Support NeoGAF

[Pixieking]

I don't think it's about the presidency. That's a wash, and every Republican leader with a brain knows it.

I think what we're witnessing now is a party trying to sort out how to best mitigate the damage.

I think Republicans are ultimately going to conclude that letting Trump go to November will be a lot more toxic for the party in the long run than biting the bullet and expelling not only him, but also his supporters that will continue to keep Republicans from producing winners from their primaries from here on out. The Republican base is just too out-of-step with the rest of the country. Burn them all.

Long-term, they're better off leaving Trump in. After the 2012 election, there was an internal critical analysis of what the GOP had to do to win future elections, which was essentially summed up as "Be more liberal/less racist". What they've done is the opposite - they have literally ignored everything from the analysis - and when in the Primary they could've followed the new playbook with minorities and women, they instead chose to not criticise Trump too much, in order to court the racist/misogynist vote.

Leave Trump in, and he'll do what the analysis couldn't do - handled correctly, his loss will affect a major change of the Republican party, since it'll show that it can't be the party of racist men who want to tell women what to do if they want to win an election. Dump him and the opinion will fester that "If only we could show everyone how right we are with our views, we would win".

Edit: That analysis: Growth & Opportunity Project (pdf)

 

[Lord Fagan]

There's risks to confirming him at the convention, but to deny him...just remember, there's gonna be an army of protesters squared against the kind of folks who carry an AR-15 with them to Wal-mart because something something. We're talking about a candidate that has already called for violence at rallies and warned of a riot if he's shut out. Also, Cleveland. When the fires start, street cops may just start capping off anything that moves.

I know the guy is doing terrible damage, but he's not the signal, he's the noise. It's the trigger happy crowd eating his bigoted neofascism the GOP really needs to be careful with, because a massive, violent fallout might never wash off. And even if they do find another candidate at the last second, it's not like Trump will go away, He'll troll the GOP worse than he is, now. If the goal is to neutralize his toxicity, I don't see how robbing him accomplishes that, especially when he played by their rules and won.

 

[User1608]

There's risks to confirming him at the convention, but to deny him...just remember, there's gonna be an army of protesters squared against the kind of folks who carry an AR-15 with them to Wal-mart because something something. We're talking about a candidate that has already called for violence at rallies and warned of a riot if he's shut out. Also, Cleveland. When the fires start, street cops may just start capping off anything that moves.

I know the guy is doing terrible damage, but he's not the signal, he's the noise. It's the trigger happy crowd eating his bigoted neofascism the GOP really needs to be careful with, because a massive, violent fallout might never wash off. And even if they do find another candidate at the last second, it's not like Trump will go away, He'll troll the GOP worse than he is, now. If the goal is to neutralize his toxicity, I don't see how robbing him accomplishes that, especially when he played by their rules and won.

Pretty much my thoughts too. No way they will get rid of him.

If they do, I'll eat a hat.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I thought you couldn't change hearts and minds. Were these young viewers she was winning over who'd otherwise be bigots?

I put it in quotation marks for a reason. Things like Ellen helped with normalisation / reducing heteronormative opposition to big Gay. She didn't go out and give a bunch of bigots greater welfare and then have them suddenly loving the gays. Well I guess maybe during 12 days.

 

[benjipwns]

What does that 65% represent?

Democratic base and Republican base give or take.

People who were backing Cruz aren't outside of Trump's orbit on issues. They didn't trust him to be conservative enough. Those two got two-thirds of the GOP Primary vote.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I would say hearts and minds got you most of the way and then the judges swooped in to write their names on the trophy. What would you do when social issue x has very low public support, just wait?

Fight like hell.

 

[benjipwns]

Patrick Henrys Ghost @Pissed_Pat
How much do journalists hate Trump? They're willing to give Glenn Beck & Brad Thor a pass on rhetoric that led to an assassination attempt.
11:14 AM - 21 Jun 2016

‏TheLastRefuge @TheLastRefuge2
.@glennbeck and @BradThor inspired assassination attempt on Donald Trump

Slim Shavings ‏@SlimShavings Jun 20
@TheLastRefuge2 @glennbeck @BradThor What kind of excuse will Hillarys plant and traitor @glennbeck have for this? Beck is an insect

i love twitter

 

[pigeon]

Leave Trump in, and he'll do what the analysis couldn't do - handled correctly, his loss will affect a major change of the Republican party, since it'll show that it can't be the party of racist men who want to tell women what to do if they want to win an election. Dump him and the opinion will fester that "If only we could show everyone how right we are with our views, we would win".

