He comments: "Wouldn’t 'taking it to 11' be analogous to post-birth abortion?"
Cecile Richards is a former president of Planned Parenthood (and the daughter of Ann Richards, who was a memorable governor of Texas). The column asserts that Harris can win by "turning the volume up to 11 on abortion." That is, get louder, not more extreme in one's position, but the headline doesn't dictate that interpretation. It left room for Meade's grim retort.
As for Trump, he's been trying not to exhibit extremism about abortion. He says leave the legislating to the states, and he refuses to answer the question whether he'd sign legislation restricting abortion if he wins the election and gets a Congress inclined to act at the federal level. Why would we trust him? If the answer is no, say no. So what if it's hypothetical. Lots of questions asked of candidates rely on hypotheticals.
By the way — and I know I've linked to this twice before — Wikipedia has an entry for "Up to eleven." Excerpt:
The influence of the phrase "up to eleven" is such that it has been used outside of music; in 2016, for example, astronomer Krzysztof Stanek described the then brightest-known object in the universe, ASASSN-15lh, as being "as if nature took everything we know about magnetars and turned it up to 11".
Posts
107 comments:
In the Harris Administration, it will be buy one abortion, get the next one free!
The performance of human rites is integral to progressive sects of ancient, nominally secular, religions, for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress. Also, contemporary sects that exercise liberall license to remove "burdens" and lives deemed unworthy of life. A wicked solution to a hard problem: demos-cracy can be aborted in darkness.
If America is truly on the path of not only legalizing, but also popularizing infanticide we deserve the current decline.
#CecileTheCannibal of Planned Parenthood infamy.
The sistah gotta preach it through a Spinal Tap amp.
If you're a childless Jez, being too loud about abortion makes people openly wonder why you haven't had any kids. Was Kamala Harris able to have children after her abortions?
And it tends to undermine your economic message if you make a fringe issue so important. But then Kamala doesn't have an economic message.
He [Trump] says leave the legislating to the states, and he refuses to answer the question whether he'd sign legislation restricting abortion if he wins the election and gets a Congress inclined to act at the federal level.
Trump has been clear he would not sign a federal abortion ban. He has stated however that he thinks the European model of between 14 and 16 weeks is reasonable.
If Wisconsin had a referendum on legalizing abortion with no gestational limits I don't believe even our most frothing AWFLs would be able to vote for it. There is a difference between hiding behind a fake Roe V Wade constitutional right, and having to pull the lever yourself.
>As for Trump, he's been trying not to exhibit extremism about abortion. <
It does not matter what Trump says about abortion - not in the least. Just as we know what Democrats will do if they gain exec and legislative dominance (stack court, stifle speech, etc), Democrats know that Republicans in the same circumstance will completely lower the boom on abortion freedom. As night follows day. Trump can save his breath.
Democrazis
She's already blatantly lying about Trump's position. How much more 11 can she get?
Sounds like it means post-birth abortions and necessary assassinations. In progress.
Trump gave his most sensible answer of the debate when he said there is no conceivable circumstance in which a national abortion ban could pass Congress. Nor could a national "unlimited abortion" law pass Congress. The Supreme Court has returned the issue to the states, and it is a non-issue in a presidential race. But it plays well emotionally, I guess.
If there are undecided voters, is abortion the thing that will sway them? Do they really want a louder conversation about abortion?
He's right. Congress hasn't touched it in 50 years. Why would they do it know. That would take bravery and conviction on either side; something completely lacking in the House and Senate.
Six weeks to meet the legal and biological requirements for homicide in all 50 states, but perhaps not DC where they embrace Capitol punishment with gay jubilee.
There was an original compromise to avoid a civil war with leftists amid the revolutionary war. Today there is a compromise to avoid a civil war with leftists amid a religious war for the sole (pun intended) of the nation.
Democrazies
Why would Trump need to try and not exhibit extremism about abortion? He's never shown extremism in any way? Is killing a new-born an example of extremism, or is there no position that Party members could take that would ever be characterized as extreme?
