The first reason is that voters seem to like divided government... The second is that it gives Trump a boogeyman — or, more apt, a boogeywoman... Nancy Pelosi...
Trump could also blame the Democratic House for his continued failures to live up to his many, many promises.... If you are going to have gridlock, you might as well have someone on which to blame it who is not in your own party.
And, finally, even that subpoena power could pose some tough choices for Democrats. There will be pressure from the party’s base to go after Trump heard and even impeach him, but we’ve seen how that can lead to overreach — most notably, when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the late 1990s. And Democratic leaders have already telegraphed a wariness about that. What happens when they actually have power and the base wants them to go further than they think is prudent?...
November 4, 2018
"[P]urely from the vantage point of Trump’s self-interest — particularly as it relates to winning reelection in 2020 — there is a compelling case to be made that a Democratic House might be a good thing..."
Writes Aaron Blake in WaPo.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
179 comments:
Lefty encouraging Republicans to relax and sleep in on Tuesday.
Won't work. Nice try, though.
I agree with the author. Losing the House of Representatives will supply Trump with two years of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Maxine Waters -- all excellent whipping boys. Or whipping children. Or whatever.
Whether it's a good thing or not is immaterial. Not gonna happen.
Oh, sure. We want Maxine Waters at the helm of important committees and Pelosi with the gavel again. Please, spare us!
No, we don't want a crooked Democratic led congress, but not to worry because it isn't going to happen.
Prudence left the Democrat Party a long time ago.
Now there some vintage Washington Post trolling and gaslighting.
I have no idea whether Republicans can hold the House. For me, it's irrelevant. I'm voting Tuesday. If the Democrats take control, it will be a major annoyance, but not a major crisis.
If the Dems take control, it’s what usually happens.
There will be pressure from the party’s base to go after Trump heard and even impeach him, but we’ve seen how that can lead to overreach — most notably, when Republicans impeached Bill Clinton in the late 1990s.
The biggest difference of course is, Clinton committed a crime. President Trump has yet to have a named crime attributed to him, let alone proven. Such are the fevered dreams of Democrats.
It would be better politically for Trump for the combined dems/left/LLR's to take the House.
But not better for the country.
With 55 retirees, plus historical trends, it seems almost impossible the reps can hang onto the House.
But this blue wave thing isnt working out.
WaPo does not get Trump. He is The Donald of D.J. Trump's Far-flung` Enterprises taking a sabbatical to do a stint as President of the U.S, but does not think like a politician.
The reboot of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee will be more fun than a barrel of monkeys, just like the last one!
Kind of wish that WaPo and NYT "journalists" would try thinking like reporters rather than politician wannabees for a change.
Didn’t care then, so shouldn’t care now.
Get bent.
It would be better if every Democrat lost.
Or floated up to the Sun. The whole 93 million miles.
"I agree with the author. Losing the House of Representatives will supply Trump with two years of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Maxine Waters -- all excellent whipping boys. Or whipping children. Or whatever."
We'll have those crooked dumb-asses even when they lose.
This would be a lot more true if the Republican house didn't act pretty much like an opposition party themselves for the last two years. We still have Obamacare which has failed to deliver on every single promise made about it. No, not just failed to deliver, but delivered the opposite of what was promised. I lost my plan, and my doctor, while my premiums no only didn't go down $2500, but increased by more than that for a plan I never would have accepted as adequate before Obamacare. It was 100% a lie, and the Republicans kept it after running on repeal for years.
Agree with Drago on Historical trends. Presidential party almost always loses seats. 2010, 1994, 1982, 1990, 1966, 1938, 1946, 1950, 1954, 1958, etc.
Second, Turkey McConnell refuses to get rid of the filibuster, so NO legislation can pass that Schumer doesn't approve. Plus, the Republican edge in the House is now so small the RINO's and Moderates and good legislation can't get pass their either.
So, as a practical matter, in terms of passing TRUMP legislation, A Democrat house will make little difference. We couldn't get a Wall or get rid of Obamacare even with the R's supposedly in control.
Of course, the R's during Obama refused to shut down congress over spending and they refused to put Republican positions in the budget bill. Look, for that to change. The D's in the House will not demand the R's pass their budget or they will shut down Government, and look for Turkey McConnell to cave.
Drago said... But this blue wave thing isnt working out.
they said. . .
1st the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd get enough in Senate to convict (didn't say how)
2nd the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd take the Senate
3rd the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd swamp the House
4th the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd get NEARLY as many House seats as O'Bama lost
5th the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd get NEARLY as many House seats as usually happens
6th the wave would be SO BIG, that they'd get the House
7th the wave would be SO BIG, that they Might get the House
8th the wave would be SO BIG, that they might gain seats.
What WILL happen will be interesting; but one thing's for Sure:
they'll call it an indictment of Trump
"Kind of wish that WaPo and NYT "journalists" would try thinking like reporters rather than politician wannabees for a change."
Reporters use to come from the real world but that's a long time gone, unfortunately.
Obviously, it'd be better if the R's retain control. OTherwise, the D's in MSM wouldn't be pushing so hard for Pelosi to run the House.
But, control of the Senate is more important.
Any WaPo prognostications on how it would benefit Dems long-term to let the GOP maintain control of the Presidency and both houses of congress?
Didn't think so.
When are they going to start reporting the news, rather than leftist wish-casting?
I just want to ask the WaPo the following: If Trump had sex with a 22 year old intern - in the oval office, during his presidency - would that = impeachment?
Maxine is calling for impeachment over... nothing. Well, drummed up lies, and Schifty-D Avanetti "news".
iowan2 said... The biggest difference of course is, Clinton committed a crime.
Oh come ON now!
That Clinton stuff was just about Sex; Trump ADMITTED that he could pick up chix, since he's rich
You DON GET a bigger crime than saying that you can easily pull women to you (if you're Rich)
Well, okay; Sexual Harrassment, Sexual Quid Pro Quo, Sexual Assault, RAPE; Those things are bigger
Nice try, though.
@Phidippus, not even that.
Phiddipus gets it in one.
Not sure it's a record but it's at least tied.
The old trope is back, "voters seem to like divided government". If this was true, wouldn't it be true at the state level?
DB@H: "Maxine is calling for impeachment over... nothing. Well, drummed up lies, and Schifty-D Avanetti "news"."
Well, Mad Maxine, the Far Left, and if course LLR Chuck.
Unexpectedly.
Isn't the Resistance an example of divided government?
Maybe?
I would not like divided government, by the way.
I want both parties to favor limited federal government power, strict constructionist judges, a balanced budget, and a preference for free market economic principles.
But I'd settle for just one. (Goodbye, Paul Ryno.)
Ridiculous wishful thinking. That's like Hitler suggesting General Patton take it easy and wait a year or two for the Russians to attack Germany. The writer underestimates the man he is dealing with.
@Drago, @rcocean, one difference between 2018 and years like 2010, 1994, 1982, etc., is the coattails effect. Trump really didn't have one in 2016 -- the GOP actually lost five seats. Members of the House of Representatives are most vulnerable in their first reelection campaign, much less so later.
If you look at the RealClearPolitics Battle for the House, the Democrats start with 188 seats that are "Likely Democrat" or "Safe Democrat." To get to 218, which would give them control of the House, they have to win 30 more. To win those thirty they have to hold all or most of the 9 seats they currently hold in races that are rated "Leans Democrat" or "Tossup" (they won't) and make up the difference by taking 21 out of 42 seats currently held by Republicans in races that are rated "Leans Democrat" (11 seats) or Tossup" (32 seats). That's a tall order, because in something like 30 of those races the incumbent Republican has survived at least one reelection campaign. And in places like Florida 27, the popular GOP incumbent has retired but is actively campaigning for her successor.