Right, but why would the GOP handle it correctly? They couldn't handle the last loss correctly, and they had a whole analysis to work off of. They literally tried to do it and the guy who led the charge lost his seat in a primary.

The GOP need to purge their party, stand up and say "we don't want social reactionaries voting for us," and take the losses until they can build a new actually functioning party. That's what the Democrats needed to do to start winning again. Ejecting Trump is probably their quickest way to do this, depending on who they replace him with.

I don't actually think they will succeed in doing so, but I think their success would be good for the GOP in the medium term. In the short term it really doesn't matter, they're pretty fucked either way.

 

[benjipwns]

Trump, or at least the character he's playing, is the symptom.

He's what the GOP base has been clamoring for over a decade. Someone who "fights back" against foreigners and the media.

Trump's real problem is that he's wishy-washy on "fighting back" against the atheist homosexualist agenda.

 

[East Lake]

I put it in quotation marks for a reason. Things like Ellen helped with normalisation / reducing heteronormative opposition to big Gay. She didn't go out and give a bunch of bigots greater welfare and then have them suddenly loving the gays. Well I guess maybe during 12 days.

That doesn't really clarify what I'm getting at I don't think. If you want to argue media is a better anti-bigot medium than political decisions that's one thing, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that many people in here argue that it's basically useless to attempt to change the minds of bigots, in which case Ellen negates that argument and polling might too, but I don't know if that reversal in approval is all down to old people dying.

Seems like the preferred end goal seems not to change minds but instead win the election so the good guys can make the rules.

 

[User 463088]

The smart move is definitely to get rid of Trump. The problem is, they have to be damn sure they're going to succeed. They push this to a floor fight, they absolutely, positively, HAVE to win it. They push it to a fight, and he wins, he will burn their shit down hard. (I'm not sure with what, maybe someone can loan him $10 to buy a pack of BIC or something...) I don't know that they have the ability to actually get it done, even if the will was there.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

If they don't hush Trump, after they flush him he literally can burn down the GOP's house. He has all the intimate knowledge he can air out to sink whoever gets placed out there. Trump's ego is also too big to have the nomination taken from him quietly.

 

[Mario]

In the short term it really doesn't matter, they're pretty fucked either way.

It's difficult to say whether keeping him or ditching him would be the right strategy. Either way the parameters going into the general election are unprecedented on so many counts.

But your statement here is what it comes down to. There is no good choice here, no path that avoids being hamstrung and ultimately leaves them unpunished. They are screwed.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I left my phone at a bar #mess

Some weirdo emailed me saying he found it

 

[excelsiorlef]

That doesn't really clarify what I'm getting at I don't think. If you want to argue media is a better anti-bigot medium than political decisions that's one thing, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that many people in here argue that it's basically useless to attempt to change the minds of bigots, in which case Ellen negates that argument and polling might too, but I don't know if that reversal in approval is all down to old people dying.

Seems like the preferred end goal seems not to change minds but instead win the election so the good guys can make the rules.

That's exactly how things get fixed.

Laws and courts.

I don't want to win the hearts and minds of virulent and unrepentant racists and sexists and homophobes., I want to create a world where their bigotry can have no legal effect to the daily lives of the minorities they hate so much.

You do enough to get the wishy washy types who aren't true believers and you legislate the rest into obsolescence.

The proverbial fuck em.

 

[East Lake]

That's exactly how things get fixed.

Laws and courts.

I don't want to win the hearts and minds of virulent and unrepentant racists and sexists and homophobes., I want to create a world where their bigotry can have no legal effect to the daily lives of the minorities they hate so much.

You do enough to get the wishy washy types who aren't true believers and you legislate the rest into obsolescence.

The proverbial fuck em.

Right, but the problem is this isn't a viable method of operating when you have no "hearts and minds." I think this is partly because this thread is so hyper aware of election politics so that ends up as the focus. fuck em is easy when you have almost 60% approval.

 

[benjipwns]

Why would anyone assume the announcement of a movement of "hundreds of GOP delegates" can change the rules and stop Trump at the convention? Why would I assume these people were elected as Trump delegates?

901 delegates are already nominally allocated to Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, Carson, Jeb!, Rand, Huckabee and Carly. (Though only around 20% are still ballot bound. Most are in some kind of limbo.) That's hundreds of delegates.

It's also hundreds of delegates short of a majority.

They also are definitely going to save the GOP:

“Trump claims to be pro-life, but he used to be pro-abortion. He claims to be for traditional marriage, but he never used to talk that way. His lifestyle is such that I cannot support him,” Utah delegate Gayle Ruzicka said. “Trump doesn’t even seem to understand Christian principles.”