Why would we trust him? If the answer is no, say no. So what if it's hypothetical. Lots of questions asked of candidates rely on hypotheticals.
I'll accept that principle once's it's applied to Harris
"Taking it to 11" means allowing abortions in the 11th month.
It is like a lemon law, but for babies?
More likely she will push to have all abortions paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
In the Harris Administration the first one is free- tell your friends....
He doesn't say 'no' because what does a 'federal abortion ban' mean? Be specific and you'll get a specific answer.
The quote is 'go to eleven' innit? ...and isn't the whole reason the quote works is because of the stupid behind it? Why don't they just make ten louder?
I suspect the strategy is speaking so loudly and often about abortion there's no volume to speak about the tyrannical polices she fronts. A conversation about who will actually be running the executive will be out of the question...
Has the campaign concluded they believe it is important to inform the electorate they've seen Spinal Tap?
The left have abortion obsession. It's rather gruesome.
After considering an 11th month comment, this makes the most sense.
Turn up the volume on abortion to drown out all the other issues people expect to hear Harris talk about. They might find her appeal growing more selective, however.
Deny late term abortion exists - all while it is ramped up.
Democrat Party Playbook - class 101.
Fair is Fair. How about we set a "Reasonable Age Limit", say 18, up to which, a child can kill it's parent(s). Retro abortionment.
So yes, let Harris take it to 11. Take it up to 12, 14, 22. And meanwhile, let Trump and Vance continue with their message that abortion is not going to be outlawed, that the Federal Government if out of the abortion issue, it's down to the States now, that the voters will decide, state-by-state, just as the Founders wanted. Let them keep reiterating to the voters, that the Federal Government does not control abortion; the voters do.
A reasonable age limit would be the first trimester of life, looking forward, looking backward, and in between when they can get away with it. All's fair in lust and abortion.
Six weeks. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #LoveIsASecondHandEmotion
And in self-defense through reconciliation. The laws governing homicidal choice, and Choice equivocal and inclusive, are already on the books.
Kamalanomics?
It’s the key to getting women to the polls. That’s the only reason why do it. They honestly don’t care about people, just power.
No. What has Harris said or done that might make one consider that this is what she would want? She can be stronger on letting Democrats and independents know that she absolutely WILL sign a Roe v Wade type bill if and when one lands on her desk as president. Of course Democrats will have to hold all three, House, Senate and Presidency, which is possible in a landslide win, like what happened with Obama. Harris needs to learn from Obama’s mistakes and stop trying to work with the extreme element of the Republican Party.
It does play well emotionally. In Colorado - Abortion is hyper legal. You can abort your baby up until and during birth. Yet - lefty dems in CO hyperventilate with rage over the issue. Very strange.
After Dobbs, I can't see how an act of Congress regarding abortion, whether a nationwide ban or legislating Roe v. Wade into statute, could withstand a constitutional challenge with the Supremes in their current configuration.
You would need some serious court packing to approve a statute reinstating Roe, and with that kind of packing they would only have to reverse Dobbs to get us back to Roe v. Wade.
Both sides should recognize that neither a nationwide ban nor a return to Roe is going to happen for the foreseeable future, and let's talk about things than can get done that would actually benefit the American people, like taking a Milei like chainsaw to the administrative/welfare/surveillance state.
You do not need to reinstate Roe. It was a terrible unConstitutional, political decision. You probably can institute a federal law regarding abortion, such as making it illegal after 15 weeks, like several European countries.
The collective left do not want any restrictions. The abortion industry will not be denied.
We're all on the same page that this is a Spinal Tap reference, right? It can only be a Spinal Tap reference and can only have been since 1984. Are there people arguing one way or the other about it without knowing where the phrase comes from?
It's entirely possible someone used it because they've heard it a couple of times, thought it was cool-sounding and used it without knowing where it originally comes from. I wouldn't put it in the same ballpark as a Bigus Dickus reference, but close. Very close :)
You really are a ghoul
"Harris needs to learn from Obama’s mistakes and stop trying to work with the extreme element of the Republican Party."
Better just to shoot them.
