Both losing members due to their inflexible intolerant fundamentalist views.
Catholic Biden Communion Silliness
The reality is that the majority of Americans support:
- LGBTQ rights / equality,
- a woman's right to use birth control and access an abortion per Roe v Wade,
- the treating of people seeking sanctuary in the USA as humans
- helping America's poor to escape poverty
- women are equal or superior to men and should be treated so
- etc
However somehow America's Religious Right is stuck in the 1800's like the Taliban.
It is no wonder that people are leaving those religions at a rapid rate. Thankfully my Lutheran ELCA church is much more open, tolerant and caring.
What we are seeing is strategies developed that give minorities political control. Two presidents in the 21st century were elected despite losing the popular vote. Our political system, through it's disproportionate allocation of senators to low population states, favors minority governance. So do the rules of the senate. With Republican control of the Supreme Court, we can expect to see minority rule for generations to come.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
There is a BIG difference between an empowered minority and minority rule.
ReplyDeleteDuring Trump's 4 years the DEMs thwarted most of his agenda.
When the population is split pretty close to 50 / 50, do you really think the 52% should be allowed to make massive changes?
It's empowered minorities that terrify me.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
You are starting to sound like an older White conservative now... :-)
ReplyDeleteIn a lot of ways I am. But the problem is that my policy goals can't be reached by gridlocking the process.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
"When the population is split pretty close to 50 / 50, do you really think the 52% should be allowed to make massive changes?"
ReplyDeleteIt's certainly better than allowing the 46% to do so.
I am not sure the 48% have been able to pass much of their policy either.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty happy with America, I am happy if both extremes stay stymied forever.
This is puzzling to me...
ReplyDelete“So I think there’s a growing sense of frustration among progressives and it’s understandable. We’re feeling like the clock is running out and we’re wasting valuable time and that’s where you’re going to start to see the squad and other members of the progressive movement push back and saying, ‘OK, we’ve got a limited window of time here. We need to put up or shut up’.”
It is like they are admitting that they know their unpopular and will not win in 2022?
And yet they want to shove their agenda into place so the GOPers can undo it in ~18 months?
"I am not sure the 48% have been able to pass much of their policy either."
ReplyDeleteThey've pretty well locked up the courts, though.
I don't think the GOP has much of a policy agenda other than tax cuts and there is a limit as to how much they can cut taxes. Didn't Trump have a GOP congress for at least his first two years? (not sure about that) and they didn't do much of anything other than the big tax cut. They didn't get rid of Obama care even though they campaigned on that for years.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen any outrageous court rulings... Have you?
ReplyDeleteThe GOP had a lot of ideas about changing immigration policy, welfare policy, and others...
But the DEMs stalled them all...
The court rulings on health care pretty much soured me on the institution. But the time for the Supreme Court is passed, and I think sooner rather than later it's rulings will no longer be accepted by the executive branch. I think that CJ Roberts sees that coming which is why he works so hard to avoid confrontation with the executive, and not just with President Biden, but President Trump as well.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
"The GOP had a lot of ideas about changing immigration policy, welfare policy, and others." so they GOP had both chambers of congress why didn't they do more? I think it is that what few policy ideas they do have are unpopular with the public. (and the GOP doesn't really care about governing/policy)
ReplyDeleteThe same reason the DEMs are not accomplishing much... They did not have 60 votes in the Senate...
ReplyDeleteSo they were limited to nominations and reconciliation bills.
Please elaborate... "court rulings on health care"
ReplyDeleteTrump Signed 96 Laws In 2017. Here Is What They Do And How They Measure Up so it looks like the GOP house did not have much of an agenda in 2017.
ReplyDeleteSince Biden is in the same position as Trump was (no clear majority)... I wonder what he will get passed?
ReplyDeleteMaybe all he will be able to do is get judges approved...
Why the GOP Is Ideologically Lost
ReplyDeleteNational Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012),
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Why do you dislike this ruling?
ReplyDeleteI liked the summary...
ReplyDelete"I think the New Right’s account of red America’s divisions is more accurate than Greer’s. If the GOP moderated on economics — and adopted positions on labor, social welfare and public investment that were less wildly reactionary by international standards — the party’s median voter wouldn’t revolt. And such a GOP would surely have an easier time telling voters what it stood for.
Yet the most intractable division within the contemporary Republican Party is not the conflict between the Cato Institute and Trumpen proletariat, or the right’s puritan elites and its licentious masses, but rather, between American conservatism’s own irreconcilable commitments. Republicans can neither wage war on capitalism nor make peace with its social implications. So they beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into incoherence."
Why do you dislike this ruling?
ReplyDeleteBecause the court was ruling on health care policy, a topic I am pretty sure didn't come up at the convention in 1787.
--Hiram
Actually it seems it was ruling regarding state rights, federal rights, taxation and commerce.
ReplyDeleteThose issues have been around for a LONG time.
Who would you like to rule on these contentious issues?
Should the court have ruled on LGBT+ marriage rights?
