find strong women and men who don’t mold themselves to be what is going to get the most votes. If you are a liberal, damn it, be a liberal. If you are a centrist, then well and good.
Keep an eye on Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. who is running for Senator Frist’s seat. If not now, then later.
Nix on the sound bite cliches. “Culture of Corruption” (is that the phrase?) is so yesterday. But do come out swinging and expose the hell out of what has been going on. Be prepared to face the music, though, when Democrats have not been on the up and up themselves. Boot them out as soon as possible. Condemn them loudly.
Pass STRICT lobbying guidelines. If the Senate and House don’t pass them, then caucus and pass them on yourselves.
Because, in my view, the process of deciding who represents the voters is entirely the decision of the voters. I don’t want a level playing field, in other words - I want a field where the voters decide with their votes and contributions who succeeds in the political arena and who does not.
What area is that?
I don’t believe that a political party has any right to public funding, if that is what you mean. If you can’t succeed without government subsidies, because people won’t contribute to your campaign, too bad for you. If people believed in what you said, they would vote for you.
No, I am against limits on campaign spending, for the reasons listed above.
The federal government should only do what is in the Constitution. Education (since that is what was mentioned) is and should remain almost entirely a function of state and local government. I would abolish the Department of Education, in other words. I have no objections to things like museums and so forth, but again, not by the feds. The interstate highway system, national defense - these can be seen as federal concerns.
But rather than give an exhaustive list, I will state my position as a belief that decisions should, by default, always be left to the lowest possible level of decision-making. If the Constitution doesn’t expressly say that something is a function of the Federal government, then it is a matter for the states, or the people (I am very big on the Tenth Amendment). And by preference, I would leave as much power in the hands of families and individuals as practical.
My core principles as a conservative as the same as they have been since roughly college -[ul][li]Individual rights []Personal responsibilty []Limited government [*]Free markets[/ul]Any party that implements those principles is fine with me. Neither has been so hot on the “limited government” part lately, and the Dems tend to want to set up new rights by expanding the power of the federal government. And their focus on collectivism sets my teeth on edge as well - affirmative action is an example. The idea that some group deserves special treatment because their great-grandparents were enslaved by somebody else’s great-grandparents doesn’t hold water for me. You are responsible for yourself, now, and if someone is doing you down, then something can be done. If someone did your remote ancestors down, tough - everyone has stories to tell how badly their forefathers got treated. [/li]
Well, I don’t know about that - ISTM that the idea that we can significantly reduce the deficit by eliminating “waste” is appealing because it means that deficit reduction can be pain-free. I don’t believe it can.
Entitlement spending is what is driving the increase in government spending. Cuts, to be significant, will have to come from there. (Not that Bush has done much about that - just the opposite, and this is the biggest failure of his administration).
I heard it expressed thus - take two pieces of paper. On the first, list all the government spending that can be cut. On the second piece, list all the spending that we really can’t afford to cut, that we really need and that really appeals to people.
Then throw the first piece of paper away. All the significant spending cuts, if they are going to have any real effect, will have to come from the second piece of paper.
I think the only politically practical approach would be a freeze on all government spending at its current level until the budget is balanced. That means no COLAs for Social Security, no increases on health care spending, no raises for any government employees, no adjustment for inflation - nothing. If any department wants to increase spending, it must come at the expense of something else.
But that won’t happen.
But ISTM that even a compromise that seems reasonable to me (and to, I believe, a majority of Americans) like a ban on PBA would be unacceptable to the rad-fem Dems. I believe that the radicals who control the abortion debate in the Democratic party will accept no change to the status quo. No matter what. Which doesn’t speak well for the ability of the Dems to compromise.
And so, in my view, the best outcome would be to appoint a majority of justices to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade, and leave the issue entirely to the states. The Constitution doesn’t address the subject of abortion, except with emanations and penumbrae and such-like, and therefore the federal government ought to be silent on the issue.
Which, of course, will throw the whole mess back to 50 state legislatures, and some of them will limit abortion somewhat, some will outlaw it altogether, and some will leave it strictly alone. And that represents a change to the status quo that the rad-fem Dems will never accept. Much easier to influence nine old farts in black robes than some hundreds of state legislators.
I doubt that Alito will be one of the Justices who will do it, although he might.
