Texas on it's way to become a purple state over abortion rights?

[colourwheel]

 

Currently Republicans across the nation are relying on a strategy to get more white voters thinking the partys problem is not being extreme enough leaning to the right.

I see no evidence of this being true.

 

Move evidence that it is true than less. Unless you can think of any serious outreach The republican party has been doing to improve their base other than focusing on white voters.

Almost all political strategist on both side feel the Republican party is on the wrong side of history pushing the party to rely on pretty much only their base voters.

 

This cannot possibly be true. Why would "almost all political strategists" in the Republican party push a strategy that they feel is "on the wrong side of history"? More likely, when you say "political strategists" what you really mean is "political pundits" aka actors on cable news who pretend to be experts on the subject and have the gall to assume to speak on behalf of others.

 

Just an example, Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt are both top Republican strategists. Both of them are very republican and happen to be pundits too. But being a pundit does not dissolve credibility. These guys kind of been doing this stuff their whole lives and even if I think sometimes some of them do idiotic things they actually do happen to know what they are talking about most the time.

Edited July 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Move evidence that it is true than less. Unless you can think of any serious outreach The republican party has been doing to improve their base other than focusing on white voters.

Perhaps they consider race-based politics to be a lower form, and avoid appealing to people based on their perceived racial allegiances. A lack of race-based "outreach" does not indicate a lack of desire to include people all races. Using race as a method of targeting voters is an inherently racist practice, and one that the Democrats are happy to utilize to their advantage. They have always thrived on concepts of racial division, going all the way back to the "Dixiecrat" days. It is abhorrent strategy that stifles social progress.

 

 

Just an example, Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt are both top Republican strategists. Both of them are very republican and happen to be pundits too. But being a pundit does not dissolve credibility.

 

A strategist is a person who is paid to plan a campaign. A pundit is a person who is paid to talk about a subject. Neither position indicates any level of loyalty to a any particular set of principles, but you can at least assume that a strategist is saying and doing things that they hope will help their client because that is their job. When they stop working as strategists and start working as pundits that assumption must be reevaluated.

 

When a person is being paid to express an "opinion" it ceases to be an honest opinion. When a celebrity is paid to endorse a product you can safely assume that they are not doing it because they really love that product. They are doing it because they are sufficiently rewarded. Shaq only loves his Buick because of the large checks that Buick is cutting him. Neither Rove, Schmidt, or any other pundit hold any credibility if they are being paid to speak on an entertainment news network. Such networks lack anything that resembles a respectable level of journalistic integrity.

 

If you really believe that the opinions expressed by their pundits are unfiltered and honest assessments then you may as well believe that every celebrity endorser is giving an honest assessment of the products that they endorse. The firm that creates the advertisement featuring the celebrity endorsing the product is not doing so because they want to help their target audience by providing them with the most honest possible assessment of the product. They simply want their target audience to buy the product, regardless of its true merits. A news network's agenda is no different from that of the advertising firm. Schmidt and Rove both serve their clients by providing a paid opinion, just like Shaq does for Buick.

 

Schmidt's client is Jeffrey Immelt. Rove's client is Rupert Murdoch.

[colourwheel]

@Troaches

 

You can think or believe what ever you want about race and gender in politics, the reality is that is part of politics and always has been. I am not saying I agree or like how targeting demographic groups are used to gain votes but the way things current work in our democracy I don't see anything ever changing anytime soon.

 

I am sure you have heard the phase before "That's politics".

 

Edit:

 

Also It's ridiculous to believe anyone who speaks on news networks in politics loses credibility because anytime anyone publically speaks on TV or otherwise to any public audience pretty much get paid to do so.

Edited July 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Why are you attacking the group that is attempting move beyond race and gender politics, and specifically attacking them for that effort, while defending the group that maintains the race and gender politics status quo, and specifically defending them for their continued support of race and gender politics? This seems antithetical to social and political progress.

