Why the GOP has a gender gap.

[milosz]

"Some nutjob" is in the hunt for a Senate seat. Please don't pretend that Senators are powerless nobodies to diminish this. He's not running for local dog catcher or the state senate or even to be the governor of a backwards little shitwater (word to David Duke), he's running for the fucking Senate.

The good news is that the Tea Party's choice of batshit-insane candidates kept a divided Congress last go-round and likely will again.

[kreator]

"Some nutjob" is in the hunt for a Senate seat. Please don't pretend that Senators are powerless nobodies to diminish this. He's not running for local dog catcher or the state senate or even to be the governor of a backwards little shitwater (word to David Duke), he's running for the fucking Senate.

The good news is that the Tea Party's choice of batshit-insane candidates kept a divided Congress last go-round and likely will again.

Actually, when it comes to prohibiting abortion, a single Senate candidate is a nobody. An acting Senator is nothing. Even ten Senators are nothing.

Now if this guy can get elected, convince 66 Senators and 291 Representatives to share his views, and write up a good amendment, then you can propose an Amendment. Then you can have 38 State legislatures ratify it (that would mean 14 blue states would have to ratify, by the way). Then it will affect you.

And if it gets that much support then yes, it deserves to be at the forefront of American politics. Until then, it doesn't.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Kreator,

It sounds like you're saying that the fact this guy is a nut-job about abortion doesn't matter because abortion is settled legal issue and not much woudl change form one loony....but in part that's the flip side of what you're accusing Milo of..looking at the candidates through a single lense. You wouldn't disregard the crazy soup coming out of Diane Feinstein's mouth just because she has limited sway would you?

There's many reasons abortion, gun control and stem cell issue are such powerful political issues. One of those reasons is that they shine a light on the nutbirds.

[milosz]

One Senator can shanghai the entire body when it comes to holding up legislation and appointments. (Which, you know, matter - to abortion and to everything else.) It's absurd to argue that a potential Senator is just a lone nutjob with no influence or sway.

[kreator]

Kreator,

It sounds like you're saying that the fact this guy is a nut-job about abortion doesn't matter because abortion is settled legal issue and not much woudl change form one loony....but in part that's the flip side of what you're accusing Milo of..looking at the candidates through a single lense. You wouldn't disregard the crazy soup coming out of Diane Feinstein's mouth just because she has limited sway would you?

There's many reasons abortion, gun control and stem cell issue are such powerful political issues. One of those reasons is that they shine a light on the nutbirds.

I'm no legal expert but I'm under the impression that the fundamental issue of abortion is settled. Women can have abortions. The Court says so and the public is in support of it. The only way to change that would be to overturn the Supreme Court decision or propose an Amendment. When one of those is likely, then we can start talking again.

The things that are unsettled with regard to abortions are issues like should the government fund the clinics, can they be tax-exempt, should the mother be forced to listen to the beating heart, who has to be notified, all this stuff. You may disagree with me but I think those things retain so much less significance than the big issues of our time.

The difference between what a crazy Senator says on abortion and what a crazy Senator (like Feinstein) says about the PATRIOT act is that one issue is fundamentally settled by the Supreme Court so that it can't be changed, and another isn't. Feinstein was one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act renewal, which is in place, so yah she's got some sway. If this guy were to write a bill to ban abortions, it wouldn't go anywhere.

If this guy were talking crazy about something that a) matters to most Americans and b) a single Senator can profoundly influence, then yes I'd care.

One Senator can shanghai the entire body when it comes to holding up legislation and appointments. (Which, you know, matter - to abortion and to everything else.) It's absurd to argue that a potential Senator is just a lone nutjob with no influence or sway.

Filibusters can be broken with 60% vote by the Senate. So sure, one Senator can hold up a vote, but if he/she is way out in left field, they're gonna put an end to it. And if they don't get 60% majority to cut it off, then that means a decent amount of Senators support it, which means the nutjob's opinion really isn't so whacky.

