rickyp wrote:sass

suspect you'll find that it only really comes into play where the Republican candidate is a zealously opposed to abortion and makes a major pitch to conservative voters on that basis. It's probably true to say that the scope to actually influence abortion law is very limited for any politician in the US, and it's also true to say that virtually all Republicans are anti-abortion, but not all Republicans actively frighten women who support the right to choose.

Graham introduces ‘historic’ 20-week abortion ban; says no primary politics at play

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... rtion-ban/

The attempts at chipping away at current abortion law are constant. Both at the State and Federal levels. Whether its aimed at the base with no expectation at success or whether its successful (as recently in Texas) all the attempts have the same effect within the electorate.

It's not the base.

Most Americans would favor sweeping new national restrictions on abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll. But the poll also shows many Americans remain conflicted in their views on abortion. By a margin of 59 percent to 30 percent, respondents to the new poll said they would favor a federal law banning abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. A recent United Technologies/National Journal poll found Americans divided over the possible ban, with a narrower plurality of 48 percent to 44 percent supporting it

Now, you can cite as many polls as you like, but the 20 week limit is not a "base only" issue. It has widespread support.

Do try to keep up before you speak up.

freeman3 wrote:And McAuliffe also crafted a new regulation that privatized military logistics, a certain company dominated the contracts awarded because of the new regulation, and then left government and made 20 million in running that company...oh I'm sorry that was Dick Cheney...

If you want to TRY and justify McAuliffe, by pointing to Cheney, go ahead. But, it's not only a legal fallacy, it's also a logical fallacy.

Please, do tell us how honest and forthright Terry McAuliffe is.

Fate

Its not the base

I said it was aimed at the base... which is different than the various levels of support for abortion access or restriction.

When arguing that public opinion supports broad abortion rights, advocates often point to polls showing strong support for Roe. And they are right about that polling. A January 2013 poll by Gallup was typical: 53 percent of respondents said they did not want the court to overturn “its 1973 Roe versus Wade decision concerning abortion,” and only 29 percent did want it overturned.

The "Base" of republican voters, those who vote in primaries ... are represented in large part by the 29% who do want to over turn R V W. So, restricting abortion access is a key issue for them, and when threatened in primaries - guys like Graham make an issue of abortion access.
I think that the actual attitudes towards abortion access are more nuanced than for or against.
But all of the action like grahams probably isn't perceived the same way... Especially because its an issue that exhausts ...
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... absolutes/

rickyp wrote:Fate

Its not the base

I said it was aimed at the base... which is different than the various levels of support for abortion access or restriction.

No, it's not. The "base" you are speaking of wants all abortion outlawed, or very few exceptions permitted. The 20-week rule is actually pretty widely seen as reasonable. To the base, 20 weeks is, well, "weak."

Let me use YOUR link to prove my point.



Red is "should be ILLEGAL."

So, well over 60% think it should be ILLEGAL in the second trimester--that's the "base?"

No, that covers the mushy middle too.

Thanks for the link. It just helped me prove my case. Really appreciate that. Your best post in months.

and I happen to fall EXACTLY in that mushy middle, I do not like abortion, think it's horrible but I can't see me allowing it to be overturned because it's the pregnant woman's decision not mine. But yes, 20 weeks is PLENTY enough time. I would rally behind that 100%

I'm largely indifferent to the abortion debate myself. I guess I would describe myself as pro-choice but it's not an issue that excites me particularly and I don't have any strong views on the matter. Of course, I'm never going to get pregnant so I don't really have a personal stake.

Well, DF, i don't think that the liberal source succeeded in getting McAufliffe other than by guilt by association. People who get into politics without money seem to invariably have these questionable business deals; of course, people who get into politics with money seem to have questionable finances as well (e.g. Romney). Easy money only rarely coincides with probity.

freeman3 wrote:Well, DF, i don't think that the liberal source succeeded in getting McAufliffe other than by guilt by association. People who get into politics without money seem to invariably have these questionable business deals; of course, people who get into politics with money seem to have questionable finances as well (e.g. Romney). Easy money only rarely coincides with probity.

Rationalization.

He's a bad man and he will prove that.

So Bush did not lie about Iraq trying to get nuclear weapons, DF?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries? & http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007401.php
And other ones....http://fair.org/press-release/bush-uran ... e-iceberg/

freeman3 wrote:So Bush did not lie about Iraq trying to get nuclear weapons, DF?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries? & http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/007401.php
And other ones....http://fair.org/press-release/bush-uran ... e-iceberg/

No.

It's immaterial to whether your man is a liar. He is.

freeman3 wrote:Guapo, a central belief by liberals is in a strong safety net--libertarians oppose that. Yes, liberals and libertarians have certain views that overlap but they are far apart on the ideologicàl spectrum. Whereas, a disenchanted Republican can easily become a libertarian if foreign policy is not that important to him, domestic economic policy is more important to him, or he is against an interventionist policy overseas. It is just an easier switch that doesn't necessarily go to the heart of their beliefs, whereas a liberal would have to cease being a liberal.

That's not exactly true. Traditional liberals share a lot more in common. For example: foreign policy, social policy, and even economic. Yes, it is true that libertarians oppose welfare, but it's not a large emphasis. Traditional liberals should be opposed to bailing out banks, just as libertarians do.

Modern liberals, however, don't seem to fall in line on those fronts. They are ok with wars, as long as their guy is doing it. They are fine with corporate welfare, as long as popular welfare comes along with it.

Social policy is a big crossover--specifically as it related to the VA election. Marriage equality, ending blue laws, and decriminalization of marijuana are "liberal" views that they share with libertarians.

McAuliffe is a crony capitalist, not exactly someone that falls in line with most liberal ideologies.

Another perspective on the Virginia election....http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4269638/

freeman3 wrote:Another perspective on the Virginia election....http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4269638/

Meh.

If the face of the Democratic party is going to be corrupt individuals like Terry McAuliffe, I'm not worried. His lead collapsed. He got under 50% despite outspending Cucinelli by more than 2:1.

Besides, we have Obamacare!

Merry Christmas! Happy New Year!

The ACA is a very generous gift.