[colourwheel]

 

Why are you attacking the group that is attempting move beyond race and gender politics, and specifically attacking them for that effort, while defending the group that maintains the race and gender politics status quo, and specifically defending them for their continued support of race and gender politics? This seems antithetical to social and political progress.

 

A political group is hardly attempting to move beyond race and gender politics when they push for anti-immigration legislation, denigrating women and womens rights as well as attacking the living poor in the country and pushing to shrink the electorate to make it harder for minority voters.

 

Does this seem antithetical to social and political progress? In my opinion it's the Republican party that is mostly to blame regardless of the party trying to re-brand their party like repackaging left over food and putting it in a nice shiny box claiming it's something new.

 

If anything I am trying to help the Republican party wake up to reality hoping that someone who actually matters politically will make people in power actually realize what their party is currently doing is only hurting themselves.

Edited July 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

A political group is hardly attempting to move beyond race and gender politics when they push for anti-immigration legislation...

 

What "anti-immigration legislation" have they pushed? Bear in mind that legislation intended to curb illegal immigration is not the same as "anti-immigration legislation".

 

 

denigrating women and womens rights...

 

In what way have they denigrated women or opposed women's rights? Bear in mind that anti-abortion legislation is not the same as "anti-women's rights" and does not inherently "denigrate women". I agree that the Texas abortion bill that prompted this topic was bad legislation but it does not represent the majority viewpoint within the party.

 

 

as well as attacking the living poor in the country

 

In what way have they attacked the poor? Bear in mind that the welfare system is broken and bankrupt, many people are receiving welfare who should not qualify in comparison to the truly needy, and attempting to change by making it harder for some to acquire while making it easier for others is not the same as "attacking the poor".

 

 

pushing to shrink the electorate to make it harder for minority voters.

 

Redistricting is only as effective as the electorate allows it to be. In what way have they pushed to "shrink the electorate"? While I don't agree with the current state of law regarding or practice regarding political redistricting I don't see how it would be possible to prevent people from voting. Also, the assumption that redistricting is done along racial lines is flawed, as is the belief that it is a Republican trait. If a racial grouping consistently votes for a particular party based on their racial allegiance and the gerrymandered district lines are drawn according to party affiliation then they will also reflect the racial composition of those districts. This again speaks to the problem of racial allegiances that translate into political allegiances, something that the Democrats thrive on. They participate in district gerrymandering to at least the same extent that Republicans do. This does not excuse the Republican's participation in gerrymandering, but it does mean that it is not a strictly Republican trait.

 

 

In my opinion it's the Republican party that is mostly to blame regardless of the party trying to re-brand their party like repackaging left over food and putting it in a nice shiny box claiming it's something new.

 

The Republican party has represented the limitations of government with regards to the infringement of natural rights (aka conservatism). It is the Democratic party that has always promoted the idea of liberal application of government power (aka liberalism). It is ironic to accuse the Republicans of rebranding considering the history of the Dixiecrats and their opposition to human rights. As soon as the groups that they once tried so hard to repress politically (women, minorities, etc) were able to acquire voting rights they instantly began opportunistically courting them and were effective in this rebranding propaganda, to the point that many people don't even know the history of the two parties or where they stood on the most influential events in our history, such as slavery or universal suffrage. (spoiler alert: the Republicans supported universal suffrage at every turn, while the Democrats opposed it). Rebranding indeed!

[colourwheel]

 

What "anti-immigration legislation" have they pushed?

 

Republicans in power try to avoid dealing with comprehensive immigration reform by demanding to increase boarder security from Mexico. That really gives the Hispanic and Latino Americans a warm feeling of welcome in America.

 

Also think If you lived in another country illegally at no fault of your own because you were brought there as a child and have known no other place to live in memory. Think it's really just for the government to expect you to leave? Curbing illegal immigration or not by demanding for deportation for these people who have lived here pretty much their entire lives and not grant them legalization or citizenship is cruel and doesn't settle well with people of the same ethnicity who are legal citizens.