I think marijuana is an overblown issue. I have had too many arguments with the hemp-shirt wearers to believe that it is the cure-all it is purported to be. And I suspect it is merely a back-door way of legalizing the stuff for recreational use. Which would be fine with me, if it were done in a more straightforward manner, but it is really a side issue.
Although you are correct that health issues are going to loom larger in the future. But the decisions are going to be more than can be solved by throwing more money at the problem. See the recent Medicare bill that went into effect this year. What effect is that having on the deficit, and what are the Democrats doing about that?
well, having a level playing field, by definition, means that the voters decide who is or who isn’t worthy of being voted in. i suppose another way around this might be to discard primaries and just to have multiple democrats and mucltiple republicans, thereby having more choice, but then you could have some sort of “gentleman’s primary” by which one or more candidates leave, leaving one to get all the funding for that side of the aisle. then we’d be back to where we are now.
can votes be construed as non-denominational contributions? i mean, isn’t saying yes to something lending currency to that something?
it’s not that a fringe party would exist with government subsidies, if we were going by the model i’m proposing, all parties would be government subsidized. (again, we’re assuming it’s already been done, HOW to subsidize isn’t necessarily the point of contention).
so leaving something to the lowest level of decision making means exactly what? that a county’s rules or laws would have precedence over federal ones? i’m sure you’re not saying that, but what i think you’re saying is that you tend to be a bit more laissez faire than most republicans. tell me, do you think that human nature is inherently evil? are people good or bad?
the problem with having a law like an abortion law (pro or anti) for every state would mean that people would be bouncing from their anti abortion state to a pro abortion state if they wanted to get one, and that wouldn’t necessarily fix anything. to make it all encompassing, they want to make it federal, so it’s an all or none proposition.
what’s funny is how health cares are getting to be a bigger issue, but it’s not yet in the hearts and minds of the american people, just the ones that it’s affecting. by the time it becomes an issue, the problem might have been past critical. the problem will probably get dealth with after it’s already past the point of no return.
Right, the way it is now, without 100% funding of political campaigns.
I have many of the same objections to federal campaign funding as I do to jiggering the election process to give third parties a chance - I don’t see why parties who can’t succeed under the current system should be benefitted by having the system changed.
That’s an interesting thought. I didn’t think of only those who survive a primary get funding. Why should that be so? And the larger question - how do we decide who gets funding and who does not? If it means getting a certain number of signatures on a petition, how is that different from getting your name on the ballot currently?
Yes, but not “non-denominational”, if I understand what you mean by the term. I only vote for those with whom I agree. I only contribute to the same. But that is the essence of what I see as the “free speech” aspect of the problem - if I am forced to subsidize people with whom I disagree, I have lost that aspect of my free speech. To put it bluntly, if the National White People’s Party* got enough people to sign a petition, should they get federal funding to run a slate of candidates for office?
Right, I got that. But I don’t want all parties to exist equally. I only want those who agree with me to exist, and I don’t care to support the others. That, for me, is part of free speech.
I fully support the right of the Socialist Worker’s Party to exist. But I don’t vote for them, I don’t give them any money, and I don’t want them to be successful in implementing their ideas for the country. Other people who want to support them, well and good, but I don’t. Under the system as you describe, I would be forced to support them.
All other things being equal, and in any circumstance where the Constitution does not explicitly say so, the feds have no role to play. The Constitution does not mention abortion, therefore the decision-making authority to regulate it devolves to the states, or the people. The Constitution does mention the role of the federal government in things like the federal court system and interstate commerce, so the decision-making authority for those matters resides with the feds.
Boy, there’s a sweeping question.
I guess I would answer that in relation to politics and economics by saying that you do better to rely on the principle of “enlightened self-interest” and the rule of law, than any other. Socialism/communism tends to rely on the benevolence either of the government, or of the masses. I am far more likely to agree with Adam Smith that "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ". Same thing for the rule of law. I trust in the Constitution more than the Supreme Court. Therefore I am a strict constructionist.
That frankly doesn’t strike me as a bad thing, or at least a bad enough thing to justify violating the “enumerated powers” aspect of the Constitution. Better you should have to cross state lines to get an abortion because it doesn’t play in Peoria, than the Supreme Court can overrule every state in the Union by fiat, and based only on their notions of what the Constitution should have said.
I don’t think we are at that point yet. But ultimately, we are headed for some form of rationing. Possibly like DRGs (I used to work in the health care industry coding this kind of a system).