And Democrats are doing everything possible to warn us ahead of time that they are profoundly unserious about governing, from advertising that Maxine Waters is in line for key chairmanships to focusing on impeachment to the exclusion of anything else.
They hate Trump. Yeah, we got that. But do they still also hate the American middle class?
When asked by Chris Wallace today "Why aren't Republicans driving home the message on the economy?"
Brit Hume replied (I think rightly and in 2020 will be magnified on steroids): "Anger, disappointment, outrage are much more powerful vote motivators than satisfaction."
I think Trump welcomes a Demo/Pelosi/Nadler subpoena-littering, stuttering, face freezing daily press conferencing Congress as his battering ram for Campaign 2020, and if it happens this week, we'll see Trump begin the battering -and the Twitter-baiting probably around 3:30AM EST on Wednesday.
I'm not a robot.
There will be pressure from the party’s base to go after Trump
Once again, the term the "party's base" has lost all meaning.
Is it because they are afraid to say "extremists" or "Fringes" or "most angry" when it comes to Democrats? Because I live with a bunch of Democrats who have always been and will always be Democrats, and I don't hear any of them talking about impeachment.
Just as a side note, it is in Trump’s interest to ignore anything and everything written by anyone associated with the Post,
Trump's best world is for the Democrats to win control of the House by one vote. That would give the Democrats an almost useless majority - with the power to conduct investigations, but no power to do anything about them. The base would demand impeachment, but those Democrats who won election in close purple districts would not go along. The Democrats would tear themselves apart.
It depends if the Republicans can resolve progressive costs, address runaway debt, conclude the global adventures, restore market functions, effect emigration reform, and, perhaps, start a conversation about the costs and benefits of selective-child policy.
Every year during Spring Training there are certain articles you know are going to be written. You can actually make Bingo-style cards and put X's over the spaces as they're written by your local paper.
You know there's going to be the:
- Can this guy live up to his new contract article
- Will this guy outperform in his contract year article
- Might this rookie make the 25-man roster article
- Is this the year the fastball pitcher has to lean on his breaking stuff article
- When will the pitcher with Tommy John surgery finally be pitching again article
- Can player X finally put his demons behind him article
And so on, and so on. The sports writers just list the templates on an Excel spreadsheet and fill in the names and particulars for ready-made columns.
It's the same with election reporting. The "Candidate X might be better off with divided government article" had to be written sometime, and today was the day.
BINGO!
@Tank:
"Prudence left the Democrat Party a long time ago."
Did she wise up, or have some other kind of "up" happen to her? Was Gary Hart
involved by any chance?
Just wondering.
"Prudence left the Democrat Party a long time ago."
It was right after her string of meetings with Harvey Weinstein, Bill Clinton, and Louis CK.
...it gives Trump a boogeyman
That would be the winning lead in to "...like a fish needs a bicycle."
"Trump could also blame the Democratic House for his continued failures to live up to his many, many promises.... "
"Continued failures"? I'd like some evidence, but this was written from the perspective of the MSM/DNC narrative. No supporting facts are needed.
I can't wait for Tuesday night.
I agree with Don Surber a very smart guy, here is what he thinks.
"The blue wave is real. The red wave is real. Democrats will get more votes but Republicans will keep the House and the Senate."
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/11/republicans-will-surf-that-blue-wave.html#more
Even the WAPO knows that if the Dems get the majority, it will be because they went and got a lot of moderates to run, just like 2006. How many of these verterans, etc. will fall on their sword like STUpidPAk and the others did?
Funny the WaPo delivers it this way instead of the flip-side, which is every bit as true: that to the extent Democrats want the White House in 2020, they'd be best off if they didn't regain the House in the mid-terms.
@Phidippus (4:18), she joined Blexit.
Asinine comment. Trump would be impeached and few substantive laws would be passed. Democrats would harm America as much as they could.
It's unlikely the Dems could win enough seats in the House to override a Trump veto, or enough seats in the Senate to remove him in case of Impeachment.
I really love it when the Democrats tell Republicans what is in their best interest.
A tie would probably work for him too.
All you need is one vacancy or one independent.
Oh, it's probably true. People in Washington like it best when they don't have to actually do anything, but there's someone to blame. That's why the filibuster lasted so long - you could be in the majority and still blame the other party for the lack of results.
Actually implementing policies is dangerous to you career. Things might not turn out, and you'll get the blame.
Wonder if it’s starting to sink in that if they had supported Trump’s attempts to take care of the people’s interests, instead of the lobbyists, the Republicans would be doing a lot better.
"Reporters use to come from the real world but that's a long time gone, unfortunately."
And good natured contempt for politicians like normal citizens.
Scott: I have no idea whether Republicans can hold the House. For me, it's irrelevant. I'm voting Tuesday. If the Democrats take control, it will be a major annoyance, but not a major crisis.
About how I feel. First-rate jackassery will abound, but not a major crisis.
I notice that some of the usual suspects have been lying low lately. I was thinking of taking bets on what time they'll show up here getting their crazy on on Tuesday night, should the Dems take the House.
Vote Republican.
I want every Democrat to lose.
If the Dems win the House, TDS will be dialed up a lot, but it is already at 11.
It might be fun to watch the Dems and their MSM propaganda wing make even bigger fools of themselves.
I say R's get more than halfway close to Trump's electoral college numbers.
Raise one for me Tuesday.
These are the same idiots that advocate renting a house over buying a house.
It's always better to win, but if you lose it doesn't hurt to look for the silver lining. If the Republicans lose badly in the House and the Senate, the silver lining could be that we'll stop hearing all this magical thinking from Trump supporters that no matter what bone-headed thing he says or does it's a brilliant manuever that will destroy his opponents, just wait and see. Commenters here have even said that they don't bother to vote for Republicans for Congress or Senate, they just vote for Trump. Someone on this thread said that the Republican House doesn't matter because they didn't repeal Obamacare, when in fact the House did vote to repeal Obamacare, but the Senate, with a razor-thin Republican majority (i.e., John McCain) wouldn't go along. The fact is that Trump has done a Hell of a good job as President, helped a lot by the stupidity of his opponents. And he's been improving his performance as he learns more about how the Government works. I'd like to see him succeed "Bigly", but he'll need Republican support in the House and Senate to do so, and he probably won't have that until 2021.
blake makes cilizza, seem like the smart one,
I think the worst consequence of the Dems taking the House would be the decreased chance that there will be a reckoning for the subversive and unprecedented activities of the FBI and the IC. What we already know happened (as in "facts not in dispute") is much worse than Watergate. I suspect there's a LOT still being covered up (e.g., I suspect the British IC took an active role in spying on the Trump campaign, and suspect there's evidence of that in the Page FISA app). There's always Senate committees, but the House committees allegedly overseeing those entities will suddenly find something else to do.
[original comment edited to insert "suspect" between "and" and "there's"]
”I think the worst consequence of the Dems taking the House would be the decreased chance that there will be a reckoning for the subversive and unprecedented activities of the FBI and the IC.”
Yep. Rosenstein et al. have been dragging their feet counting on exactly that.
What a farce. Is there nothing that a young slave-wage BA degree 'journalist' won't write to earn his deservedly meager wages at a place like WAPO? His last paragraph ends: "...he does not seem to ....it would ostensibly be ....who has generally... it is not unreasonable to ask.... if he truly cares...especially if ...could be ......."
What a laugh riot. It sounds like the small print of a financial advice salesman- 'ON THE ONE HAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, STOCKS MAY GO UP OR DOWN, you can't hold me to any of this yada yadda three bags full. These 'journalists' should work the Palm Reader tourism street in Vienna.
A more interesting question is ...'What's a smart woman like you doing' posting junk like this?' Is this just chumming for cheap hits while you - understandably - do something much more interesting while waiting for this GD election to be over so we can turn the page?