 

 

In what way have they denigrated women or opposed women's rights?

 

Well I can name a few things but i'll just list these... The violence against womens act, pay equity, and forced ultrasounds. The government has no right to tell a women what they can and can't do with their own bodies local or federally. also Legislation to restrict abortion rights only makes it harder and more dangerous for women to access healthcare services across the nation in legal need when ultimately the legislation being pushed from state to state controlled by the republican legislature are closing down almost all healthcare centers for women to legally get abortions.

 

 

In what way have they attacked the poor?

 

Recently Republicans in congress just passed a farm bill that addresses nothing about funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. Whether you believe if people are receiving welfare or not who should not qualify in comparison to people truly in need, it is ultimately still an attack on the poorest people of our nation.

 

 

In what way have they pushed to "shrink the electorate"?

 

Last election was a great example making people wait in lines for hours on end limiting the amount of time people had to vote as well as adding more restrictions such as voter ID laws. Making it more difficult for people to vote in itself is an effort to shrink the electorate. It is also historically know fact the Republican party has always wanted less people voting where a smaller amount of the nations population decides who is in charge of it.

 

 

It is ironic to accuse the Republicans of rebranding considering the history of the Dixiecrats and their opposition to human rights. As soon as the groups that they once tried so hard to repress politically (women, minorities, etc) were able to acquire voting rights they instantly began opportunistically courting them and were effective in this rebranding propaganda, to the point that many people don't even know the history of the two parties or where they stood on the most influential events in our history, such as slavery or universal suffrage. (spoiler alert: the Republicans supported universal suffrage at every turn, while the Democrats opposed it). Rebranding indeed!

 

I don't need a history lesson about what the republican party has done decades to a century ago. Things never stay the same. Just like how people can change over time the Republican party has changed too and not in a good way. The Republican party use to be the party fighting for repression but if you look at the modern Republican party it is evident they have been fighting against the repressed.

 

Since the Republican party lost the white house to Obama every election after that the republican party has been in a constant cycle of "re-branding" trying to sell the same social and fiscal policies just re-packaged in a shiny new box since the end of the Reagan administration. The republican party has not brought out any new good ideas that have been put to practical use in decades. And any good ideas that were originally thought up by republican politicians in the recent decades have been adopted by the modern Democratic party and instantly rejected by the Modern Republican party.

Edited July 16, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

Republicans in power try to avoid dealing with comprehensive immigration reform by demanding to increase boarder security from Mexico. That really gives the Hispanic and Latino Americans a warm feeling of welcome in America....doesn't settle well with people of the same ethnicity who are legal citizens.

Border security is a larger issue than immigration, and the reasons for border security go beyond simply controlling immigration.

 

Polls indicate that the majority of legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, support stronger immigration controls and improved paths to legal status to address illegal immigration, and stronger penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

 

 

Well I can name a few things but i'll just list these... The violence against womens act, pay equity,

 

There is no form of violence, against anyone, that is tolerated under the existing laws. This negates the need for further legislation to address violence against women. Violence against humans is illegal.

 

Inequity of pay is tricky because it is based on statistics, and statistics can be massaged to indicate nearly anything. The often quoted numbers are that women earn 72-77% of what men do, but these numbers do not account for the multitude of factors that essentially boil down to choice. Women statistically work less overtime, are more likely to pursue degrees and careers that are less lucrative but more personally satisfying, and are less likely to perform work that is hazardous or laborious. Source In other words, legislation is not required to fix this, and efforts against such unnecessary legislation do not equate to an anti-woman bias. Furthermore, if a person must agree to a particular sum of payment for their labor, so their level of compensation is ultimately up to them to decide or reject.

 

 

and forced ultrasounds. The government has no right to tell a women what they can and can't do with their own bodies local or federally.