Regards,
Shodan
*I don’t know if that is a real party. I made the name up.
well, i think we’re at an impasse. you say it’s curtailing free speech if you put a cap on campaign contributions or if you have public funding for it. i say it’s curtailing free speech by not doing it because it forces the people to fit a complicated set of beliefs into only two potential representatives. i think that you see the election process as “if it’s not broken, let’s not fix it”, which is why you refer to my ideas as “jiggering with the election process”. i don’t necessarily see it as changing as i do refining. this seems to be a battle of subjective tastes, one that won’t be “won” by either or us, and frankly, i wouldn’t want to anyways. it’s just good to talk logically about things to someone whom you may disagree with.
why should someone who doesn’t win the primary get funding? it’s just that party putting their money on the strongest candidate. of course, primaries are supposed to thin out the herd and find the strongest candidate, when now, all it does is find someone who has the best chance of pulling in more money to run the campaign. it’s human nature to want to put your money into a cause that has a probability of succeeding. this is what campaign contributions have become, however. they’re just a way to put your money behind this candidate so your stuff can get (possibly) passed/overlooked by the legislature. i think it’s this part where most people have problems with our current system and why people want to tweak it, especially this part. remember how interesting it was for the cah-lee-forh-knee-ah gubernatorial runoff? if we had something like that, but with a limit on how much you can spend, that would ensure that everyone, no matter how “out there” they’d be can be heard and be on the stage. if they can get the amount of money to run their campaign as perscribed by the cap, then have at it. if you can’t rasie that much money or aren’t good with your funds, then thins out the herd right there because the people wouldn’t back it with their money or because if they can’t properly run a campaign, then they’ve got no business running any part of government.
“That’s an interesting thought. I didn’t think of only those who survive a primary get funding. Why should that be so? And the larger question - how do we decide who gets funding and who does not? If it means getting a certain number of signatures on a petition, how is that different from getting your name on the ballot currently?”
i’ve run a couple campaigns, as i am an aspiring politician. i’ve been largely unsuccessful because of time constraints, but the people, from my experience, don’t mind having more variety when it comes to who can possibly represent them.
the winning campaign constituted filling out a form and being one of the two people elected to a post; no petition needed. the large election, however, required one. i’m a little confused about what the last question in this quote was. could you clarify it for me again then? it could be useful for further discussion.
is there any scenario in which you can churn out right now in which you feel that the constitution doesn’t handle? i mean, of course the constitution doesn’t mention anything about abortion. it wouldn’t, it was written a billion years ago (it’s hyperbole, dammit) and wouldn’t have any mention of it. the way i gather, you’re not exactly in favor of abortions. you wouldn’t have one if you could help it, but if someone wants one, you’re not going to stand in their way, or at least if it’s legal according to their state. why doesn’t that fall under “life liberty and pursuit of happiness”? i mean, if we were asserting our independence from kazakstan and drafting a constitution, i’m sure it’d have a clause about abortion in it, either pro, anti, or “whatever the mood of the times”. i regard the argument that it’s not in the constitution as a cop out, honestly.
having people go from state to state to get abortions doesn’t seem too bad to me in all honesty either, it’s a lot better than deeming it illegal under federal law. however, you’ll have a lot of people bitching about how they don’t want to be the “abortion state” and, potentially, you’ll have this argument about whether or not to make an amendment/make a federal law/something about abortion. i guess we’re living when this fight is (first?) fought.
and yeah, the human nature question was rather sweeping. just fodder for future discussions. i don’t know if i trust the constitution more than the supreme court or even more than the states, but, in times like this, in which it is a sticking point and government is tying itself into knots, i think we should practice some deomcracy and simply ask the people. put a vote to the general populace, and deal with the outcome. and, if you went by that, you’d have the similar animosity that you’d have if you had pro abortion states and anti abortion states, but at least we’d be getting some deomcracy back into the mix.
i can definitely see rationing coming into the mix with health care, as well, now that you mentioned it. that makes perfect sense with the train wreck that could be approaching.
there’s a bunch of the population, that would tend to be deomcrat, i’d think, that are just fed up and pissed about how government is or (mis)treats them. eventually, change is going to sprout up from this because, as wacky as some of these ideas are, at least these problems are being brought up and mulled over. just be happy that our constitution lets us speak frankly about such things, huh?
My suggestion is to propose true energy independence. This means a comprehensive plan which includes short term domestic drilling, but with increasing use of nuke and renewable energy.