Actually I think the Republicans are going to win big Tuesday and it's going to be fun watching the loony tune liberals making asses of themselves again just like 2016.
If the demmies get 99% of the vote in each of 215 House districts and the Repos only get 51% of the vote in each of 220 districts you know what that means, don't you?
We will be forced to hear endless whining about how the demmies "really" won the election, have a popular mandate and so on and that they should get control of the House anyway.
And,
The Repos still control the House
I don't know about the Russians but I've been doing my bit to meddle in the elections. I am too cheap to buy tens of thousands of dollars of Facebook ads but I do what I can. Every little bit helps
I can't wait for Tuesday.
John Henry
I for one think the polls are full of shit and useless.
The other day Don Surber posted that AP (I think it was) had to ask something like 37,000 people to get the 737 responses they needed for a statistically valid poll.
Several here over the past months have told us how they refused to answer when asked by pollsters. Good for you all. I think you need to take it a step further, though.
Lie to them.
If we could get a campaign going to lie to pollsters in 2020, we could make polls worthless. Don't answer and they just keep going till they find someone. Get enough people to sign on to lying and they will not be able to have any confidence in the responses.
Not my idea, Mike Royko's
John Henry
yes, it's gotten very tedious:
https://nypost.com/2018/11/03/latino-voters-in-florida-could-help-republicans-win-in-key-races/
this is what civility looks like:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/snl-sinks-to-new-low-mocks-veteran-and-gop-candidate-who-lost-his-eye-in-afghanistan/
Either way there will be a banshee scream vibrating over this land.
these are presumably our allies,
https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2018/11/taliban-pakistani-military-mourn-death-of-extremist-cleric.php
Translation: Please let us have the House. We won't be the assholes that we have been for the last two years. Honest Inj...um...Word of Honor.
Funny. The Dems are so sure of their Blue Wave that I just got a call from Barak Obama to me, a registered Republican, urging me to vote.
This is costing them a lot of money. Do they really think that The Big 0 calling me is going to flip votes from Trump to 0?
I guess we shall see.
Not happening. Putin is too powerful to let his puppet go down. Happy Halloween Dems
If the Dems take the House, they will impeach Trump.
And he will laugh it off as total nonsense. It will be a HUGE VICTORY for the left.
Most Americans, and Trump, will recognize it for the crock that it is.
The senate will never vote to convict based on anything conjured up by Maxine Waters and Carlos Danger.
It won't make any difference in 2020.
As I said in another thread, what will make a difference will be the massive cheating by D's in battleground states. Ends, means, justification, etc....
After all, they are fighting Nazis.
”If the Dems take the House, they will impeach Trump.”
I hope they do. More than a few Americans who don’t pay much attention to politics will pay attention to that. I expect the general reaction will be WTF?
I think the Ds will win the House - if there was a Red wave / backlash it would be glimpsable in at least the occasional poll. I think that net net that's bad for the country, Trump and the GOP. But fairly marginal. There are pluses and minuses. But with a 60 vote hurdle to break the filibuster in the Senate, there isn't going to be any important leglation passed anyway.
A silver lining for the GOP (if not for Trump) in losing the House, so long as the Rs hold the Senate (preferably with 52 Senators so they don't have to worry about Collins and Murkowski) is that they can confirm judges 24/7, since they won't have anything else to do.
The Senate is the more interesting election. There are 5 seats that are pretty much 50-50, so that if the Rs hold Texas, Tennessee and win North Dakota, they start election night with 50. They could easily finish with 50. Or 55. The difference between 50 and 54 or 55 is yuuuge. Because at say 54, the Ds would know their chances of winning the Senate in 2020 would be pretty small. So that even if they won the White House, they'd be in line for confirmation payback (judges and executive branch nominations) from the Rs. So Schumer's behavior in the next two years would probably improve A LOT. If the Rs finish with 50, obstruction will continue and the Rs will have to pay attention to Collins and Murkowski.
But don't rule out 49 or 56 either. It doesn't take much of a switch from existing polls to get to either place.
In order to impeach - you actually need a reason.
Obstruction of justice because he fired Comey - that's a laugh. and not a reason.
Comey serves at the pleasure of the C.I.C. Plus Comey's behavior was justifiably a fireable offense. Geez- just look at that freak now. He's the most unprofessional hack going. Comey may not be as treacherous as Peter Strozk, but Comey did not play by the rules - he made them up as he went along. No way is that appropriate for the head of the FBI.
I think there is a 10% undercount of Republicans in all the polling. This, alas, does not actually switch many House contests, as only about 9 or so are in that margin of error.
But for the Senate...Kavanaugh was YUGE. Between Kavanaugh and the Karavan (sic), this is political poison for Dems.
Isn't it weird that for two years, we have had one idiot school shooter, a few dozen instances of Dems assaulting Republicans (barely covered) and yet, in OCTOBER we suddenly get one impotent goofball sending stupid bombs and another idiot who shoots two women.
Statistically, how probable is that?
”In order to impeach - you actually need a reason.”
Hell, Inga alone could make up ten without breaking a sweat.
There’s a lotta good citizens out there who mostly vote Dem and call themselves “Democrats”. I was one for many years, many of my family members fit this bill.
The problem is with the Democratic political machine. These people are horrendous. Even the modest-sounding ones on TV are enablers for this hideous machine. They simply don’t buy the American experiment. They don’t believe in capitalism, Judeo-Christianity, man and female relations, the Constiution. They want power to run the show - and they insist the show be a weird hybrid of aetheism, socialism and bisexuality, with 2 sacraments: unlimited abortion and gay marriage.
Very few sane, healthy people buy this, yet the machine keeps rolling on.
This ad is for Inga
#Jobs not Mobs.
What's the over/under on the number of hours after the Dems re-take the House before Pelosi declares it a mandate for impeachment of Trump?
@Lee Moore,
I think the Ds will win the House - if there was a Red wave / backlash it would be glimpsable in at least the occasional poll.
I agree with your analysis of the Senate, but I think the R's will hold the House by a slim margin. The reason why is sort of the obverse of what you said -- if there was a Blue Wave we'd be seeing much higher favorabilities for specific Dems & Dems in general, and we're not.
The only "Blue Wave" that snuck up on people was the incredibly high turnout of black & Latin voters for Obama in 2008, which exceeded polled numbers in both percentages & actual votes. That Wave makes perfect sense in retrospect.
As 2016 showed "Shy Trumpers" are everywhere, and they are somehow incredibly talented at staying under the polling radar. The Trumpies & Republicans in general were supposed to be suffering from flagging enthusiasm by now & they're not. The incredible economy, the Central American caravan, & the Kavanaugh hearings have got them all fired up, & they're mostly middle-aged & white, who vote in reliably high percentages.
The Democrats have little, except in local house races, to extend to their minority base to get them fired up & to the polls. Try as the white liberals have, they just can't seem to get the blacks & Latinos heavily invested in loathing Trump, especially in the face of those job numbers. The White Liberals are boiling mad over Trump & will vote in large numbers, but they are 1) too geographically concentrated & 2) too few unless strongly backed by their minority allies to turn the tide in "purple" districts.
That's my story, & I'm sticking with it until the facts smack me in the face Wednesday morning.
Lee Moore:
If Althouse allowed wagers on her site I would be inclined to let you set the betting line on the Senate. And I would take your over.
The MSM is going to be aghast at the Senate results.
In order to impeach - you actually need a reason.
The likelier scenario is not impeachment. It is impeachment investigations -- hearings and testimony and subpoenas for documents and all sorts of mischief.
EXAMPLE:
The Cook Political Report (reliably left of center) thinks Democrats will gain seats because of their fundraising advantage. And they think that after Hillary outspent Trump 3-1. They think Democrats, the party of billionaires, will win because of money.