"They did not have 60 votes in the Senate."
ReplyDeleteFor much of their agenda, they couldn't rustle up a simple majority in either the House or Senate.
The court shouldn't rule on anything.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
Sean,
ReplyDeleteI know they had that problem with healthcare, not sure about other topics.
Hiram,
So you would have the States and Feds fight it out? Maybe have the Congress and Executive branches go to war?
The Supreme Court can't stop those things.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
"I know they had that problem with healthcare, not sure about other topics."
ReplyDeleteWas also true on immigration and entitlements.
Hiram,
ReplyDeleteThey seem to be doing pretty well so far.
Do you have a better proposal?
Sean,
That seems to be where the DEMs are right now on voting, immigration, infrastructure, etc...
The House has passed voting and infrastructure bills. Republicans couldn't even pass health care and immigration in the House.
ReplyDeleteEven if they got rid of the filibuster the dems would pass moderate bills, as they would need the votes of the moderates to pass anything.
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteI'll have to trust you on that, I do not remember what the house was doing in 2017 / 2018...
Laurie,
I am not sure if the DEMs could pass anything... The progressives seem to be ready to rebel.
Progressives Grow Impatient
ReplyDeletePMFBI, but I wanted you to see this:
ReplyDelete"The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released Thursday found that while 61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances during the first trimester (ends at 12 weeks), 65% of Americans said abortion should almost always be illegal in the second trimester (ends at 28 weeks) and 80% said abortion should almost always be illegal in the third trimester (ends around 40 weeks)."
It depends mostly on how you phrase the question. Most Americans don't want to see their daughters imprisoned for having abortions. Certainly, most Americans don't want some creepy beureaucrat monitoring their pregnancies.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
It also depends on how honestly you frame the question. As you have phrased it, there would be less support. OTOH, ask if they want their grandchildren murdered, and you get more support. If the question were phrased as reported, I think you have a pretty honest assessment; it matches previous surveys I have seen that, when "exceptions" are included, 80% consider themselves pro-life.
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteI think your source did some significant "cherry picking" / miswording.
This is totally different and incorrect...
"Americans said abortion should almost always be illegal in the second trimester (ends at 28 weeks)"
The correct wording is.
"Should abortion be legal in all or most cases"
And then it explains views regarding specific instances.
Surveys where specific exceptions are included are those that end up with the 80% "pro-life" figure. So, "with exceptions" = "almost always."
ReplyDeleteI think you had better look at your source...
ReplyDeleteShould it be possible for a woman to obtain a legal abortion if.
Woman's health seriously endangered. 87% YES
Pregnancy due to Rape or Incest. 84% YES
Child would be born with life threatening illness: 74% YES
The does not want to be pregnant. 49%
Exactly right. Where in there do you see support for allowing abortions EXCEPT in these rare instances? "rape, incest, life or health of the mother, gross fetal deformity" are always the exceptions that most reasonable people make to the general proposition that abortion should be illegal late in pregnancy. Kinda like Roe v. Wade plus the Hyde Amendment.
ReplyDeleteAnd "does not want to be pregnant" is covered under the first trimester case, of which 61% approve.
Agree...
ReplyDeleteThat is why almost NO abortions occur after 20 weeks...
And still folks like yourself keep fighting to take away the woman's choices in these cases?
"rape, incest, life or health of the mother, gross fetal deformity"
There are no folks like myself. But 80% of folks, including me, agree that abortion should be illegal, except for these "almost NO" exceptions. In other words, current law more or less echos public pro-life sentiment. Where we have trouble is the folks who want to go beyond Roe v. Wade (wrongly decided) and what is the sensible public opinion, one way or the other. I wish the survey would have differentiated between the second trimester versus "before 5 months" and "after 5 months." I think we would have seen the former closer to the first trimester numbers (about 49% approval), and the latter closer to the 3rd trimester number (>55% disapprove).
ReplyDeleteI'm also noticing that some 39% disapprove of some abortions, even in the first trimester. This is sizable, but to me it raises the question of what "exceptions" we want on that end of the spectrum? I'm certain that "for purposes of sex selection" is one of them that seems immoral and maybe should be illegal. "Financial transaction gone wrong" might be another, and I almost think "youthful mistake" might be one.
As I said... Few abortions occur after 20 weeks because they are pretty well limited to the following...
ReplyDelete"rape, incest, life or health of the mother, gross fetal deformity"
Just as Roe v Wade dictates.
Actually, RvW dictates only one, after 20 weeks-- life and health of the mother. The other exceptions are allowed (at State option) under the Hyde Amendment, which Pelosi et al wants to abolish.
ReplyDeleteThe Hyde amendment has to do with Federal funding of abortions, not with limitations.
ReplyDeleteBut the Hyde Amendment allows them, RvW does not. If Pelosi succeeds, government will fund abortions but only life of the mother exception will be permitted. Be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeleteI will risk it if it helps poor women to have the same options as wealthy women.
ReplyDeletewould that option be before or after unprotected sex?
ReplyDelete