 

I agree, but the doctor-patient relationship is another aspect of our lives that both parties are fond of intruding into. I won't make any excuses for the any legislation that forces or prohibits any medical procedure and would oppose any such measures, regardless of which party is pushing them. That said, the Democrats of recent times have been pushing harder for government intrusion into health care than any party at any point in our history. If protection against government intrusion into matters of health care is a priority for you then you should be looking critically at both parties, not placing the blame on one while defending the other.

 

 

Recently Republicans in congress just passed a farm bill that addresses nothing about funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

 

Prior to this change the food stamp program accounted for 80% of the farm bill's cost. Stripping the food stamp program out of the farm bill made sense, in that the program has nothing to do with farm subsidies. It deserves its own legislation, and should be written and passed on its own merits. Combining unrelated issues into a single bill makes no sense, and doing so is a dirty political trick. It forces a congressperson who opposes farm subsidies but supports food stamps to compromise. They can either stand firm on the issue of farm subsidies and be attacked as an "enemy of the poor", or they can compromise by voting to support both. It works the other way as well, in that a congressperson who opposes food stamps but supports farm subsidies must compromise their position to avoid becoming an "enemy of farmers". You are falling hard for this dirty trick, and are ignoring the fact that a new and likely much better food stamp bill will be passed as a result of this cut.

 

 

Last election was a great example making people wait in lines for hours on end

 

Where did this happen?

 

 

adding more restrictions such as voter ID laws.

 

Should a person be allowed to vote more than once? If not, how do you propose that they be stopped from doing so? I'm not really sure where I stand as far as voter ID laws are concerned, but at least in theory it seems like it could be a good idea. That does not mean that I would support just any voter ID law, as such a law could certainly be poorly constructed or even detrimental to democracy, but it could also be a good way to avoid election fraud especially given the recent adoption of electronic voting machines, which I consider to be a terrible threat to our democracy.

 

 

I don't need a history lesson about what the republican party has done decades to a century ago.

 

It seemed like you did, given that you accused them of "rebranding" their image. I think they have stayed more true to their ideals than the Democrats, who are the real masters of rebranding.

 

Imagine two people: Person 1 has always been opposed to racism and sexism, and has actively fought against it. Person 2 has always been a racist and sexist, but has recently decided to change their ways and now promises that they are neither racist nor sexist yet continue to describe a worldview that is based largely on division of people into categories of race and gender. If you had to choose which one to be friends, and wanted to make sure that you were choosing the less racist and less sexist of the two, which would you choose?

[colourwheel]

 

Border security is a larger issue than immigration, and the reasons for border security go beyond simply controlling immigration.

 

Polls indicate that the majority of legal immigrants oppose illegal immigration and amnesty, support stronger immigration controls and improved paths to legal status to address illegal immigration, and stronger penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants.

 

What is this larger paranoid issue that goes beyond controlling immigration when It is always Republican trying to slide in increased boarder security for "immigration reform" legislation? Also any polling can lean towards or against something depending on how the questions are asked. I could just as easily go try to find polling that indicates that the majority of legal immigrants do not oppose existing illegal immigrants and grant them amnesty who have already lived in the country since they were small children by no fault of their own.

 

 

 

There is no form of violence, against anyone, that is tolerated under the existing laws. This negates the need for further legislation to address violence against women. Violence against humans is illegal.

 

Maybe you should do a bit more research on the law and I will help you.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_Against_Women_Act

 

 

Inequity of pay is tricky because it is based on statistics, and statistics can be massaged to indicate nearly anything. The often quoted numbers are that women earn 72-77% of what men do, but these numbers do not account for the multitude of factors that essentially boil down to choice. Women statistically work less overtime, are more likely to pursue degrees and careers that are less lucrative but more personally satisfying, and are less likely to perform work that is hazardous or laborious. Source In other words, legislation is not required to fix this, and efforts against such unnecessary legislation do not equate to an anti-woman bias. Furthermore, if a person must agree to a particular sum of payment for their labor, so their level of compensation is ultimately up to them to decide or reject.