The Cook Political Report doesn't think Democrats are supported so much in the polls, mind you. But they think money is a proxy for votes. And they think that because Democrats pretend they are the party of the middle class - which was never true and is manifestly untrue now.
Cook will be wrong in 2018 because they learned nothing from 2016.
It has just struck me that Trump is the Democrat's Clinton.
Just bear with me.
A pretty corrupt grifter
Who can't keep his pants zipped
but has this magic for making people ignore all his corrupt practices.
And when Republicans were absolutely unable to remove this person, the Democrats just smiled smugly and said 'Suck it!'
Except...we had James McDougal mysteriously die in prison before he could testify.
We had HUNDREDS of Chinese flee the country when subpoenas started showing up.
And we never ever had any investigation of Chinese Collusion with monstrously more evidence.
But as we come up to Election Day, I have a smug smile on my face and I say 'Ain't Karma a bitch!'
Except our guy isn't a rapist.
FIDO,
To be fair, Trump does not need to lose the House to get the economy on track.
He has that over Billy Jeff.
For pro-lifers, the Senate is way more important than the House. Not even close.
Trump will pick up the pace on judicial nominations if he loses the House.
He will have 30% of the judges on the courts at his current pace.
No shit, Sherlock. Two years of Democrat congressional ravings and Trump is a lead-pipe cinch for re-election. Plus they lose their majority in Congress and fall even further behind in the Senate. Madness tends to be progressive, no pun intended.
50 points is the only part they left out:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2018/11/04/abc-anchor-trump-so-unpopular-why-not-blowout
Saint Croix said...
For pro-lifers, the Senate is way more important than the House. Not even close.
So the people that want to use the government to tell people what to do aren't all democrats. Not really news.
You guys are so into telling people what to do with government power. You really shouldn't get mad when the democrats do it.
The constitution is just as clear about the federal government's role in banning abortion as it is about the federal government's role in protecting abortion.
Just like marriage and almost everything else.
It would be really cool if you guys figured out what big church small government meant.
But alas...
Said the Cheshire cat:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/04/sunday-talks-saudi-prince-al-waleed-bin-talal-interviewed-by-maria-bartiromo/#comments
#Boobs not mobs
Calm down, Achilles.
Rewinding judicial activism does not make one activist.
Restricting government behavior to constitutional limits is the goal.
Removing abortion from the federal purview is returning to the Constitution.
The states should be in charge of a helluva lot.
Then you see what gosnell was enabled by Tom ridge and you wonder is this what pro choice means?
I support PB&J.
Boobs > Mobs
“EXAMPLE:
The Cook Political Report (reliably left of center) thinks Democrats will gain seats because of their fundraising advantage. And they think that after Hillary outspent Trump 3-1. They think Democrats, the party of billionaires, will win because of money.
The Cook Political Report doesn't think Democrats are supported so much in the polls, mind you. But they think money is a proxy for votes. And they think that because Democrats pretend they are the party of the middle class - which was never true and is manifestly untrue now.”
When we were in MT, you saw Tester ads back to back sometimes. Now seeing the same with Senema here in AZ. The amazing thing to me is how one can call her opponent a lyre, and in the next one, she can be talking about how she is hard on immigration and a better friend to the military than her retired A-10 pilot opponent. My guess is that the Dems are at least outspending their opponents 2-1, if you include all the dark money and PACs. Funniest ad was Tester, #1 in dark money contributions, complaining about the dark money backing his opponent. Still, if money matters, the Dems will win a lot of these contests because of their enormous money advantage.
Bruce Hayden,
I expect both of us are outliers, as it were.
But advertising largely does not work. As much as anything, advertising is about not losing as it is about winning.
That's where the research leads.
Lee Moore said...
I think the Ds will win the House - if there was a Red wave / backlash it would be glimpsable in at least the occasional poll. I think that net net that's bad for the country, Trump and the GOP. But fairly marginal. There are pluses and minuses. But with a 60 vote hurdle to break the filibuster in the Senate, there isn't going to be any important leglation passed anyway.
It always amazes me that people think the polls are anything other than propaganda.
The places doing all of the polls on RCP are all owned by about 20 people.
They are a joke.
And Republicans have better than even odds of 60 seats in the senate this election.
The 50 seats that "lean" or are "safe" will have double digit spreads.
Of the 6 "toss ups" only Nevada is a real toss up and that is because they are busing in so many illegal voters from California.
Indiana, Arizona, Florida, Montana, and Missouri are solid Republican. That is 55.
Minnesota 2, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and New Jersey are the real toss ups.
Ohio went for Trump by 10 points. West Virginia by 30 or 40.
Minnesota has a 2 time wife beater and leader of the Dem party on the ballot and has been trending Red for a long time.
New Jersey is going to cause real indigestion for democrats as somewhere around 25% of black people vote for Menendez's opponent. Menendez likes the youngest, newest girls. It is impossible to vote for a piece of shit like that if you have a soul.
Michigan has a very solid Republican candidate you would be hearing more about if he were a democrat.
John James is tall, good looking, a very good speaker, and black. He is actually capable without a teleprompter.
He is a much better candidate than Obama was. People are going to be surprised as shit at what happens in Michigan.
Birkel said...
Calm down, Achilles.
Rewinding judicial activism does not make one activist.
Restricting government behavior to constitutional limits is the goal.
Removing abortion from the federal purview is returning to the Constitution.
The states should be in charge of a helluva lot.
I would love to calm down.
But all I hear from "conservatives" is "Ban all third trimester abortions!11!!1" and who were the people that voted for the "Defense of Marriage Act" in congress?
Republicans are right about trimming back leftist Judicial Activism.
They are wrong about their own overreach. Even at the state level they should be trying to role back the power of the state government over their lives.
But no. They seem to be all about telling people what to do using government power.
If you want women to stop having abortions get them into Church. Make people better people who on their own will make the right decision.
Throwing doctors and women in jail is stupid. Banning a procedure and using police power to enforce a moral choice is the wrong way to build a citizenry capable of living in a free society.
Saint C : For pro-lifers, the Senate is way more important than the House. Not even close.
Achilles : So the people that want to use the government to tell people what to do aren't all democrats. Not really news.
This makes no sense at all. The judicial wars about abortion haven't got anything to do with conjuring a constitutional ban on abortion out of the misty penumbrae of a conservative Constitution. They're about which side you're on, on your own point:
The constitution is just as clear about the federal government's role in banning abortion as it is about the federal government's role in protecting abortion.
The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, pro or con. A Senate which confirms Judges who pay attention to what the Constitution actually says is hardly the enemy of limited government.
@Lee Moore, over in the RealClearPolitics site I linked to upthread (3:52) there has been a slow drift of races from “Leans Democrat” to “Toss Up.” That’s evidence of a sort that the blue wave is not much of a wave.
Banning a procedure and using police power to enforce a moral choice is the wrong way to build a citizenry capable of living in a free society
Lots of laws, very properly, try to enforce a moral choice. Laws against murder, rape, assault, robbery, fraud etc. They can be distinguished from laws against, say, blasphemy, drug taking by the fact that the former also enforce the liberties of other people, while the latter do not.
Abortion laws fall into the former category if you believe that two humans are involved in an abortion and into the latter category if you belive that only one is involved. This is not therefore an argument about when, as a general principle, laws are morally justifiable to a liberty minded person (ie when they do not merely enforce a moral choice, but are required to protect another person's liberty.) It's an argument about whether the abortee is a human morally entitled to at least some of the same rights as other humans. Consequently you can only abuse people who want to encode their pro-lifery into law, of illiberal hypocrisy, if they espouse pro-life laws even if they believe that a fetus is a just morally unimportant clump of cells, and that abortion should be banned not to protect fetuses but to regulate female sexual behavior. Such folk may exist, but then, so may unicorns.