 

[East Lake]

I wonder how many years the Bill Cosby rapes set back reparations.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The media is a better medium for culture change and influencing societal attitudes. Legislation is useful for institutionalisation. There is some degree of overlap.

My point is more I don't particularly see the need to coddle and appease said bigots to try and win their votes, particularly if it's at the expense of marginalised groups that are subject to said bigotry.

Elections will be won without catering to homophobes and racists.

 

[Maledict]

Shit in 1997, JC fucking Penny, Chrysler and Wendy's all decided to pull out from advertising during the airing of the episode, with Wendy's actually pulling support from the show from there on, and ABC refused pro gay groups offers for ad buys.

And Laura Dern didn't work for a year and a half after doing the guest spot on the show.

And the show aired with a Parental Warning from there on out.


That was 19 years ago.

Jesus.

It's funny because in the UK, Ellen coming out was one of those things that made me realise how lucky I was. When the episode aired over here, Channel 4 did a special themed 'coming out' night for it, with lots of shows and commentary. I distinctly remember Ellen being on the guest show, and saying how great it was that over here Channel 4 threw a party whilst back in the USA it had parental warnings and huge controversy.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Benji is back!

 

[Abinash117]

Right, but the problem is this isn't a viable method of operating when you have no "hearts and minds." I think this is partly because this thread is so hyper aware of election politics so that ends up as the focus. fuck em is easy when you have almost 60% approval.

You need powerful and enough people on your side. Desegregation, gay marriage, the increase of welfare programs, women's right to vote, etc most of which was not won because of winning "hearts" and " minds". They got through because a minority of people wanted something that minority had good points and were very loud. The pressure was on Congress or the president. One of which( mostly the president) pushed for changes. Sometimes the courts benefited the winning side. I say most of our social progress has little to do with being a democracy, but being more like a republic.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can we be proud that even if we have trump we don't have briexit?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Right, but the problem is this isn't a viable method of operating when you have no "hearts and minds." I think this is partly because this thread is so hyper aware of election politics so that ends up as the focus. fuck em is easy when you have almost 60% approval.

We are talking now, the here and now.


Racist, misogynists, homopohibes, etc.. can either get on board and get over their shit, or be left behind, I'm not reaching my hand out to lift them out of their hatred, I have better things to do then worry about their feelings.

shinra is right on the money: media + Law (be it via President + Congress or the Courts) is the way to win.

I wonder how many years the Bill Cosby rapes set back reparations.

What the fuck is this?

 

[Retromelon]

I wonder how many years the Bill Cosby rapes set back reparations.

Are there many people that can provide evidence that they are the descendants of slaves? What is acceptable evidence? How much should they get? How do you sell the public on the idea that their tax dollars should be spent as an admission of wrongdoing and an apology on behalf of the government towards black folks? The political capital will not be there for decades, democrats will not touch it out of electability concerns, republicans will fight it tooth and nail because they don't like to spend money and certainly not on minorities. It's problems on top of problems that no one can be arsed to deal with

 

[East Lake]

The media is a better medium for culture change and influencing societal attitudes. Legislation is useful for institutionalisation. There is some degree of overlap.

My point is more I don't particularly see the need to coddle and appease said bigots to try and win their votes, particularly if it's at the expense of marginalised groups that are subject to said bigotry.

Elections will be won without catering to homophobes and racists.

Easy to say this year! Much less so in the 90's. This also takes for granted that democrats are sufficiently racially forward thinking.

You need powerful and enough people on your side. Desegregation, gay marriage, the increase of welfare programs, women's right to vote, etc most of which was not won because of winning "hearts" and " minds". They got through because a minority of people wanted something that minority had good points and were very loud. The pressure was on Congress or the president. One of which( mostly the president) pushed for changes. Sometimes the courts benefited the winning side. I say most of our social progress has little to do with being a democracy, but being more like a republic.

I don't think this is entirely accurate but this is a different discussion from whether people can be changed. More an issue with who does the changing.

 

[benjipwns]

Let's look at elections because we have a fun example in 2008.

In 2008, 52% of California was voting to ban same-sex marriage at the same time 61% of them were voting for same-sex marriage opponent Barack Obama for President. (The latter won.)

In 2000, 61% of California voted to ban same-sex marriage, later in the year 53% of voters voted for same-sex marriage opponent Al Gore for President. (The latter lost.)

In 1998, fucking Hawai'i voted 69% to allow the state to ban same-sex marriage. In 2009, the Republican Party was outlawed in Hawai'i. It still took until 2013 until the ban was overturned legislatively. Civil Unions weren't even allowed until 2012! AND the Hawai'i legislature refused to take up the same-sex legislation until after Hollingsworth v. Perry was decided. AND Windsor.

