Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's Journal
Media has plenty of time to post s**t like this. Why?
Why do the crazies get all of this coverage? I mean, stuff like this used to be easily dismissed as "crank" territory. Why give them ANY national/widespread exposure?
I'm really nervous
that, because of Hillary's failure to win the WH in 2016 and all of the angst over the "economic anxieties" of the WWC, Democrats will be averse to nominating any African-Americans and/or women (or African-American women like Kamala) in 2020. I mean, I'll vote for whoever the nominee is (a pet rock with a "D" behind it would be acceptable at this point) but I really want to see the Democratic Party continue to be the banner for diversity and inclusiveness and not retreat back to "playing it safe" by nominating old tired white guys. Diversity and inclusiveness among our state, local, and national candidates should be our future IMHO.
My guess: They are trying to "prove" that abortions are harmful
presumably to build up a case for eventually totally banning them. Of course, anti-choicers have pushed the same junk science for years (decades?) about "abortion regret" and other medical conditions supposedly caused by abortions. I predict that they will find little evidence to support their contention that abortion, performed correctly and under safe conditions, is harmful to women undergoing procedure. And, while I'm sure that some women may regret their decision, I don't believe that the vast majority do.
Slightly OT but this is the same legislature that saved us from the "scourge" of eyeball tatooing and gave us the ability to buy alcohol on Sundays but need an expensive "special session" to finish up all the other work that they neglected.
Amen
Learning about guns? WTF does that even mean? What more does one need to know about guns other than that they are instruments of death and destruction and that their SOLE purpose is to maim and kill?
I don't know for sure. It seems like a good argument
and it's not the first time anybody has ever mentioned it. If I had to guess, maybe the pro-choice movement is concerned that there could be a political backlash from minority groups (or the anti-choicers) due to possible accusations of "trivializing" past African-American slavery (for which this amendment was written and passed to address) and/or trying to compare abortion to African-American slavery. There are some minority groups that feel that LGBTs have co-opted their civil rights legacy and (wrongfully) assumed their mantle. Clearly, that would not be the intent of the pro-choice movement and forcing women into essentially becoming "forced incubators" for fetuses seems like a kind of slavery to me, but I could see where pushing this argument could potentially backfire on us.
+1000
This "Pelosi must stand down/step aside" nonsense needs to be shut down hard. To me, somebody is using this to try to stir things up among the Democratic Party in advance of the 2018 midterms. Of course, if the House Democratic Caucus wants to have a discussion about it when they vote for a new (hopefully, majority) leader in the next Congress and want to put up a new candidate for leadership to challenge her, that's their prerogative but, under no circumstances, should anybody BUT Nancy Pelosi make the decision for her to voluntarily step down/stand aside as leader and certainly NOT for some of the bogus reasons we've been hearing recently.
That's not really the problem with them
The problem IMHO is that they demand ideological purity and spend the majority of their time trying to attack Democrats that feel don't pass their purity tests, which harms the party, instead of actively fighting Trump/GOP. Does OR protesting a paid speech by Hillary, currently a Democratic non-candidate for anything, at Rutgers University, seem like a good use of time, energy, or resources? Instead of, say, protesting Trump's ongoing graft and corruption and dangerous foreign policy, and/or attempts to subvert the rule of law?
HRC lost the EC in some states by only a few thousand votes
and the vote was split in four ways between her and Trump and Johnson and Stein. It's doable. Trump's popularity has been in the toilet pretty much since he started. I'm sure that he's lost a few voters and I find it hard to believe that a decent Democratic Presidential candidate with a decent agenda and lack of serious Democratic Party infighting wouldn't be enough to topple Trump in 2020 (assuming he's still in office). Hopefully, people will have learned their lessons from 2016. Maybe?
Oh, and Hillary won't be running in 2020, so why does it matter so much what she said (and people will likely have forgotten these comments by 2020, if not in a few days)?
A-fricken-men!
If and when Pelosi is replaced, the Republicans will demonize the next Democratic leader.....and the next one.....and the next one..... All of them will suddenly become the "most liberal" and "most evil" person in the universe and will be used to help rally their deranged base. Are we going to keep replacing our leaders every time Republicans say, "Boo"?
I'm sure that there might be some rational and reasonable reasons to replace her in the future but, at least so far, nobody has presented themselves as a credible alternative and/or given Democratic members enough of a reason to replace her right now.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,406