What I am looking forward to on Wednesday is the end of all the wishcasting.
Achilles,
I understand your frustration with big government conservatives. Really, I do. And those types will be disappointed with Trump's originality judicial nominees.
But if Trump ends up nominating 40% or more of the federal bench, conservatives like you and me will have a bulwark set against the Democrats' unconstitutional power grabs. That will be a lasting Trump legacy!
Be hopeful and know that the Senate should be safe. (And we can agree on better than that on Wednesday!)
...originalist judicial nominees...
Achilles : And Republicans have better than even odds of 60 seats in the senate this election
That's not what the actual betting markets think, where 52 is the current median bet. If the 5 toss ups, the R odds of winning are currently : Nevada 38.5%, Arizona 55.4%, Missouri 55.0%, Indiana 46.5%, Florida 45.0%.
So knock youself out an win a huge pile of money by betting on the Rs winning all these. And you could get stupendous odds against the Rs getting to 60.
Lee Moore,
Those odds are not independent. I would bet all five toward Republicans if I could get odds.
Lee Moore said...
Consequently you can only abuse people who want to encode their pro-lifery into law, of illiberal hypocrisy, if they espouse pro-life laws even if they believe that a fetus is a just morally unimportant clump of cells, and that abortion should be banned not to protect fetuses but to regulate female sexual behavior. Such folk may exist, but then, so may unicorns.
No.
If you take a poll on muder, rape, theft, fraud etc you will get 99% agreement it should be illegal. Approximately 95% of those people are honest and want themselves and everyone to abide by those laws.
If you take a poll on whether a blastocyst deserves legal protection you will get somewhere around 40% at most. An embedded fetus maybe 50%. 3 month old fetus more. 6 month old fetus more. But not more than a solid majority at any point.
There are solid arguments against giving a fetus at various points in development legal protection that reasonable people can make.
Trying to compare abortion to murder is wrong not just factually and realistically. It also creates a situation where there can be no common ground with people you disagree with.
More importantly though is your strategy of using the police state to impose your morality not only undermines the common space. It also undermines the very reliance on individual virtue that is the core of a free society.
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
The point is to make Caesar less important than God. But you all just can't let go when you get power over other people.
A human life evolves from conception. A coherent nervous system forms around one month. Pro-Choice is two choices too late. Selective-child and recycled-child (e.g. Planned Parenthood) are violations of both human and civil rights.
The Constitution denies summary judgments. It denies cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution affirmatively denies elective abortion (i.e. selective-child) for causes other than self-defense. The Constitution affirmatively denies recycled-child, torture, and other cruel and unusual activities.
The Twilight Amendment a.k.a. "penumbra" was "passed" as a compromise. However, unlike one-child, selective-child has been normalized in a significant minority of the general population, and in order to avoid a civil war in a divided nation, the twilight fringe enforce the wicked solution, thereby corrupting the black letter of the law. Predictably, the collateral damage from a selective, opportunistic, and politically congruent cult, is not limited to the practitioners and their immediate victims.
"Trying to compare abortion to murder is wrong not just factually and realistically."
Not to mention that when folks keep sayin' this is murder, there are unavoidable logic-implications re the accomplice re the murder, i.e. the one who ordered the hit. And that confuses flim-flam con folks: https://www.vox.com/2016/3/30/11333472/trump-abortions-punishment-women
Oh I agree, they're not independent at all. If they were independent, then the odds of all five going the same way would be about 3%.
You can obviously bet on all 5 individually but if you want to bet on all five together
you can get odds on how many seats the Rs finish up with. They show about a 10% chance of the Rs getting 55 seats, and about another 10% chance of them getting more than 55 seats. So if you want to bet on the Rs winning all five of the toss ups, bet on all the R scores on or over 55 and you'll get odds of about 20% or so, rather than the 3% I mentioned above.
For the same reason, if all the Senate races were independent, the odds of the Rs losing the Senate would be microscopic. But since they're not independent, those odds are much higher than microscopic. So for example it's unlikely (maybe 20% chance) that Cruz loses Texas. But if he does lose, then the odds are strongly that the Ds will win all five toss ups. Hence the odds of the Rs losing control of the Senate are currently about 15%.
Lee Moore said...
So knock youself out an win a huge pile of money by betting on the Rs winning all these. And you could get stupendous odds against the Rs getting to 60.
I am on predictit right now.
There are margins to be made here.
I am trying to find out what their cut/margin is.
Oooh they want some pretty serious personal information and they want permission to check against a federal dbase...
You're missing the point, Achilles.
The 90% plus who think murder should be illegal think the murderee is a human being with moral rights which are infringed by the murder.
The 40% who think abortion should be illegal think the abortee is a human being with moral rights which are infringed by the abortion. The other folk don't.
Whether folk who think abortion should be illegal becase the abortee is a human being are being hypocritical has got nothing to do with what other people think about the abortee's moral rights - it's to do what what the pro-lifers think. The law may be arrived at by summing the moral opinions of the voting public, but each individual's view of the moral question is a matter for him or her. Surely a small government conservative can see that ?
n.n said...
A human life evolves from conception. A coherent nervous system forms around one month. Pro-Choice is two choices too late. Selective-child and recycled-child (e.g. Planned Parenthood) are violations of both human and civil rights.
The Constitution denies summary judgments. It denies cruel and unusual punishment. The Constitution affirmatively denies elective abortion (i.e. selective-child) for causes other than self-defense. The Constitution affirmatively denies recycled-child, torture, and other cruel and unusual activities.
Boy you really want Caesar to make that judgment.
You really want to take that power from god and give it to the government.
But that is God's judgment.
Abortion was not in the 10 commandments no matter how hard you try to put it there.
Get people to church. Make them better people who make the right decision.
Do not ask Caesar to make everyone do the right thing.
Sometimes Caesar makes you do what other people want.
I am trying to find out what their cut/margin is
It looks to me like you can buy 60+ R seats for 6-7 cents, or sell for 94 cents. So their cut looks to be in the 1-2 cent range. Obviously a bit more for outlandish bets like 60+ R seats, where the market will be very thin.
Lee Moore said...
You're missing the point, Achilles.
No I am not. I have seen your point a million times.
You want to give power to Caesar.
Power than can and has been turned on you by others.
Freedom requires messy things. Things that make you uncomfortable.
It is easy for you to sit up on high and tell people what to do when they don't want to do it.
It is hard for you to meet people and make them better people who make good decisions and do the right thing of their own accord.
But the latter is infinitely better for a free society. You are just creating a police state with your rules rather than the leftists rules.
O'Rourke will be an answer on jeopardy like wendy davis, Nevada I'm not sure about the machine that kept Reid in office for 30 years I don't think is finished.
oof home address... first and last... I am looking at 6-10x on my money though...
narciso said...
O'Rourke will be an answer on jeopardy like wendy davis, Nevada I'm not sure about the machine that kept Reid in office for 30 years I don't think is finished.
If Beto loses by single digits I will be surprised.
Nevada is a low population state with a lot of rich democrats busing people over and a very wealthy and corrupt establishment.
New Jersey is more likely to go republican than Nevada I am afraid.
"The 40% who think abortion should be illegal think the abortee is a human being with moral rights which are infringed by the abortion."
Infringed by the abortion? So passive re culpability. No, the rights are infringed by the gal who is making the abortion happen. But, why isn't she a murderer or at least an accomplice to the murder since she is choosing the so-called murder? We don't put S&W in jail when a bandit uses gun to wack a widow. The perp is the one who chooses to murder, not the weapon of choice. Choosing to be a murder is not good = logic.
Trump could change his party affiliation tomorrow, though I suppose it wouldn't make sense before 2020. What a gas, man! Trump runs as a Democrat in 2020. Beautiful, he should do it.