All issues are a confluence of factors that require time. Especially in our system which is designed to deliberately slow action.

I'm one of those who disagrees with Roe v. Wade's actual ruling, not its "effective ruling" and I'm also one of those who agrees with Scalia on it. Abortion became a serious political issue decades later because it wasn't decided as democratically as it could have been.

Witnessing the tide shift in the same-sex marriage debate was much more satisfactory to me than many others. It was step-by-step, state-by-state. Look at where the rear guard is fighting on...RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS VIA THE COURTS! It's a non-starter argument that's easy as fuck to bypass in a holding pattern until popular opinion writ large catches up.

Had the court not ruled last year, a bunch more states would have been legalizing it. There wasn't any going back, the Supreme Court just hurried things up five years or so.

Marijuana decriminalization is in a similar situation, the step of faux-medical marijuana sent it from zero to sixty over just a few years. Though the Supreme Court isn't touching that one. Too many fourth and fifth amendment violations rely on Drug War scaffolding.

 

[fauxtrot]

I listened to the Keepin' It 1600 episode featuring Tom Perez today and it reminded me why I'd love him to be VP and also why it'd kinda scare me. He's the type of person you want helping steer the party but he also comes off as such a nerd. I hate that perceptions like that make any kind of difference, but we all know that they do in politics at this level.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Let's look at elections because we have a fun example in 2008.

In 2008, 52% of California was voting to ban same-sex marriage at the same time 61% of them were voting for same-sex marriage opponent Barack Obama for President. (The latter won.)

In 2000, 61% of California voted to ban same-sex marriage, later in the year 53% of voters voted for same-sex marriage opponent Al Gore for President. (The latter lost.)

In 1998, fucking Hawai'i voted 69% to allow the state to ban same-sex marriage. In 2009, the Republican Party was outlawed in Hawai'i. It still took until 2013 until the ban was overturned legislatively. Civil Unions weren't even allowed until 2012! AND the Hawai'i legislature refused to take up the same-sex legislation until after Hollingsworth v. Perry was decided. AND Windsor.

All issues are a confluence of factors that require time. Especially in our system which is designed to deliberately slow action.

I'm one of those who disagrees with Roe v. Wade's actual ruling, not its "effective ruling" and I'm also one of those who agrees with Scalia on it. Abortion became a serious political issue decades later because it wasn't decided as democratically as it could have been.

Witnessing the tide shift in the same-sex marriage debate was much more satisfactory to me than many others. It was step-by-step, state-by-state. Look at where the rear guard is fighting on...RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS VIA THE COURTS! It's a non-starter argument that's easy as fuck to bypass in a holding pattern until popular opinion writ large catches up.

Had the court not ruled last year, a bunch more states would have been legalizing it. There wasn't any going back, the Supreme Court just hurried things up five years or so.

Marijuana decriminalization is in a similar situation, the step of faux-medical marijuana sent it from zero to sixty over just a few years. Though the Supreme Court isn't touching that one. Too many fourth and fifth amendment violations rely on Drug War scaffolding.

I'll take the lives of the numerous women it saved.


I don't buy for a second that it was the undemocratic nature of abortion legalization that made it a hot button issue years later. If anything it's the undemocratic nature of abortion legalization that has protected it in these past several years.

As for same-sex marriage without the SC ruling it would have taken much more than 5 years for some of the red states to get around to it.

 

[benjipwns]

women's right to vote, etc most of which was not won because of winning "hearts" and " minds". They got through because a minority of people wanted something that minority had good points and were very loud

Women's suffrage movement irrelevant confirmed.

When the 19th Amendment passed women could vote for the entire ballot in every green state (and Minnesota which flipped before ratifying the Amendment so they could say they did it before lol), and at some level in every non-red state:

You don't get Constitutional Amendments without majorities.

the increase of welfare programs

FDR, Truman, LBJ and Nixon seemed to be well rewarded for this in 1936, 1948, 1964 and 1972. Obama in 2012 if you want.

 

[Holmes]

I literally read the ice cream thread in OP and was so confused about that girl getting sticky fingers a few days after her boyfriend dropped ice cream on her. It took me a few minutes to realize the thread title was edited.

 

[Chichikov]

Let's look at elections because we have a fun example in 2008.

In 2008, 52% of California was voting to ban same-sex marriage at the same time 61% of them were voting for same-sex marriage opponent Barack Obama for President. (The latter won.)

In 2000, 61% of California voted to ban same-sex marriage, later in the year 53% of voters voted for same-sex marriage opponent Al Gore for President. (The latter lost.)