I dunno. Taking abortion up to 11? I've seen some crazy drivers--and some crazy politicians that make me wish for fully retroactive abortion--as in "that sumbuck should never have been born".
in the world of reality there's probably some reasonable compromise on abortion--which is being worked out in the various states. Which is the right way to do it.
Ctrl F yields nothing for Nigel. A sad commentary on the commentariat. Nigel Tufnel - musician, philosopher; has been cast to the curb. Attention must be paid. I can tell we're not at Guitar Player.
At the turn of the century, (20th), the Suffragettes had a slogan, written on placards as they demonstrated for the right to vote: “Let the hand that rocks the cradle guide the state”. Women were fighting for the opportunity to contribute their unique perspectives from the home, ensure their concerns for the welfare of their children and their futures were heard.
Feminist motto circa 2024: “we demand the right to f&#* anyone we want, whenever we want, and flush the resultant nascent human down the sink.” These are Kamala’s values that haven’t changed.
Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall
Another fetus in the Democratic Diversity of wicked solutions.
That said, we should neither deny women's dignity nor her child's life. It is imperative that we not remain green and act to mitigate progress and collateral damage.
Common in industry too. I often talk about the need for better speed control than thd common 0-10 poteiometer knob. Invariably someone will crack wise about a knob that goes to 11.
In my latest book, Secrets of Lean Changeover I even have a picture of one. "for when the boss is screaming for more production"
John Henry
Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb
Hello, is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can here me.
No more excuses tour.
The book will be available on Amazon via the portal or via packmachbook.com
The book will be available on Amazon via the portal or via packmachbook.com
If the left were serious about protecting or expanding access to abortion, they'd simply fund programs to airlift women from states without abortion to the nearest state where they can get an abortion. I can't imagine this would cost that much money. No, the left simply want to use it as a political issue, as this article demonstrates.
Democrats are now busy airlifting "migrants" to small towns in red states to eventually turn them blue.
I know a young woman who plans to vote Harris because of the abortion issue. However, she doesn't support late-term abortion.
Sure, turn it up to 11. Harris might scare away some of the people already committed to her.
I think you hit this squarely on the head.
I wish there was an upvote feature in this comment section.
I think her taking Trump to task on the abortion issue was the strongest point of the debate, though taking him to task for being a buffoon on the international stage was a close second.
Harris tackled this topic better than any presidential candidate has EVER addressed it on the national stage.
I also give her major kudos for framing it in language that Republicans understand, namely, do you want the government and Donald Trump telling you what you can and cannot do with your healthcare choices?
Trump looked absolutely beaten and miserable at that moment. In fact, I believe he was secretly seething at having to contort himself to appease his evangelical wing of the party because even he knows how awful overturning Roe V. Wade sounds when the rubber hits the road.
We've moved on from Veep to House of Cards.
As in Spinal Tap, going to 11 means you don't know what the eff you are talking about and are all about style over substance.
Don't kid yourself, Gusty. Abortion may be a fringe issue for most people in the polls, but it's an obsession of cat ladies and other AWFL variants. (I've never understood why abortion is issue no.1 for such post-menopausal women.) By the by, in her post, Althouse blames Trump for not explicitly saying he won't support a national abortion law - she believes he should just say "no". Presumably, she also believes Harris should explicitly oppose post-birth abortions, like those allowed in Timmy's state, but she's never posted such an opinion (Meade yes, but not Althouse). However, I'm unaware of Harris ever saying anything close to supporting a post-birth abortion ban, and turning it up to 11 would suggest Harris actually is in support of it, but perhaps that's ok with Althouse. Cruel neutrality indeed.
A friend in WIsconsin is unhappy with that state's abortion restrictions. Unable to liberalize Wisconsin's abortion law, she wants to liberalize abortion law nationwide. Seems like the long way around the barn.