Achilles:
Human rights is a secular religious/moral philosophy. The evolution of human life is not subject to a theistic or atheistic faith. This is not about control, unless the source of human life is believed to be the twilight fringe. This is about identifying and setting boundaries for human behaviors. The general consensus is that a life should not be electively aborted unless for causes of self-defense. The "wicked solution" is another "compromise" in the manner of the original compromise in order to avoid a Civil War in a divided nation. Because selective-child, unlike one-child, represents normalization in a significant minority of the population, and unlike slavery, the victims cannot be isolated from their oppressors, it will require both legal and moral reform, corporate (e.g. Planned Parenthood) censure, and other remedies for cover-ups (e.g. immigration reform, insourcing) that have reduced visibility of the collateral damage. Elective abortion (a.k.a. "Planned Parenthood) is a wicked solution to an albeit hard problem.
blastocyst
Fetus, offspring, baby... blastocyst (is it malignant?), that's a new one. The semantic play serves to reduce the humanity of the baby in some eyes, but it doesn't change the parameters of a human life. The reason why selective-child is practiced under a layer of privacy, and why the new life is dehumanized, is to build up tolerance of the wicked solution. Anyway, we should probably avoid a civil war, and it won't produce a sustainable outcome anyway. So, baby steps.
me : You're missing the point, Achilles.
Achilles No I am not. I have seen your point a million times
And one more time. "Oh yes you are."
You want to give power to Caesar.
But you're supposed to render unto Caesar, the things which are Caesar's ! And the question is - precisely - does the regulation of abortion fall into Caesar territory or not ? And looking at the question from a pro liberty point of view, whether the regulation of abortion is properly within Caesar's territory depends fundamentally on the moral status of the abortee.
Which is a question on which opinions can reasonably differ. But if you hold the opinion that a fetus has an important moral status and so conclude that the regulation of abortion is within Caesar's territory, then you are not being hypocritical if you also profess youself pro-liberty.
Of course, even if you believe that fetuses are proper human beings, you might still reject the regulation of abortion on prudential grounds, if the majority of the popuation disagrees with you. A good law must not merely be morally justifiable, it also has to be practically enforceable. In the same way, in a society which allowed slavery, and in which the majority supported it, you might conclude that agitating for laws to prevent cruel treatment of slaves would be wiser than demanding an immediate ban. Because you might be able to achieve it.
Phidippus said...
Lefty encouraging Republicans to relax and sleep in on Tuesday.
Won't work. Nice try, though.
It really doesn't matter because House of Representative politics are local and the GOP faces too many tossups in seats they now hold - over 40 according to RealClearPolitics.
With one day left before the election, FiveThirtyEight puts Dem chances for control at 6 in 7 (85.8%).
I bought 50 shares of Dwayne Johnson for democrat nominee 2020. 1c each.
Lee Moore said...
Of course, even if you believe that fetuses are proper human beings, you might still reject the regulation of abortion on prudential grounds, if the majority of the popuation disagrees with you. A good law must not merely be morally justifiable, it also has to be practically enforceable. In the same way, in a society which allowed slavery, and in which the majority supported it, you might conclude that agitating for laws to prevent cruel treatment of slaves would be wiser than demanding an immediate ban. Because you might be able to achieve it.
The biggest problem with people who want the government to tell people they can't have abortions is you take positions like me not letting the government ban abortion is the same as supporting slavery.
It is ridiculous.
If you really wanted to protect fetuses you would go volunteer at the adoption support centers. You would go meet with young women who are being misled by our mandatory government education system and help them become better people. You would get them into church groups and help them learn how to make better choices.
Or you can start throwing doctors and women in jail.
Jesus would encourage one of these paths.
Except there is a whole structure designed to prevent that from happening, it's not just law but media
https://mobile.twitter.com/__Arthur_Dent__/status/1059078242953584641
But the deeper thought is correct its not merely the deed but the thought behind it
gadfly said...
It really doesn't matter because House of Representative politics are local and the GOP faces too many tossups in seats they now hold - over 40 according to RealClearPolitics.
With one day left before the election, FiveThirtyEight puts Dem chances for control at 6 in 7 (85.8%).
These "polls" are for stupid people.
There are millions of real results already cast.
Republicans held the house while losing the national popular vote by 3 million. At this point in 2016 they were saying the same stupid things.
We are going to see what happens when republicans win the national popular vote.
It would be much like the last 15 minutes of kingsman.
The constitution is just as clear about the federal government's role in banning abortion as it is about the federal government's role in protecting abortion.
Wanting to over turn Roe(easily one of the three worst Supreme Court decisions ever) does not necessarily mean you want to ban abortion. (I will grant you that most people who oppose Roe do want to ban abortion.) Regardless, the federal government's current position is not neutral, as you apparently believe it should be. The status quo is a federally protected right to an abortion. Overturning Roe would simply restore the federal government to a neutral position.
I personally believe it is within a state's purview to ban abortion if that's what the people want. If we live in a time when the government can send me to jail for giving someone else a plastic straw, I don't see how preventing the killing of the unborn can be seen as a step too far.
Well, this will be interesting.
You are getting 4 to 1 betting against Manchin right now.
7.00 on 60 or more republicans pays out $90.
Gahrie said...
I personally believe it is within a state's purview to ban abortion if that's what the people want. If we live in a time when the government can send me to jail for giving someone else a plastic straw, I don't see how preventing the killing of the unborn can be seen as a step too far.
I hope you at least see that wanting to use the state to ban abortion leads to stupidity like throwing people in jail for using plastic straws.
You think it is different. But who made you god?
Oh that is right. You all think you are more righteous than they are.
I will quote "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone."
And you will all promptly ignore that and march right down the slippery slope into government bans on plastic straws.
And not notice the irony.
Achilles : The biggest problem with people who want the government to tell people they can't have abortions is you take positions like me not letting the government ban abortion is the same as supporting slavery.
Well, the bad news is that you're still missing the point. The good news is that at least it's a different point that you're missing !
The point of the slavery illustration is to illuminate the point that thinking something is immoral, and that it is something that is properly within Caesar's territory, is not of itself sufficient to make banning it a wise policy. You also have to believe that banning it is reasonably practical. The point has got nothing to do with some equivalence between abortion and slavery.
If there is an argument based on some similarity between abortion and slavery, it's a completely different one - to do with the moral status of the abortee and the moral status of the slave. For large chunks of human history, people were reasonably comfortable with the idea that slaves were not morally entitled to the same sort of legal protections as citizens. Either because they were thought to be subhuman, or because they were foreigners (and so inferior) or because they had forfeited their status by being defeated and captured. Some societies treated slaves as mere chattels, some societies afforded them some, but inferior, legal protections.
The argument that early state humans are not morally entitled to any legal protection because they are not quite human beings yet is similar. It's OK to treat these things as subhumans, because....they are ! (Note that although the moral argument is similar, that doesn't mean the premisses are the same. You can perfectly well hold that a slave is fully a human being with rights, but a human blastocyst is not.)
I hope you at least see that wanting to use the state to ban abortion leads to stupidity like throwing people in jail for using plastic straws.
You think it is different. But who made you god?
What is the reason for, and purpose of, government if not to protect the lives of the people?
Getting people into church is good and so is government protecting the lives of its citizens. Why shouldn’t we have both?
The argument that early state humans are not morally entitled to any legal protection because they are not quite human beings yet is similar. It's OK to treat these things as subhumans, because....they are ! (Note that although the moral argument is similar, that doesn't mean the premisses are the same. You can perfectly well hold that a slave is fully a human being with rights, but a human blastocyst is not.)
You want to confer human rights at conception.
Every woman who has a miscarriage should go to jail.
Got it.
You cling to the belief that you are just as morally correct as people who fought against slavery and the people you disagree with are just as bad as slave holders.
It is garbage.