In 1998, fucking Hawai'i voted 69% to allow the state to ban same-sex marriage. In 2009, the Republican Party was outlawed in Hawai'i. It still took until 2013 until the ban was overturned legislatively. Civil Unions weren't even allowed until 2012! AND the Hawai'i legislature refused to take up the same-sex legislation until after Hollingsworth v. Perry was decided. AND Windsor.

All issues are a confluence of factors that require time. Especially in our system which is designed to deliberately slow action.

I'm one of those who disagrees with Roe v. Wade's actual ruling, not its "effective ruling" and I'm also one of those who agrees with Scalia on it. Abortion became a serious political issue decades later because it wasn't decided as democratically as it could have been.

Witnessing the tide shift in the same-sex marriage debate was much more satisfactory to me than many others. It was step-by-step, state-by-state. Look at where the rear guard is fighting on...RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS VIA THE COURTS! It's a non-starter argument that's easy as fuck to bypass in a holding pattern until popular opinion writ large catches up.

Had the court not ruled last year, a bunch more states would have been legalizing it. There wasn't any going back, the Supreme Court just hurried things up five years or so.

Marijuana decriminalization is in a similar situation, the step of faux-medical marijuana sent it from zero to sixty over just a few years. Though the Supreme Court isn't touching that one. Too many fourth and fifth amendment violations rely on Drug War scaffolding.

I agree in the abstract about Roe v. Wade, but considering I generally dislike judicial review I tend to just take the decisions I like and fight those which I don't. My principled stand on all of those things is always "fuck John Marshall".

And I'm not sure I agree with you about the reason why abortion is such a wedge issue to this day -
First of all, this is a real difficult question. To be clear, I support abortion rights, but this is not as clear cut as some liberals make it out to be, and it's certainly a more complicated question than gay marriage.
Also, abortion has been actively and aggressively promoted as a political issue by the right in order to mobilize people to vote them in. There's nothing inherently wrong with mobilizing people around a cause, I just think if you didn't have one of the major political parties push for it so hard you wouldn't see it as a major political issue today, regardless of whether or not it was passed democratically.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't buy for a second that it was the undemocratic nature of abortion legalization that made it a hot button issue years later. If anything it's the undemocratic nature of abortion legalization that has protected it in these past several years.

The Religious Right formed out of anti-Roe movements. National Right To Life and the Hyde Amendment and March for Life all got started post-Roe.

Even NARAL didn't become a real activist group until after Roe. It was basically a non-entity before that.

I don't think there's a single issue that neatly divides the two parties and their associated cultures like abortion. This wasn't the case pre-Roe.

Also, abortion has been actively and aggressively promoted as a political issue by the right in order to mobilize people to vote them in. There's nothing inherently wrong with mobilizing people around a cause, I just think if you didn't have one of the major political parties push for it so hard you wouldn't see it as a major political issue today, regardless of whether or not it was passed democratically.

Right, right, but one of those parties didn't pre-Roe. Nixon and Goldwater were both ambivalent at worse about abortion and mostly for it. Reagan's boom came because the Religious Right formed and came firing into the GOP. That set off the reverse in the Democrats where even Jimmy Carter distanced from his previous stance of way more pro-life than, say, Bush and Ford. "Moderates" like Kennedy and Mondale suddenly shifted far more to the pro-choice wing. And this continued on through even Al Gore.

 

[Retromelon]

But Benji

Were they mad because they felt the decision was undemocratic
Or were they mad because they felt it was murdering innocent babies

 

[CCS]

The Religious Right formed out of anti-Roe movements. National Right To Life and the Hyde Amendment and March for Life all got started post-Roe.

Even NARAL didn't become a real activist group until after Roe. It was basically a non-entity before that.

I don't think there's a single issue that neatly divides the two parties and their associated cultures like abortion. This wasn't the case pre-Roe.


Right, right, but one of those parties didn't pre-Roe. Nixon and Goldwater were both ambivalent at worse about abortion and mostly for it. Reagan's boom came because the Religious Right formed and came firing into the GOP. That set off the reverse in the Democrats where even Jimmy Carter distanced from his previous stance of way more pro-life than, say, Bush and Ford.

The Religious Right would not have laid down and accepted abortion if it had been introduced by legislation.

 

[benjipwns]

The Religious Right would not have laid down and accepted abortion if it had been introduced by legislation.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that a sudden change provokes greater counter reaction than slow change. NARAL and pro-choice groups becoming major entities on the opposite side are a reaction to Roe too.

