Jump to content

Elections in 2012


BainIhrno

Recommended Posts

From an economic standpoint--a free market requires a free flow of labor. People generally aren't going to immigrate to a country unless they see a reasonable chance of improvement to their economic situation, although some immigration is a result of oppressive regimes and/or war in their respective home countries. Many immigrants will work cheaply, even for less than minimum wage (under the table). Restricting immigration creates a shortage of labor, which forces employers to find a supply of labor elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 370
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But with our current high unemployment, it's not a shortage of laborers, but a shortage of workers that have the desired skills in the area of need and workers that will work for lower wages. Companies will try to reduce labor costs by getting the cheapest workers they can find.

 

Bad joke that's still true:

 

The company's looking for a recent college grad with 20 years of work experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Laws written totally by one party or the other will be damaging to about half the population.

I find this statement completely bewildering. The suggestion here is that laws written by Republicans and opposed by Democrats are somehow damaging to private citizen Democrats, and vice versa with Democrats writing laws, am I right?

The disagreements between the parties are largely about IDEOLOGY -- either they disagree about what our goal should be (e.g., abortion law, entitlements like social security) or they agree in theory about the goal, but not what we need to do to reach it (e.g., revenue from taxes). Republicans are not "damaged" by pro-choice policies and Democrats are not "damaged" by pro-life policies; the policies affect women and uterine contents from both parties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
The disagreements between the parties are largely about IDEOLOGY -- either they disagree about what our goal should be (e.g., abortion law, entitlements like social security) or they agree in theory about the goal, but not what we need to do to reach it (e.g., revenue from taxes). Republicans are not "damaged" by pro-choice policies and Democrats are not "damaged" by pro-life policies; the policies affect women and uterine contents from both parties.


Not gonna lie, but "uterine contents" has got to be the most sanitized euphemism for "zygote/embryo/fetus" I've ever heard in my life.

I mean, I'm hugely pro-choice myself, but there has got to be a point at which we quit it with the Newspeak and just use the proper medical terminology to discuss the issue in a unbiased manner, and I'm going to have to draw the line at "uterine contents" as the pro-choice equivalent of "pre-born child", which is just as ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Kelandon
You know, "uterine contents" seems marginally less awkward to me than "zygote/embryo/fetus."


Well obviously you'd select the proper adjective depending on whether you were discussing the morning after pill or regular abortion or partial birth or whatever.

I just don't understand why, when one side in the debate obviously has the medical facts and logic and evidence on their side, they would choose to throw it away bring down the debate to the level of the opposition and resort to euphemisms instead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Kelandon
You know, "uterine contents" seems marginally less awkward to me than "zygote/embryo/fetus."


pro tip: the catchall term you're looking for is "conceptus"


I've been following this thread, but not had anything to contribute other than yeah, the phrase "uterine contents" is just pretty darn ugly. Also, it just sounds to me that somebody could use their uterus to store stationary or loose change or something.

Ugly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Nikki
Also, it just sounds to me that somebody could use their uterus to store stationary or loose change or something.

So that's why clothes marketed toward women have small or nonexistent pockets.

(Also, considering that pro-life policies don't actually reduce terminated pregnancies but do result in more dangerous abortion procedures that kill and severely injure people, Dikiyoba doesn't think that we need to pretend to be unbiased in an attempt to avoid hypothetical flame wars.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Kelandon
You know, "uterine contents" seems marginally less awkward to me than "zygote/embryo/fetus."

 

pro tip: the catchall term you're looking for is "conceptus"

 

conseptus-inc.png

You mean the company dedicated to the revolutionary design, development, and marketing of innovative solutions to advance women's health, stock letters CPTS?

 

header.gif

Or the manufacturer of the mouth-operated camera? "Without pictures, it's just a story."

 

p.jpg

Or the folk rock/pop/surf band from San Diego, CA?

 

logo-futwear-big.jpg

And let me not leave out Fut Conceptus Manufacturing Nigeria Ltd.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Soul of Wit. I appreciate your well considered opinions. I would welcome you to our state, and wish you well upon returning to your own. I am not a native Texan, but I got here as quickly as I could. Re. cigarette taxes, sadly too true. Re legislative stonewalling, it is part of the process. It may not be appreciated by half the population, but the other half likes it just fine. And it doesn't matter which half is which.

 

Re. Immigration policy. That is a whole 'nother thread, which could be quite lengthy at that. I don't believe that our discussions of it here will sway anyone's opinion, but I think it healthy for our society to consider the opposing sides views and to weigh them on their own merits. In so many cases there is no wrong and right, but varying shades of right depending on which factors are more important to an individual.