Althouse is annoyed that Trump won't give a simple yes/no answer on a national abortion law. But on the other hand, she appears willing to give Harris a pass on explaining what her desired law would be. In the debate, Harris talked about codifying Roe, specifically referencing the supposed 3 trimester periods that permit increasing government restriction of abortion. But informed people know very well that in practice the courts allowed no practical restrictions through all three trimesters. But the low information voter have been led to believe that late-term abortions were not allowed under Roe. If Harris were forced to describe her ideal law (which based on the law in Walz's state means unrestricted abortion until birth), a lot of voters might find Trump's 15 week limit very appealing. There cannot be a national debate on abortion, as long as one side is allowed to hide behind the permissively vague terminology of Roe.
Sick of every national election being about abortion. Now that it's a state issue, I never want to hear about it again.
I think Harris taking Trump to task on the abortion issue was the strongest point of the debate, though taking him to task for being a buffoon on the international stage was a close second.
Harris tackled this topic better than any presidential candidate has ever addressed it on the national stage.
I also give her major kudos for framing it in language that Republicans understand, namely, do you want the government and Donald Trump telling you what you can and cannot do with your healthcare choices?
Trump looked absolutely beaten and miserable at that moment. In fact, I believe he was secretly seething at having to contort himself to appease his evangelical wing of the party because even he knows how awful overturning Roe V. Wade sounds when the rubber hits the road.
Taking it to eleven is advertising hype. Renumbering the volume control decal.
Trump supports returning the decision of homicidal statutes to the states, but they insist on establishing a politically congruent reproductive rite in a national establishment of progressive sects exercised with liberal license. At least be consistent and lose your Pro-Choice ethical religion, not limited to human rites and other purposes. One step forward, two steps backward.
They are murdering, raping (i.e. sodomizing), and rape-raping underage girls, and sequestering the "burden" of evidence in sanctuary States.
Poor Cecile Richards, she can't help it. She was born with a silver speculum up her hooha.
"Rich" is off on another lie fest. Abortion is anything but a "healthcare choice."
As for Trump, he's been trying not to exhibit extremism about abortion
On the contrary, Trump has been very extreme. He has repeatedly attacked state measures to protect the lives of all prenatal babies, while Vance has assured people that he will veto any such legislation from Congress. Trump has been quite clear that he thinks that people should have until 15-16 weeks to kill these babies - and even longer in some cases - thereby supporting over 90 percent of all abortions. Trump also not only has no qualms in destroying millions of living human embryos, he thinks that federal taxpayers should pay for it.
In short, Trump has admitted he's pro-abortion.
I suppose it's difficult to say you'd support or oppose legislation that hasn't been drafted yet and the particulars aren't known.
Why would we trust him? If the answer is no, say no. So what if it's hypothetical. Lots of questions asked of candidates rely on hypotheticals.
I tend to agree, and think it would be politically smart to do so.
After spending decades arguing it is a state issue, and working tirelessly to appoint Supreme Justices who agree, it would be the height of hypocrisy to argue otherwise now.
After playing a critical part in making the overturning of Roe reality, Trump has earned the deference from even the most devoted pro-lifers, and it would remove it as an attack issue for the media, er, I mean Democrats.
No. But it is a motivating issue for 18-30ish year old women who aren't always the most reliable voters. This helps get them to the polls.
It's not what she has said, but what she hasn't said. She can't, because the abortion lobby is powerful and it is their religion. Anybody who believes you should brag proudly about having an abortion is warped and has lost sight of their humanity.
At this point, I seriously doubt those committed to her could be scared away even if she turned into lion-headed Tanit herself and screamed that she demanded the blood of children living or dead lest she summon Cthulhu.
Rape... uh, rape-rape is real, and slavery (i.e. involuntary exploitation) is illegal under the Constitution. Incest, while socially progressive, is an act of superior exploitation, and similarly intolerable. Self-defense is processed through reconciliation. Edge cases are resolved on an individual basis. All other choices are considered before conception. Respect women's dignity, men's complementary stake, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration.
Excellent. I'm sure you're delighted. Since it's a state matter per Dobbs and lighting your hair on fire over the now defunct national nature of abortion is no longer necessary, here's you Make Abortion Great Again hat.
Your mug is in the mail and should arrive shortly.
Narciso, you really are a fool.