Same-sex marriage is not going to last as an issue like abortion. Even though it's even worse as it's destroying the entire meaning of human life.

But Benji

Were they mad because they felt the decision was undemocratic
Or were they mad because they felt it was murdering innocent babies

Yes.

Because a majority supports them in terms of not murdering babies, and the unelected lieberal judicial activists said "no, everyone must kill babies."

 

[excelsiorlef]

The Religious Right formed out of anti-Roe movements. National Right To Life and the Hyde Amendment and March for Life all got started post-Roe.

Even NARAL didn't become a real activist group until after Roe. It was basically a non-entity before that.

I don't think there's a single issue that neatly divides the two parties and their associated cultures like abortion. This wasn't the case pre-Roe.

Because it was fucking illegal Pre-Roe in 30 freaking states. You don't generally form major groups when you've already won.

NOM didn't form until 2007 when Same-Sex marriage started picking up steam.

I mean Roe v Wade happened because of bans on abortion.

And NARAL was formed in 1969.

 

[Chichikov]

The Religious Right formed out of anti-Roe movements. National Right To Life and the Hyde Amendment and March for Life all got started post-Roe.

Even NARAL didn't become a real activist group until after Roe. It was basically a non-entity before that.

I don't think there's a single issue that neatly divides the two parties and their associated cultures like abortion. This wasn't the case pre-Roe.

Right, right, but one of those parties didn't pre-Roe. Nixon and Goldwater were both ambivalent at worse about abortion and mostly for it. Reagan's boom came because the Religious Right formed and came firing into the GOP. That set off the reverse in the Democrats where even Jimmy Carter distanced from his previous stance of way more pro-life than, say, Bush and Ford. "Moderates" like Kennedy and Mondale suddenly shifted far more to the pro-choice wing. And this continued on through even Al Gore.

The religious right in its modern form started to mobilize after Green v. Connally, which was 2 years before Roe v. Wade.

And sheeeeeit, protestant leaders weren't really anti-abortion at the time, that was a catholic thing.
You can argue that the undemocratic decision of the supreme court is what pushed the churches and the people and the GOP to take a hard stance against abortion, but I think a simpler explanation is that the newly formed religious right was looking for a cause to mobilize people around (which again, is not something inherently wrong) and found abortion.

 

[Retromelon]

Chichikov is right. Samantha bee's birth of the religious right segment (its 430 am I don't have time to find less biased authority) provided sources from one christiany church group at the time that said basically they felt justice was served by the ruling, and years later Paul weyrich and his cronies were trying to gin up an evangelical bloc of voters to bludgeon Washington with and they settled on abortion as the thing that would rally them.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Without Roe v Wade, abortion doesn't get to be defacto legal, without Roe v Wade Abortion activists are having to fight offense, rather than defense.


All this bullshit that's come out of it, is still miles better than where they were at 30 states illegal.

GOP pre Roe v Wade didn't have to care because it was illegal basically everywhere. Fuck only four states at the time allowed it on demand.

Roe v Wade made the world better for women across the country, and no amount of incremental, much easier to override and prevent, change would have happened fast enough to justify all the women whose lives would have been over pre Roe v Wade.

 

[East Lake]

We are talking now, the here and now.


Racist, misogynists, homopohibes, etc.. can either get on board and get over their shit, or be left behind, I'm not reaching my hand out to lift them out of their hatred, I have better things to do then worry about their feelings.

shinra is right on the money: media + Law (be it via President + Congress or the Courts) is the way to win.

Like I said this is probably a side effect of being focused on day to day politics. All of the social stuff you want through law is probably already popular or has no prospects until people like Ellen make help make it popular.

What the fuck is this?

It's a joke.

Also retro I wasn't serious but I think the reparations thing is dumb not because I'm against it in theory but because nobody has a clue what reparations would actually look like. I'd just try to get a living wage + other investments which are more heavily weighted to minority communities and call it the community whatever act so everyone goes home happy.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Like I said this is probably a side effect of being focused on day to day politics. All of the social stuff you want through law is probably already popular or has no prospects until people like Ellen make help make it popular.

It's a joke.

Also retro I wasn't serious but I think the reparations thing is dumb not because I'm against it in theory but because nobody has a clue what reparations would actually look like. I'd just make try to get a living wage + other investments which are more heavily weighted to minority communities and call it the community whatever act so everyone goes home happy.

But Ellen didn't do it by holding the hands of dip shit bigots.

 

[Retromelon]

It's a joke.

Also retro I wasn't serious but I think the reparations thing is dumb not because I'm against it in theory but because nobody has a clue what reparations would actually look like. I'd just make try to get a living wage + other investments which are more heavily weighted to minority communities and call it the community whatever act so everyone goes home happy.