 

@ Slarty. Ideology is at the root of the most contentious divisions between the parties. Freedom of religion vs freedom from religion. Where do we draw the line? There is no Constitutional protection for being offended. Just the guarantee that you won't be forced to believe one way or the other. Do federal oversight bureaucracies protect the public interest or stifle economic growth? (Obviously, both. How much is too little and how much is too much? There's your ideological difference again.)

 

The list goes on. These differences are invaluable to our society. If we keep our minds open to them, it makes us a more humane society. That this forum is as diverse and as open minded as it is makes it a pleasure to chat with you. I don't expect to change anyone's opinions; just to dispel some of the myths that may exist in your minds or in my own mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
(Also, considering that pro-life policies don't actually reduce terminated pregnancies but do result in more dangerous abortion procedures that kill and severely injure people, Dikiyoba doesn't think that we need to pretend to be unbiased in an attempt to avoid hypothetical flame wars.)
For what it's worth, a lot of pro-life people understand this. Simply making abortion illegal again without a better framework to deal with unwanted pregnancies would have a terrible effect. Like so many other similar issues, the best path to a solution is by attacking the root causes (economic disparity, etc.). Seeing that pro-choice advocates would join in the latter cause, and that making abortion illegal is impossible in the current political environment anyway, pro-life advocates should stop filibustering and work at stopping abortion through other means.

Originally Posted By: Dantius
I just don't understand why, when one side in the debate obviously has the medical facts and logic and evidence on their side, they would choose to throw it away bring down the debate to the level of the opposition and resort to euphemisms instead.
Originally Posted By: Slarty
I have to say, I find it a little appalling the way people toss around condescending statements about people from the other party, somehow assuming that they make sense to everyone else. They don't.
I understand that constantly citing isn't practical, and that it's not fun to refute a point when you've tried to refute it a thousand times before. But when you say "all the smart people are on my side" without referring to what those smart people say, it basically comes across as an ad hominem.

On a lighter note:
Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba
So that's why clothes marketed toward women have small or nonexistent pockets.
I've always wondered about this: are there no female clothes designers? They would make a killing. It seems that form follows function only for clothing marketed for men.

The only exception is the purse; for men, there's not very many options between wallet and knapsack. I could always try bring the fanny pack back...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Harehunter
Re. Immigration policy. That is a whole 'nother thread, which could be quite lengthy at that. I don't believe that our discussions of it here will sway anyone's opinion, but I think it healthy for our society to consider the opposing sides views and to weigh them on their own merits. In so many cases there is no wrong and right, but varying shades of right depending on which factors are more important to an individual.


And the rest of the thread hasn't been bouncing back and forth between equally complicated issues that are likely not going to change peoples opinions? People are discussing abortion, after all.

Excalibur hit the nail on the head - increased levels of economic migration lead to an overall increase in prosperity. In a globalized economy, restrictive border practices that marginalize the voices of an important part of the population by not allowing them the vote, and restricts them from other benefits of society (eg welfare) for which they are paying only serves to disincentivize immigration. That doesn't help people immigrants or the United States as a whole.

You say that states get to set their own rules on who gets to vote. However, when people are meeting the only rational requirement for being able to vote in elections - that is, they've been paying into the system with tax money - there is no reason to disallow them to vote. Any qualifications you might come up with, in this case citizenship, are just as arbitrary as the qualifications used to disallow women and blacks from voting. In fact, I'd say they're even more so - women weren't extremely plugged into the economy to the point of generating taxable income to the extent that many non-citizens are now, but that didn't stop the Suffragettes.

Nationalize them, give them the ballot, or whatever. But construct them as some sort of threat at the polls that legitimizes disenfranchising people to prevent "voter fraud?" That only serves as repression and hinders democracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: The Ratt
I think you're right about it being class warfare. I'll bet that a majority of pro-life supporters have never been in, or had someone close to them be in, a situation where an abortion would be relevant and/or desired.


unsurprising fact: when they do find themselves in a situation like that, they pretty commonly make excuses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with you. Freedom of religion does not (in the U.S.) extend to forcing their ideology upon the individual through legislation. On the other hand, it is just as much a violation of the 1st Amendment for the U.S. government to force through legislation that requires privately operated medical facilities that are supported by religious entities to perform services that are in violation of their moral convictions. Publicly operated facilities that are funded in part by taxpayers may be compelled by such legislation to perform contraceptive medical procedures, but not private ones.

 

Question: If a woman is assaulted by a burglar and she dies, it is called murder. If she were pregnant at that time, and the fetus dies, does that count as a second charge of murder? What if she survives but the fetus dies?