You deserve it when your local government tells you you have to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
You are taking the position the government has that power.
Achilles, while I agree with you on most issues, your position on abortion is totally obtuse. It is not a question of libertarianism. Your position that it is "ridiculous" to consider abortion to be murder just makes you pro-choice, that's all. To someone who does believe it is murder, and doesnt care at all that you think it is ridiculous to do so, that person is not violating any small government principles by seeking laws against it. Your argument simply begs the question that abortion isn't murder. Take away that assumption, and your argument boils down literally to nothing more than libertarians must oppose laws against murder.
And I see you've abandoned all reason with the absurd "all women wh9 have miscarriages must go to jail" strawman. Wow. Amazing to see someone who sees through the Left's bullshit in all other ways still completely brainwashed by it and using their same bullshit tactics and strawmen to back it up in another.
Every woman who has a miscarriage should go to jail.
While all abortions are homicides, not all homicides are crimes.
Gahrie said...
I hope you at least see that wanting to use the state to ban abortion leads to stupidity like throwing people in jail for using plastic straws.
You think it is different. But who made you god?
What is the reason for, and purpose of, government if not to protect the lives of the people?
You are wrong for two primary reasons.
1. You made a judgment about when life starts. Other people made a different judgment.
You are not talking about protecting life at this point. You are talking about forcing other people to accept your judgment.
You want to turn it into protecting life so you can justify using the government to force people to do what you want.
People banning plastic straws feel exactly the same moral certainty you do.
2. Your solution will not save life. It will drive the practice underground and create a situation where people feel coerced and oppressed.
If you want to save life you will go help the mainly poor and alone women who are in situations without the support and guidance you were given.
You will support them and guide them. You will get them to church where they will find more help and support. You will get them in situations where they find a male companion to help them raise the kids.
This will actually work. Throwing women and doctors in jail shouldn't even make you feel good.
Qwinn said...
And I see you've abandoned all reason with the absurd "all women wh9 have miscarriages must go to jail" strawman. Wow. Amazing to see someone who sees through the Left's bullshit in all other ways still completely brainwashed by it and using their same bullshit tactics and strawmen to back it up in another.
He conflated fighting slavery with fighting abortion.
If you all want to get retarded I can show you how retarded you are.
You are not on some holy crusade. If you were you would go volunteer at an adoption clinic.
Achilles : You want to confer human rights at conception.
No, as it happens, I don't. I'm just explaining to you what the moral arguments are.
You need to learn to separate your feelings from your arguments. By all means pack the feelings back in again later, once you've got the logic clear. But if you keep the feelings mixed in all along, you just get stuck in a mush and can't follow a logcal train of thought.
There's a case for arguing for full human rights at conception. There's a case for arguing against. And theres a case for somethng in between. And there are similar cases for rights at later stages of development. As it happens, based on the current understanding of fetal development, I currently come down on zero fetal moral rights for the first trimester, and pretty much full rights for the third; with the second currently being a zone of mystery.
Every woman who has a miscarriage should go to jail
This is just silly. Even for homicide you have to be culpable. Miscarriages are hardly ever wilfully induced.
Good training for the real, and extremely complicated, moral arguments about abortion is to postulate that at some point in the future doctors and scientists will work out how safely to remove a fetus from a woman's uterus and place it in an external incubator, where it can be brought safely to term. In such circumstances would a woman's right be merely to expel the fetus into an incubator. Or to have it killed in utero and then expelled ? And in each case, why ? You may write on both sides of the paper.
It has been fun, but if you haven't gotten the point by now there is not point.
Jesus would tell you to go down and help those women.
He would not tell you to go petition Caesar to throw them in jail. But have fun getting Caesar to throw people in jail because they disagree with your holy crusade.
I have 3 weeks to make this happen:
Makefile.build | 4
devices/timer.c | 42 ++
threads/init.c | 5
threads/interrupt.c | 2
threads/thread.c | 31 +
threads/thread.h | 37 +-
userprog/exception.c | 12
userprog/pagedir.c | 10
userprog/process.c | 319 +++++++++++++-----
userprog/syscall.c | 545 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
userprog/syscall.h | 1
vm/frame.c | 162 +++++++++
vm/frame.h | 23 +
vm/page.c | 297 ++++++++++++++++
vm/page.h | 50 ++
vm/swap.c | 85 ++++
vm/swap.h | 11
17 files changed, 1532 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
I am not optimistic.
And if some peoplw think blacks aren't human, and therefore it's okay to keep them as slaves, we should respect their position? And if we don't, if we insist that the black person is human, then its all just a power trip and we want to force them to accept our judgment for the pure thrill of it? No poasible way there could be a sound principle behind it, right?
That's why the comparison is made. It is literally the same argument made leading up to the Civil War. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debatea. There's a huge stretch of it where if you directly replace the word abortion with slavery, it is the exact same argument we're having now.
So I have:
$14 spread between 57 to 60 or more republicans in the senate. Nets 50-90
17 on stabenow losing nets 91.70.
13 on manchin losing nets 46.30
11 on menendez losing nets 46.30
8 on baldwin losing nets 90.80
1.50 on casey losing nets 22.65
5 on RCP demcrat congressional edge dropping below 6.6% on 11/5 nets 45.50
28.90 on dems in house < 217 pays 79.39.
Screwed up on the last one. dems not taking the house doesn't pay very well and I wasn't thinking when I put 100 in. 3 to 1 is ok for such an easy bet but getting 5 to 1 on stabenow losing.
Qwinn said...
That's why the comparison is made. It is literally the same argument made leading up to the Civil War. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debatea. There's a huge stretch of it where if you directly replace the word abortion with slavery, it is the exact same argument we're having now.
Throwing women in jail is just like ending slavery.
Just like it.
Exactly like it.
Literally the same thing.
Sorry. I realize you will never get it. I have things to do.
How to enforce it is a completely separate issue. The Lincoln Douglas debates weren't about the legal consequences for slavers. It was about the principle of human rights. We *could* discuss enforcement, but what's the point when you've already decreed from *your* high and holy vantage point that any belief that a fetus has human rights is "ridiculous" in the first place? Trying to make it about enforcement when you won't even concede the slightest shred of legitimacy to the principle, and declare anyone who defends the principle as a statist hypocrite, is a really good way to get people who otherwise side with you on almost everything else to realize you're pretty much a pussy hat wearing asshole screaming "keep your laws off her body!" if the topic at hand is one where you decided to let the Left do all your thinking for you.
Stuck bitcoin transactions are annoying as you have no idea how much time it will take to get confirmed. To clear your transaction immediately, you can knock the doors of well-adroit professionals who can provide required assistance to you. The experts can provide best solution but you have to reach them immediately. You can dial HitBTC support phone number +1833-228-1682 and get in touch with the experts. It is a 24*7 available service so you can contact them anytime as there is no time-barriers.
Official Website Visit Here- https://www.cryptophonesupport.com/exchange/hitbtc/
Instead of blaming a black thug, Susan Smith coulda said that the water did it. The logic is that a woman choosing to kill her kids (who exist at conception, we are told) isn't to be held accountable, only implementation is guilty.
Good thing I'm good to my mom.
Qwinn said...
How to enforce it is a completely separate issue. The Lincoln Douglas debates weren't about the legal consequences for slavers. It was about the principle of human rights.
You don't want to discuss it because it makes it clear what you are about. You are about telling other people what to do.
It is about the feelings we all get when we feel superior to another person in some way and we force them to abide by our dictates.
If it was about saving life you would choose a different path.
We *could* discuss enforcement, but what's the point when you've already decreed from *your* high and holy vantage point that any belief that a fetus has human rights is "ridiculous" in the first place?
You cannot argue this issue in good faith.
I never said what my belief was about the rights of a fetus or when life starts. I only posited that there are reasonable arguments for placing when life starts at different points in development.