I feel the same way re: unfeasability, but also feel that just because it is convoluted does not mean it should be ignored. Japanese Americans were given official apologies and money; blacks should at least get an apology.

And excelsiorlef explodes as the drop of a hat, chill out dawg.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I feel the same way re: unfeasability, but also feel that just because it is convoluted does not mean it should be ignored. Japanese Americans were given official apologies and money; blacks should at least get an apology.

And excelsiorlef explodes as the drop of a hat, chill out dawg.

Not really exploding, my form of expression is acerbic by nature.

The idea of hearts and minds isn't hand holding, Ellen didn't succeed because she held their hands, holding their hand would've entailed hiding at the time or apologizing for her existence on some level. She did quite the opposite, she committed a radical act of being herself on TV and fundamentally not apologizing.

That's closer to a slap in the face than a holding of a hand.

 

[benjipwns]

NOM didn't form until 2007 when Same-Sex marriage started picking up steam.

There were already tons of groups devoted to it, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Christian Voice, Moral Majority, etc.

And NARAL was formed in 1969.

And it was a non-entity outside of New York, it wasn't even involved in Roe, it became a powerhouse after Roe to oppose all the Right to Life groups that exploded.

The religious right in its modern form started to mobilize after Green v. Connally, which was 2 years before Roe v. Wade.

And sheeeeeit, protestant leaders weren't really anti-abortion at the time, that was a catholic thing.
You can argue that the undemocratic decision of the supreme court is what pushed the churches and the people and the GOP to take a hard stance against abortion, but I think a simpler explanation is that the newly formed religious right was looking for a cause to mobilize people around (which again, is not something inherently wrong) and found abortion.

I wasn't suggesting that it was the lone factor, merely that Scalia's theory has merit to providing part of the answer for the reason the issue is so divisive and virulent for both fringes unlike nearly anything else.

Something that feels "imposed" is far easier to mobilize people against than if say, it was a Constitutional Amendment. Or even a Congressional vote. ObamaCare is even already losing activism strength against it because it got not only a Congressional vote, but a Presidential re-election and two Supreme Court victories. This is besides any benefits it provides.

GOP pre Roe v Wade didn't have to care because it was illegal basically everywhere. Fuck only four states at the time allowed it on demand.

And the GOP was the more pro-choice party until the 1970s. And didn't become rabidly pro-life until the late 1980s.

I feel the same way re: unfeasability, but also feel that just because it is convoluted does not mean it should be ignored. Japanese Americans were given official apologies and money; blacks should at least get an apology

An apology for being brought to the greatest nation on Earth?!? If anything they should be thanking and paying reparations to those who tamed this great land and set them free.

 

[excelsiorlef]

There were already tons of groups devoted to it, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, Christian Voice, Moral Majority, etc.

And it was a non-entity outside of New York, it wasn't even involved in Roe, it became a powerhouse after Roe to oppose all the Right to Life groups that exploded.


I wasn't suggesting that it was the lone factor, merely that Scalia's theory has merit to providing part of the answer for the reason the issue is so divisive and virulent for both fringes unlike nearly anything else.

Something that feels "imposed" is far easier to mobilize people against than if say, it was a Constitutional Amendment. Or even a Congressional vote. ObamaCare is even already losing activism strength against it because it got not only a Congressional vote, but a Presidential re-election and two Supreme Court victories. This is besides any benefits it provides.


And the GOP was the more pro-choice party until the 1970s. And didn't become rabidly pro-life until the late 1980s.


An apology for being brought to the greatest nation on Earth?!? If anything they should be thanking and paying reparations to those who tamed this great land and set them free.

The 1970s.... hmm what happened just before that.....oh right:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Looking at Republican and Democratic party platforms since 1976 – the first post-Roe election – we counted the number of times the word "abortion" itself is mentioned, as well as synonyms used by either side – phrases like "rights of the unborn" on the right of the political spectrum and "a woman's right to choice" on the left.

In their 2012 platform, Republicans mentioned abortion more times than ever before: 19 mentions in 2012 compared with 12 in 2008 – and five in 1976.

While avoiding the issue of abortion on and off through the 1970s and early 80s – in fact, barely mentioning it in their 1984 platform – Democrats settled most firmly on advocating for "the fundamental right of reproductive choice" in 1988. But it was not until 1992 that they cast themselves as full defenders of Roe v Wade.

"The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose, consistent with Roe v Wade," the party wrote in 1992 and have mentioned the case by name in every election since. In following platforms, Democrats have stood behind Roe "strongly" – and, in 2012, they voiced their support both "strongly and unequivocally".