 

I have to disagree with you despite your "source", Pay equity is a big deal to anyone. Say If men statistically work less overtime and were more likely to pursue degrees and careers that are less lucrative but more personally satisfying, and are less likely to perform work that is hazardous or laborious I am sure men would feel denigrated too if they were not being paid equally to women for doing the same jobs.

 

 

I agree, but the doctor-patient relationship is another aspect of our lives that both parties are fond of intruding into. I won't make any excuses for the any legislation that forces or prohibits any medical procedure and would oppose any such measures, regardless of which party is pushing them. That said, the Democrats of recent times have been pushing harder for government intrusion into health care than any party at any point in our history. If protection against government intrusion into matters of health care is a priority for you then you should be looking critically at both parties, not placing the blame on one while defending the other.

 

The difference is the Federal government isn't forcing men to have unnecessary procedures (aka forced ultrasounds) just to take a pill or passing legislation telling what men can and can't do with their own body. I will admit Obama care isn't perfect but I don't see the Republican party trying to find anything better or improve on it. Seems the political philosophy for the republicans is if something is implemented by democrats that isn't perfect instead of trying to help fix or improve something they just want to abolish it leaving in placement nothing. If Republicans can find something better to replace Obama care then I am totally open minded to it. If not they really should stop wasting their time trying to repeal Obama care over 37 times....

 

 

 

Prior to this change the food stamp program accounted for 80% of the farm bill's cost. Stripping the food stamp program out of the farm bill made sense, in that the program has nothing to do with farm subsidies. It deserves its own legislation, and should be written and passed on its own merits.

 

Your missing the bigger point here that Republican won't even make or pass any new legislation for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. Which was why the Farm bill use to be a bipartisan piece of legislation which has turned into a completely partisan dead bill that Obama won't even sign now.

 

 

 

Last election was a great example making people wait in lines for hours on end

 

Where did this happen?

 

Ironically, this happened in Texas as well as other Swing states across the nation in which Republican legislatures and Republican governors controlled the state last election. The best example was Florida, though.

 

 

 

 

adding more restrictions such as voter ID laws.

 

Should a person be allowed to vote more than once? If not, how do you propose that they be stopped from doing so? I'm not really sure where I stand as far as voter ID laws are concerned, but at least in theory it seems like it could be a good idea. That does not mean that I would support just any voter ID law, as such a law could certainly be poorly constructed or even detrimental to democracy, but it could also be a good way to avoid election fraud especially given the recent adoption of electronic voting machines, which I consider to be a terrible threat to our democracy.

 

Voter ID laws would makes sense if there was actual need of it where fraud was a huge problem. But Voter Fraud isn't a huge problem as far as election results, it is almost non-existent. By creating voter ID laws and eliminating same day registration just to stop a hand full of people to committing fraud is disproportionately disenfranchising a larger number of people from voting. How convenient It mainly effect a huge majority of minorities voters from voting.

Edited July 17, 2013 by colourwheel

[TRoaches]

What is this larger paranoid issue that goes beyond controlling immigration when It is always Republican trying to slide in increased boarder security for "immigration reform" legislation?

If border security is paranoia then every nation on the planet, now and throughout the entirety of written history, is and has been paranoid. Have you ever traveled to that bastion of paranoia called Canada? Those loony paranoid Canadians insist on searching my car and inspecting my documents every time I cross their secure border. If you try to cross Lake Huron in a boat you will likely be tracked by an airplane and intercepted by their coast guard. They are so paranoid!

 

 

Also any polling can lean towards or against something depending on how the questions are asked.

 

Lets look at how the poll was structured:

 

"The questionnaire was administered in the following way: respondents were first read a number of

immigration proposals that have been a part of the policy debate over the last few months and asked

whether they favored or opposed each of them; they were then asked to pick the “best way to deal with

illegal immigration” from a list of three proposals: the McCain/Kennedy proposal (… calls for

temporary work permits for illegal immigrants and then after waiting six years, paying a fine and

learning English, for them to be able to apply for green cards), the House of Representatives bill (…

criminalizes illegal immigrants, calls for deporting them and for building a wall along the border with

Mexico) and President Bush’s proposal ( … calls for issuing temporary work visas for illegal

immigrants followed by a mandatory return to their home country).