There are many good and decent people that put that point somewhere other than conception for solid reasons. But you require all people who disagree with you to be disgusting immoral inhuman monsters that kill children.
You do this because your position is completely out of line with what Jesus taught.
Jesus would have told you to go help those women make better choices.
You want to throw people in jail and feel good about yourself.
Obvious disconnect.
anti-de Sitter space said...
Instead of blaming a black thug, Susan Smith coulda said that the water did it. The logic is that a woman choosing to kill her kids (who exist at conception, we are told) isn't to be held accountable, only implementation is guilty.
Good thing I'm good to my mom.
It is interesting that you believe you belong in or contribute meaningfully to this discussion.
Achilles, I'm agnostic, so you can take.your obvious "you must be a Christian hypocrite" tactic (also lifted purely from the Left, I'll note) and shove it up your pussy wearing ass.
Again, whether I want to "throw people in jail", or who I want to do that to, hasn't even entered the discussion. I haven't said a word about it. Every word you 've said on the subject is a strawwan. I'm still stuck on the point ehere you insist that people disagree on when life begins so we are morally bound to completely abandon our position in favor of yours and let the killing continue or else we're control freaks. Kiss my ass.
And your whole "If you really cared you'd be out there helping pregnant teenage girls" shtick is also bullshit. Since you yourself are not visiting the streets of Chicago attempting to broker peace between the various gangs, this means you don't really care about the gang shootings and your support for throwing those gang members who kill each other in jail is just you being a control freak. What a crock of shit.
Good thing there's no such things as victims or else I'd feel something.
Good thing.
Everybody knows you can't be a victim if you had a helicopter.
Everybody.
Achilles feels demanding everyone pay for abortions at the eventual point of a government gun also paid for by taxpayers so chronies can buy Lambos is less problematic than not demanding everyone pay for abortions, but why?
Because Jesus freaks and their stupid hypocrisy!
The 10th includes abortion as it is not a federal limited enumerated power ergo Achilles is wrong. Or show it enumerated. Simple. But some ratchets are more equal than others.
Time for cliche moronic name-calling bro, the freaks aren't understanding why when their money is taken and used, their pocket picked, they have no reasonable basis to object.
My problem with R v W, etc, is that 5 male Justices took the decision away from the people when an abortion turns into murder.
Let's take one of my normal side treks. Over the last several decades there has been a shift in the laws of the states in favor of self defense negating criminal culpability. For example, probably over 40 states have abrogated the Retreat Doctrine, after significant abuse by prosecutors, who would use it to incarcerate people with otherwise good self defense claims, all because they couldn't see a safe route to retreat, having seconds to decide, not the months the prosecutor had to discover such an avenue of retreat. This fight has essentially been legislature by legislature, stare by state. Which is, I think, how it should be. Similarly, and further along, the burden of proof has shifted from preponderance of the evidence on the defendant, to beyond a reasonable doubt on the pros caution in 49 states now. We have seen over the last twenty years or so a major shift in gun rights and regulation. My concealed carry permits allow me to carry a concealed firearm in a large majority of the states. As with self defense, the battle is state by state.
What has happened with abortion in this country is that 5 men in black robes effectively short circuited the discussion on the point at which abortion turns from a medical procedure into murder. The various legislatures get to decide for their states the point at which self defense becomes murder, but not the point at which abortion turns into murder. It is the extraordinarily undemocratic nature of the discussion that is driving the discussion and discord almost a half century later. Making things worse, the left very well knows that the current status quo would be overturned in a heartbeat, if the d vision were ever returned to the people. My prediction is that most, or at least a significant majority, would continue to allow 1st term abortions. But faced with the reality of what is involved with 3rd term abortions, probably even more states would ban such as murder. If delivered at that point, instead of aborted, most of the babies could expect normal lives.
The left know with a certainty that what they gained through clever lawyering, they would lose much of if the decision were ever returned to the states. Which is why they lie, cheat, and credibly threaten violence to keep these Supreme Court decisions from returning to the states for democratic solutions. Chairman Grassly has already referred two false claimants and one attorney to the DoJ for lying about sexual abuse by (now) Justice Kavenaugh. It turns out that the Ford allegations are looking sketchier. She drafted her allegations while visiting her best friend in DE, who is a retired FBI attorney, who had been the information officer for Preet Bahara when he had been SDNY USA under Obama. And her attorney sitting on her other side during the hearings was forced out of a top DoJ job by the unraveling of the Trump/Russia/FISA scam. Turns out he was in the FISA warrant approval chain. Ford's attorney. Oh, and very probably she kept that best friend from being fired from the FBI by teaching her to cheat on lie detector tests. I don't think that Ford will be referred to the DoJ, though she probably should be. And if she is, I expect nothing will happen, given how well connected her friend and attorney are/were to the Deep State at tge DoJ.
Michael Walsh at PJMedia has the argument against democrat anything. You thought Feinstein's Chinaspy was a yawn?
https://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/under-obama-the-cia-suffered-a-catastrophic-disaster/
Jeez... kinda makes smashing all those electronics worthwhile, doesn't it. "with a cloth?"
"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the briar patch."
Except the Democrats and the Leftist Lickspittle Media are no where near as endearing--or smart--as Brer Rabbit.
The only good reason I can see for the Democrats winning is to check the Right's (not Trump's) over-reach.
The Republicans have already become intolerable, so giving them everything is already a troubling prospect.
Having two insane parties sucks.
It's funny how newspapers and very important people talk about how people really like divided government ONLY when a Republican is president. Really, really, funny that.
When Democrats are president the musings are about the dangers of divided government, a government were noting gets done.
I'm all in favor of noting getting done when a Democrat is president. So far, I'm perfectly happy with everything Trump is doing.
Qwinn said...
Again, whether I want to "throw people in jail", or who I want to do that to, hasn't even entered the discussion. I haven't said a word about it. Every word you 've said on the subject is a strawwan. I'm still stuck on the point ehere you insist that people disagree on when life begins so we are morally bound to completely abandon our position in favor of yours and let the killing continue or else we're control freaks. Kiss my ass.
You have been confronted with reality.
People turn to anger when their paradigm is challenged in a way they must adapt to.
This is the hard truth. If you want government to force people to do what you want that means throwing people in jail if they don't do what you want.
I am agnostic. I don't believe abortion is right and it should be limited to very specific circumstances.
But it is wholly different than murder. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions for decent and solid reasons.
Our goals are the same.
Mine solution is right.
Your solution is wrong because it undermines institutions that are necessary for a free society.
Guildofcannonballs said...
Achilles feels demanding everyone pay for abortions at the eventual point of a government gun also paid for by taxpayers so chronies can buy Lambos is less problematic than not demanding everyone pay for abortions, but why?
Your posts usually show intelligence.
This topic makes you stupid.
Achilles : $14 spread between 57 to 60 or more republicans in the senate. Nets 50-90
17 on stabenow losing nets 91.70.
13 on manchin losing nets 46.30
11 on menendez losing nets 46.30
8 on baldwin losing nets 90.80
1.50 on casey losing nets 22.65
5 on RCP demcrat congressional edge dropping below 6.6% on 11/5 nets 45.50
28.90 on dems in house < 217 pays 79.39
So it looks like you lost on all of them. Good rule for folk with strong political preferences :
"Wishing doesn't make it so."
I will say though that, Michigan and West Virginia were closer than I was expecting.
For 2020 looks to me like Trump needs to get his defenses in order in Florida, N Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. Don't think Texas will be at risk despite Cruz's tight squeeze. Ohio looks pretty strong for him, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania weak. But if he holds all his southern and western states, he only needs to win one of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Michigan looks like the best bet. Looks like James could actually have won the Senate seat with a huge pile of money and some Trump rallies.
Post a Comment