The asymmetrical responses to abortion between Democrats and Republicans can be explained in one way: Democrats have not had as much impetus – or space – to radicalize their stance on abortion as Republicans. As professor Wilcox explained, Democrats stand closer to the status quo established by Roe v Wade.

"There's no reason for the Democrats to go on on and on about it. 'We believe in protecting the status quo' is the gist of their argument," Wilcox said.

"Despite all the recent restriction that have been placed on abortion" in many states, Wilcox continued, the law "is still much closer to what a pro-choice person would want than to what a pro-life person would want".

The Dems were chickenshit no doubt but it wasn't because they were less Pro-Choice than the GOP.

All this is moot, Abortion was only available without restrictions in 4 states pre-Roe v Wade, that ruling flipped the script entirely, and women are better off for it. It put abortion rights activists in a much better spot, and you frankly have not shown anything that hints that abortion wouldn't be a hot button topic today if only it had been more "democratic". If anything without Roe v Wade, women would still be fighting for the right period in a ton of states, rather than fighting to protect it,

 

[East Lake]

I feel the same way re: unfeasability, but also feel that just because it is convoluted does not mean it should be ignored. Japanese Americans were given official apologies and money; blacks should at least get an apology.

And excelsiorlef explodes as the drop of a hat, chill out dawg.

Since we're all somewhat Japanese experts here you might have noticed Obama's visit to Hiroshima where he didn't apologize, and afiak most Japanese people were ok with that. Their news stations were even running quotes from bomb survivors who didn't think an apology was that important. Not exactly analogous but sort of similar I think.

That said I don't think an apology is out of line but I don't think it's ultimately that important, particularly if it means support gets rolled out more quickly.

Not really exploding, my form of expression is acerbic by nature.

The idea of hearts and minds isn't hand holding, Ellen didn't succeed because she held their hands, holding their hand would've entailed hiding at the time or apologizing for her existence on some level. She did quite the opposite, she committed a radical act of being herself on TV and fundamentally not apologizing.

That's closer to a slap in the face than a holding of a hand.

Ellen is a really agreeable person. Most of her impact is going to come from the internal crisis housewives have who'd otherwise might be bigots but enjoy the Ellen show and think to themselves, why should I listen to my pastor when I'm having such a good time watching this program?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Since we're all somewhat Japanese experts here you might have noticed Obama's visit to Hiroshima where he didn't apologize, and afiak most Japanese people were ok with that. Their news stations were even running quotes from bomb survivors who didn't think an apology was that important. Not exactly analogous but sort of similar I think.

That said I don't think an apology is out of line but I don't think it's ultimately that important, particularly if it means support gets rolled out more quickly.

Ellen is a really agreeable person. Most of her impact is going to come from the internal crisis housewives have who'd otherwise might be bigots but enjoy the Ellen and show and think to themselves, why should I listen to my pastor when I'm having such a good time watching this program?

Which is still not holding their hand. Not in the way the conversation has been about.


Back on to abortion

There is no public backlash trend here to Roe v Wade, the absolutely ban brigade (which was winning pre-roe v wade) is at around the same level now that it was then. There's absolutely nothing to backup the claim that Roe v Wade sparked any sort of huge revolt that wouldn't have been sparked by gradual legislation, or at least not enough to justify oppressing women in the meantime.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

[Pixieking]

Abortion strikes me less as "public backlash" and more along the lines of what John Oliver said about the NRA a couple of nights ago. It's not that there's a ton of people in the NRA, it's the fact that they're incredibly well mobilised, and elected officials know this. So, as with anti-gun-control, anti-abortion sentiment feels like its on the rise, when really it's just the same number of people shouting louder than the other side, protesting more than the other side, and making sure they turn up to rallies more than the other side.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The reality is intense attacks on abortion are a recent thing, that 100% lines up with.... the 2010 midterm election and the Tea Party zealots.

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=ca1e42e28a45edcdc4e51bc32&id=c40fa91fa0

Also the Hyde Amendment was GOP and the laws that ended up being the crux Planned Parenthood v Casey was also engineered by the GOP.


Really since Roe the GOP has been the issue, and it got worse because of the takeover by the extremists.

The GOP has just consistently been anti-abortion, they just didn't have to do or say much prior to Roe v Wade because they were basically winning significantly.

There was a quick reaction to it (to be expected) before it settled down into typical anti-women white noise, before ramping up some 38 years later because the GOP opened their doors to a bunch of fucking zealots (And I'm sure their zealotry had absolutely nothing to do with the racism against the first Black President).