 

That question is at the root of the religious right's protest on abortion. At which point does the child gain the same right to llfe that the mother has? I can not, I will not, make that decision for anyone else, and I do not believe government should either. But neither should the government dictate to church run hospitals that they should perform an act that goes against their core beliefs.

 

@Goldenking

If those people coming to the U.S. to work wish to vote in our elections, there is provision for them to do so. Enter the country legally, apply for citizenship, go through the process, and take their oath of allegiance. But "paying into the system" by itself does not qualify. When I travel across country, I "pay into the system" in other states, yet that does not give me the right to vote in their states. Houston sits in Harris county, where I live. I pay taxes to the county, but since my residence is not within the city boundaries, I don't get to vote for the Mayor of Houston. Working within the city limits does not count either. One perception of the immigrant worker is that they all want to be U.S. citizens. But when the Mexican Under-Secretary of Tourism, Rodolpho Lopez Negrete, admits that

that tells me that there are a great many indeed that do not want to become U.S. citizens. (Sorry for the length of that interview. The quote I refer to here is about 16 minutes into a 23 minute interview. I refer to this audio because I wouldn't believe it myself if I had just read it. And around 21 minutes, he admits that most of those migrant workers don't want to be U.S. citizens. )
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If religiously-affiliated hospitals don't want to be compelled, there's a very simple route to it: stop taking public money. Most want federal money, and that obligates them to accept federal regulation.

 

—Alorael, who is quite sure the government, or rather its judicial branch, has to decide when zygotes or embryos or fetuses or children gain rights. But it's not always clear: causing the unwanted termination of a pregnancy can be a crime without making all termination a crime, because pregnancy can be seen as part of the mother's rights, not the fetus's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment on the feds requiring (federal fund receiving) health vendors to provide contraception. For those unaware, that includes the so-called morning-after pill. There is a balance here that is not being struck. There is a strong argument for providing funding to (for example) religious hospitals. That argument is that they provide their services to all. The argument is further bolstered by the desired goal of providing healthcare to as many people as possible.

 

The solution is a limited voucher program. The religious organizations are exempted, but the patient still gets voucher access to the contraception--elsewhere. The worst-case scenario here is inconvenience (can't use an on-site pharmacy.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit
A comment on the feds requiring (federal fund receiving) health vendors to provide contraception. For those unaware, that includes the so-called morning-after pill. There is a balance here that is not being struck. There is a strong argument for providing funding to (for example) religious hospitals. That argument is that they provide their services to all. The argument is further bolstered by the desired goal of providing healthcare to as many people as possible.

The solution is a limited voucher program. The religious organizations are exempted, but the patient still gets voucher access to the contraception--elsewhere. The worst-case scenario here is inconvenience (can't use an on-site pharmacy.)


Here's the problem: for some patients, there isn't an elsewhere. Sometimes the religious hospital is literally the only hospital in town, especially in rural areas. When "inconvenience" can mean travelling hundreds of miles, that's more than just inconvenient: that's obstructive. By the time a patient can arrange transportation to another hospital, it's often too late for the morning-after pill to work. In addition, there have been cases where the patient has suffered a violent rape and is too badly injured to be safely transported outside the first hospital she's treated in at all for the first few days -- in that case, she either gets emergency contraception at the hospital she's first brought to or she doesn't get it at all, no matter how many hospitals you build.

The way I see it, you've already given up absolute freedom of religion when you claim to practice medicine, because medicine implies a set of values that are fundamentally incompatible with the practices of certain religious groups. No sane person would claim that you should be allowed to set up a building that treats every illness with nothing but prayer and call it a hospital. The responsibility of medicine, always and everywhere, is to act in the best interests of the patient while respecting the patient's autonomy, regardless of the doctor or the institution's own beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three different issues here.

 

1) Individual religious freedom in medicine. Individuals should not be forced to provide, or receive, health care that they don't want, simply because they are a citizen.

 

2) Religious freedom and jobs. Jobs can't force or forbid religious practices that are peripheral to the job. However, if your religion forbids you from driving cars, you cannot then take a job as a taxi driver and refuse to drive a taxi.

 

I think these are pretty straightforward principles. You can *legitimately* argue that specific medical procedures are more or less integral to different medical jobs. That, however, is where point 3 comes in:

 

3) Government funded hospitals exist to provide for public health needs. Public health needs are determined by the government and so must abide by principle 1 above: they cannot force medical procedures on anyone based on another party's religion, nor can they deny them based on another party's religion. That means that government funded hospitals need to provide all kinds of medical services and they need to employ people willing to perform them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
No sane person would claim that you should be allowed to set up a building that treats every illness with nothing but prayer and call it a hospital. The responsibility of medicine, always and everywhere, is to act in the best interests of the patient while respecting the patient's autonomy, regardless of the doctor or the institution's own beliefs.