They quit targeting the undecideds and swing voters a while back. Virtually everything that comes out of the DNC or Harris campaign is targeted at their voting blocs. Elon was right when he started talking about mind viruses. They've lost their ability to think rationally.
In short, Trump has admitted he's pro-abortion.
Mark,
Do you recognize that there are degrees of thinking when it comes to allowing abortion? Some want no abortion at all. Some say 6 weeks, others say 12-15 weeks. Where do you stand?
Actually, let me ask where all the pro-abortion or pro-choice people here stand on that issue.
Did you compare what Harris said at the debate - and what she said in her latest interview?
It's the same language... the same words. She has committed her answers to a robot memory.
Watch this and behold.
Six weeks is immediately actionable with existing homicide statutes in all 50 states. The hard problem is that homicides, demoscricides can occur in darkness, which implies the only remedy to mitigate progress is ethical divestment and moral normalization. Also, six weeks #NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoCarveoutsLegalCorruption. Baby steps.
Doesnt' matter what Trump says - you leftists turn and twist...
All while you ignore the corruption and authoritarianism, war machine, and wasteful spending and lies on your team.
Of course Democrats will have to hold all three, House, Senate and Presidency, which is possible in a landslide win, like what happened with Obama.
So why didn't they do it then? Oh, that's right. Republican extremists.
Moron.
Turned "up to 11" means getting in your face about something until you're ready to throat punch them to make them shut up about it. On my media streams the Dems are at about 10.79 and rising currently.
"But the low information voter have been led to believe that late-term abortions were not allowed under Roe.
"Not allowed"? Hell they never, ever, ever happen. Never have, never will. Fear mongering, nothing more....and, besides, when they do happen it is just between the woman and her doctor.
If only Chelsea's grandma had had access to abortion!
Lefty Mark is ranting again. He hasn't noticed that most of the world agrees with Trump.
Michael K, newly minted troll, is delusional. The world is laughing at Trump, not agreeing with him.
"Actually, let me ask where all the pro-abortion or pro-choice people here stand on that issue."
Leftards like abortions the way they like taxes- without limit.
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the carbon-based "burden" of evidence sequestered in darkness, at the twilight fringe.
Eat teh cats… Eat teh cats…
Eat eleven cats, rich.
Rich is eating the cat as I write this…
Gusty Winds said...
Democrats are now busy airlifting "migrants" to small towns in red states to eventually turn them blue.
The problem with this hypothesis is two-fold. 1. The red states are attracting lots of intra-state migration, which I expect means large numbers of people who are moving to more ideological amenable states. This offsets the migrants. 2. The blue states are hemorrhaging people like crazy, so they have to keep a lot of the migrants in blue states to keep up their relative standing in the Electoral College and Congress. Here is an analysis:
https://johnb541.substack.com/p/the-amoral-game-theorists-take-on
She should offer free abortions to all black women. Call it reparations.
Baby Lives Matter (BLM)
Abortion is a “bitch whistle”. The Democrats blow it, the bitches start howling. As Scott Adams notes, women are a majority of voters in every state. If women collectively want to change state law, it is in their power to do so. The Feds are out of it for now.
Ann says "[Trump] refuses to answer the question whether he'd sign legislation restricting abortion if he wins the election and gets a Congress inclined to act at the federal level."
What is the question and what is the legislation?
Trump would definitely sign some legislation restricting abortion and has done so repeatedly, as has every president since 1976 ... the Hyde amendment in various iterations of each annual Federal budget package.
Keep in mind that Nigel Tufnel (the originator of turn it up to 11) was an idiot, a lovable one, but an idiot ...
I think if Harris believes abortion is so wonderful, she should provide details of all the abortions she's had.
https://youtu.be/F7IZZXQ89Oc
This Is Spinal Tap - this is THE meaning of "turn it up to 11" - can't believe everyone missed this
English parliament passed a law in 1967 allowing abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks. Congress could do that here: “No adult US citizen may be denied access to abortion prior to XX weeks of pregnancy.” The XX could be set at whatever number was required tp get 61% of the vote. Each state could set its own limit, as long as it was equal to or greater than XX weeks.
Post a Comment