A decreased emphasis on preserving the environment and an increased emphasis on shaping it long term to meet our future needs.
A commitment to our superpower status.
And a bold step, relying on the people for our own security, instead of ‘Big Brother’.
It appears to me that the political parties have ‘flipped’ positions over the years, maybe many times, this seems like a time that such a flip might occur.
In addition our ingenuity will be able not only to get us there using cleaner and renewable energy systems, but if we can market them at affordable prices to the rest of the world, we can fix our export deficits at the same time selling and financing such systems. But it’s going to take large volume production to really make it affordable. Still, imagine cities and villages that are not solely relying on the need of a power grid. We’d not only be selling the means to generate energy, but adding some security to the rest of the world as well. Oil supplies will dwindle and needs for fresh water will increase, and this may satisfy both crises.
Why John Kerry didn’t make that the centerpiece of his campaign I’ll never understand.
You keep saying this, but the main thing that kept Democrats from supporting a PBA ban was always the lack of an exception for preserving a woman’s life or health. The Republicans insisted that the exception should be made only in order to save the woman’s life. Who are the ones failing to compromise, again?
I’m not saying that such cases exist–near as I can tell, they don’t. But the opinion of the numerous judges so far who have ruled on the 2003 ban has been that such a ban without a health exception is unconstitutional.
It is also worth pointing out that the PBA ban was passed in 2003 (though it has thus far been found unconstitutional and hasn’t been enforced). Has this made pro-life advocates and politicians less adamant? Are they accepting this as a compromise position? Hardly. The equivalence you try to draw is simply not valid; the overwhelming majority of Democratic politicians and pro-choice advocates would happily accept the sort of reasonable measures you’re talking about (even though there are legit reasons to oppose some of them) if it meant less danger for abortion rights in the main. But they know that any “compromise” they make is only going to be seen as a stepping stone for the pro-life Republicans.
Let me add a hear-hear to earlier calls to drop gun control It just doesn’t work and there aren’t a lot of Dem core folk who are all that crazy about it. We could probably pick up a few million hunters with that one. It wouldn’t take more than a few thousands to swing an election in a critical state or two, provided the Pubbies don’t have the voting machines rigged.
I also second great efforts to get the Dem message out. It doesn’t matter what your message is if your opponents are the one telling people what it is. I mean, some people on this very board seem to believe Loony Left=Dems=Anyone Who’s Not Republicans.
As a Moderate with some liberatarian leanings, my suggestions:
Drop the gun control. In 2004, Kerry got under my skin when he made a big deal about the assualt weapons ban not being renewed. I didn’t expect him to vote againest the renewal and I could have grudgly accepted it if he had just let it go. Instead, he(as I recall) made a special trip to DC from the campaign trail to vote on it and then make the usual sneed about dead childern because this ban was going to expire. It left a rather sore taste in my mouth.
Grow some balls. When the Republicans lie and break the law, call them on it. Hold them accountable.
On the same token, distant yourself from the loonies. If someone on your side says something idiotic, call them on it. If someone on your side says “Bush wanted the poor in new orleans to die”, tell them to bring proof or shut up.
Have a plan of what you would do. This is the most important. One of the problems I had with Kerry was that I had no idea what he planned to do in Iraq. All I remember was some vague mumblings about getting France and Germany to help, which sounds more like a “would be nice” then a real plan. What is your alternative? If you want to be a leader, you have to tell us what you would do differently, and for gods sake, don’t say “Go to my website”. Give us a summery of your plan. Bullet points, stuff like that.
Because “health” is essentially shorthand for “any reason at all”. Pregnancy is inherently stressful, therefore any reason to get a PBA is good enough. Therefore the ones refusing the compromise, and insisting on the unchanged status quo, are the pro-PBAs.
So your idea of a compromise that pro-lifers should accept is - no change?
:shrugs:
Again, your idea of a compromise is to give up nothing. Yet the other side is the fanatics.
Maybe we are. But my idea is not to limit anything to the existing two major parties - if a third party can get significant, long-term support, then they have the same rights as anyone else.
I think one of the big problems is that third parties seem to derive their appeal from a central figure. And, unfortunately, central figures who are capable of building a real party are few and far between. I had high hopes for Ross Perot, but he turned out to be a fruitcake and the Independence Party ran a complete idiot - a professional wrestler, for heaven’s sake - for governor of Minnesota. And he won, and accomplished pretty much nothing.
Very much likewise - I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