That's a nice sentiment, but unfortunately, some people are anything but sane when it comes to medicine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No link to

? For shame.

 

I agree with Tyran's chart for the most part, but I have to take umbrage with point #3. Abortion legislation with those specific exceptions smacks more of compromise than of actual policy. "What about rape victims" is probably the question most asked of pro-life/anti-abortion activists. Likewise, points #1 and #4 seem (mostly) consistent with an incrementalist approach of replacing an undesirable law with a slightly less undesirable one.

 

I'm kinda torn about the whole public funding issue for hospitals (there's a similar situation with independent school funding in Alberta). Institutions which do not provide the full range of services should not receive the full range of public funding. But ideally, if they provide a subset of services, they should receive a subset of the total funding, since public institutions would have to provide those services anyway.

 

(Insert age-old debate about the brain drain from public to private institutions here.)

 

But, as already pointed out, the issue is in regions where no fully public institution exists. Maybe the solution is to provide zero funding for private institutions unless a similar public institution in the region is already present. Not completely happy with that approach.

 

Imagine a small isolated Albertan farming community, where church services are still conducted in Ukrainian. The community wants to build a school, and there's gonna be less than one hundred students in it. In Alberta, independent schools have partial funding from the government. Stuff like building maintenance and salaries aren't covered, but schools receive funding based on the number of students enrolled in classes covered by the provincial curriculum (and according to the formula, it's ~70% of what the public schools get). It would be expensive to create a public school in the hamlet, and the residents are willing to create an independent school, so why not let them?

 

But now imagine that a small group of contract workers have to move in with their families, and they're neither part of the culture nor the religion. Should their children be expected to attend the only school in the area? Are they forced to learn by correspondence? Should the government look into building a public school? It's a sticky situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Aloreal, HoS, SoW, Lilith, Dintirant.

You have all been right on target. I have nothing more to say, since you have summed it up so well. Indeed there are some kinks to work out, re. right to life, and how to deal with locales that have limited choice to private/public facilities. I feel discomfort with many of the compromise solutions, but that is the nature of compromise. We all don't get all that we want, but in order for all to benefit, we must all concede something.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit
A comment on the feds requiring (federal fund receiving) health vendors to provide contraception. For those unaware, that includes the so-called morning-after pill. There is a balance here that is not being struck. There is a strong argument for providing funding to (for example) religious hospitals. That argument is that they provide their services to all. The argument is further bolstered by the desired goal of providing healthcare to as many people as possible.

The solution is a limited voucher program. The religious organizations are exempted, but the patient still gets voucher access to the contraception--elsewhere. The worst-case scenario here is inconvenience (can't use an on-site pharmacy.)

Here's the problem: for some patients, there isn't an elsewhere. Sometimes the religious hospital is literally the only hospital in town, especially in rural areas. When "inconvenience" can mean travelling hundreds of miles, that's more than just inconvenient: that's obstructive. By the time a patient can arrange transportation to another hospital, it's often too late for the morning-after pill to work. In addition, there have been cases where the patient has suffered a violent rape and is too badly injured to be safely transported outside the first hospital she's treated in at all for the first few days -- in that case, she either gets emergency contraception at the hospital she's first brought to or she doesn't get it at all, no matter how many hospitals you build.

The way I see it, you've already given up absolute freedom of religion when you claim to practice medicine, because medicine implies a set of values that are fundamentally incompatible with the practices of certain religious groups. No sane person would claim that you should be allowed to set up a building that treats every illness with nothing but prayer and call it a hospital. The responsibility of medicine, always and everywhere, is to act in the best interests of the patient while respecting the patient's autonomy, regardless of the doctor or the institution's own beliefs.

I hadn't thought of the violent rape angle, or of in-patient care, in general. Rural America is often severely lacking in healthcare. In my post, I was thinking of visiting a nearby pharmacy and not of visiting another hospital. That, of course, leads to a discussion on pharmacies and their policies. In a perfect world, the in-patient would have someone to visit that nearby (and science/law-based) pharmacy. If it's legal, stock it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have already been pharmacists in major cities that have refused to fill patient prescriptions because the medicine conflicts with the pharmacist's religious beliefs. While theoretically the patient could go to another pharmacy, there may be an urgent need, cost savings, or other reason why a patient wants to get the prescription there and shouldn't be blocked from getting medication that a doctor considers necessary for a patient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen
Aaaaaaaand Santorum sweeps Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri. I know Missouri doesn't really count, but still.... Bahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaahahaha

This answers the question:

Who would be easier for Obama to beat than Romney or Gingrich?