The McCain-Kennedy proposal was favored by more than three-quarters of legal immigrants from

Latin America, three-fifths of those from Africa and Europe and by a majority of those from Asia."

 

Seems legit. It suggests that most legal immigrants want illegal immigrants to be processed into legal status, not granted amnesty or deported. It is a nice middle ground, but it only works if the illegal immigrants in question are willing to become citizens and accept all of the good and bad that comes with that (i.e. taxes). This refutes your premise immigration controls "doesn't settle well with people of the same ethnicity who are legal citizens."

 

 

Maybe you should do a bit more research on the law...

 

I am familiar with that law, and consider it to be an inherently sexist piece of legislation because it grants legal rights and protections based on gender. The ACLU, a truly principled advocacy group not afraid to take unpopular positions on controversial issues, disputed it as well. The bill was not without its merits, such as the various assistance services and prevention programs, but allowing an alleged victim to sue their alleged attacker after the attacker has been acquitted of the allegation, and allowing them to do so based entirely on the genders of those involved and the nature of the allegation, is antithetical to justice. The Supreme Court agreed. This and other flaws were why the bill was not reauthorized. To say that it was simply because of anti-woman prejudice is to ignore these issues. Invoking prejudice against women while defending bad legislation is an appeal to emotion, not logic.

 

 

Say If men statistically work less overtime and were more likely to pursue degrees and careers that are less lucrative but more personally satisfying, and are less likely to perform work that is hazardous or laborious I am sure men would feel denigrated too if they were not being paid equally to women for doing the same jobs.

 

The scenario you describe makes no sense: If someone chooses a lower-paying profession they are not "doing the same jobs". They are doing the lower paying jobs, by choice. Do female attorneys bill their clients at a universally lower rate? Of course not.

 

Also, as a man who has done this very thing (chosen lower paying work) I do not feel denigrated. I could earn much more than I do, but I trade higher pay for lower stress and greater fulfillment. No denigration to be found here, just a happy guy scraping by on a tiny wage at a job that allows me the freedom that I desire.

 

 

long waits to vote and voter id

 

The issues of long wait times and voter ID laws are intertwined. The longest waits occurred at early voting polls, and the situation in Florida was largely blamed on the reduction of early voting period from 14 days to 8 days. The proposed solution is to extend the number of days that those polls are open. You disregarded my concern about people fraudulently casting multiple votes, but it is a very real concern especially in a close election in a "swing state". It becomes an even bigger issue if the polls are open for 14 days.

 

Imagine the possibilities if, lets say, a paltry 100 people in a state voted 10 times per day for 14 days. Without any form of voter ID this would be very possible. That comes to 13900 fraudulent votes, enough to impact any election at any level. It would not that difficult to find 100 dedicated people out of millions who would be willing to do this to see their candidate elected, and even easier to do if you paid them. If we are going to keep the polls open for that period of time there must be some check against this type of fraud, and the only check that I can imagine that would be effective is to identify the voters. You say that there is no evidence that such fraud happens on a significant scale but we don't really know if that is true because there is no way to collect such evidence. Elections currently run on what amounts to an "honor system", but we both know that there is no honor to be found when it comes to winning a political campaign. There is too much money and influence at stake.

 

Our political leaders have in recent years become so fond of electronic voting machines and strongly opposed proposals that such machines should produce a corresponding paper record. I can't think of any reason why one would oppose a paper record to back up the electronic results except to enable fraud. The machines could easily be linked to a database of who has already voted to nearly eliminate the possibility of multiple-vote fraud. I doubt it will happen, though, for the same reasons that paper records of electronic votes will not be produced: because the people who control the machines rely on the potentially fraudulent results to stay in power.