As for Missouri, it is considered one of the bellwether states (states that tend to vote as the nation does.) It is worth pointing out that Missouri voted McCain in 2008. The "show me" state also failed to like Ike in 1956.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Soul of Wit

This answers the question:

Who would be easier for Obama to beat than Romney or Gingrich?



I'm actually not sure this is true. While Santorum lacks both money and organization, he does have one thing the other two lack: sincerity. Of course, he's also crazy, but it's the right kind of crazy for the Republican base. His demeanor is pleasant and he's capable of articulating his beliefs without a script.

He could win the nomination if he can convince the big money donors that it's possible. Of course Romney will go after him now, but the problem is that Santorum is really only vulnerable to attacks from the left, which are a big no-no in this context. The most they've been able to come up with is earmarks, from the right.

After that, well, the failure of the personhood amendment in Mississippi gives me hope that some vestige of sanity remains in the electorate, if not in the political parties.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced that Santorum's wins last night will even matter that much. Maine will announce it's caucus results on the 11th, and Santorum will probably place 4th there (Romney will probably win). After that the next contests are Arizona and Michigan on the 28th, and I doubt Santorum will get any sizable portion of the vote in those states. That also gives a lot of time for his opponents to attack him. Maybe he'll pick up a few red states on Super Tuesday, but that still leaves Romney far ahead in delegate count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
I'm actually not sure this is true. While Santorum lacks both money and organization, he does have one thing the other two lack: sincerity. Of course, he's also crazy, but it's the right kind of crazy for the Republican base. His demeanor is pleasant and he's capable of articulating his beliefs without a script.


While sincere crazy may be helpful in getting Santorum nominated, it won't play nearly as well with the center. If pleasing the party base were enough to win elections, we'd have seen a lot more Dennis Kucinich v. Jesse Helms (prior to the latter's death, anyway) in recent elections. Money and organization, on the other hand, tend to help a lot when it comes to wooing moderates. I'm inclined to agree with Soul of Wit on this one: Obama would exercise his Second Amendment rights all over Santorum's campaign.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pile on Santorum, for kicks:

 

He's in the 1%--the 1% of Americans who think that contraception is a bad idea. Did I mention that most of that 1% are beyond their child-bearing years?

 

He has huge issues with corruption. Not at NEWTonian levels, mind you, but significant in their own right.

 

He couldn't get reelected to the Senate from Pennsylvania--a swing state.

 

Thanks to his outrageous past comments on homosexuality, his last name is now a Google bomb. I say deservedly so. Gay rights are human rights. The scale is tipping, as the electorate grows younger.

 

=====

 

Santorum won't get the nomination, of course. I'll stick with my long-standing prediction of Romney in the general and Obama for four more years. Let's face it, Romney has less sincerity than McCain. [/understatement]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen
I think that's what Santorum is really running for.


That's what many of the candidates were running for, I believe. Personally, I'd prefer to see someone pick up Jon Huntsman as a VP candidate, rather than any of the other Republicans.

Speaking of VP, is Obama planning on keeping Biden?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:
Thanks to his outrageous past comments on homosexuality, his last name is now a Google bomb. I say deservedly so. Gay rights are human rights. The scale is tipping, as the electorate grows younger.


Yeah. If it were just about Santorum vocally opposing gay marriage and homosexuality more generally, I'd call the Google bomb a bit excessive. What got Dan Savage et al really pissed (and rightly so), was more that he equated gay sex with sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and "man on dog." If one is willing to be that nasty about the issue, I think one has no right to complain when one's surname becomes a widely-used slang term for a substance whose nature I won't discuss on an all-ages forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen
It's likely that Cain and Gingrich both started out running for book sales and speaking fees.

Cain, sure. He never had a serious candidacy. Gingrich is a long-time politico who ran and is running an entirely credible campaign with a real shot at the nomination. I think he means it.

—Alorael, who has also noticed some interesting armchair psychiatry on Gingrich's megalomania and possible narcissistic personality. Some of that's necessary for a politician. Excess is a problem. Too much excess, of course, practically precludes politics, but if you can slap disorders on Gingrich, he falls in the sweet spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S
Who knows about Gingrich. His campaign looks credible now, but remember the time last year that multiple top campaign staff resigned because THEY thought the campaign was a joke?


Was that before or after he decided that a cruise to Greece with his wife was a good way to spend campaign donations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...