[Blaidd Drwg]

The rest of the country cares quite a bit when prospective senators say completely crazy shit....it gives you a sense of whether they are fit to govern. Thats why peopl care. If this shitbag was talking about registering handguns nationwide, id care regardless of the likelihood of that passing

[Turdacious]

One Senator can shanghai the entire body when it comes to holding up legislation and appointments. (Which, you know, matter - to abortion and to everything else.) It's absurd to argue that a potential Senator is just a lone nutjob with no influence or sway.

Not really, LBJ watered down those rules a long time ago. Those kind of arguments only really have sway in fundraising appeals from special interest groups on both sides.

[kreator]

The rest of the country cares quite a bit when prospective senators say completely crazy shit....it gives you a sense of whether they are fit to govern. Thats why peopl care. If this shitbag was talking about registering handguns nationwide, id care regardless of the likelihood of that passing

The rest of the country can't vote in their elections, so they can't do a thing about it.

[Turdacious]

The rest of the country cares quite a bit when prospective senators say completely crazy shit....it gives you a sense of whether they are fit to govern. Thats why peopl care. If this shitbag was talking about registering handguns nationwide, id care regardless of the likelihood of that passing

McConnell has a tool to keep this guy in line:

[Blaidd Drwg]

The rest of the country cares quite a bit when prospective senators say completely crazy shit....it gives you a sense of whether they are fit to govern. Thats why peopl care. If this shitbag was talking about registering handguns nationwide, id care regardless of the likelihood of that passing

The rest of the country can't vote in their elections, so they can't do a thing about it.

Can't do a thing about it? What are you fucking HIGH? Who do you think pays to support senatorial campaigns...ma and pa kettle from bumbfuck iowa? These issues matter to enough to people, that anyone going to Washington is playing on the National Political stage....that's why there is big nartioanla bucks ridign on local elections.

I don't care where you stand on the issue du jour, abortion, gun control, foreign policy...it's gonna matter when members of any party start pumping out the crazy talk. You can argue it doesn't matter all you want. It clearly does or people wouldn't spend so much money fighting over it.

[buckethead]

kreator, that was not a very good argument

[I'd Hit It]

The spread of congressmen with unchallenged batshit views means abortion rights are being restricted to making abortions essentially impossible in many states, and putting severe restrictions on states where it is possible. Some tactics:

- Outlawing late-term abortions save when the fetus is already dead in the womb or likely to die during birth (see: Georgia)
- defund clinics and non-profit healthcare groups who may provide abortion services or even just referrals
- increase regulation on clinics to a degree that makes it impossible for them to stay open
- increase restrictions on getting abortions, such as forcing vaginal ultrasounds, multi-day waiting periods (not possible for women who have traveled hours to get to a clinic because no closer clinics are available due to above reasons)
- allow the spread of evangelical-funded clinics that pretend to be abortion clinics but bombard the women who go there with anti-abortion material
- sponsor "Personhood Amendments"
- force abstinence-only education, leading to lack of knowledge about birth control
- decrease access to birth control because they consider it to be abortions
- force doctors to tell women abortions are associated with higher risk of cancer and suicide when they're not

Article on this here.

I am for this for purely selfish reasons: I don't want to be fiscally responsible for any accidents.

[kreator]

The rest of the country cares quite a bit when prospective senators say completely crazy shit....it gives you a sense of whether they are fit to govern. Thats why peopl care. If this shitbag was talking about registering handguns nationwide, id care regardless of the likelihood of that passing

The rest of the country can't vote in their elections, so they can't do a thing about it.

Can't do a thing about it? What are you fucking HIGH? Who do you think pays to support senatorial campaigns...ma and pa kettle from bumbfuck iowa? These issues matter to enough to people, that anyone going to Washington is playing on the National Political stage....that's why there is big nartioanla bucks ridign on local elections.

I don't care where you stand on the issue du jour, abortion, gun control, foreign policy...it's gonna matter when members of any party start pumping out the crazy talk. You can argue it doesn't matter all you want. It clearly does or people wouldn't spend so much money fighting over it.

Yes national money can affect local elections, I agree. But how many people contribute to PACs and campaigns? A fraction of a percentage? I'm saying that the average Joe reading and digesting these soundbites doesn't wield the campaign coffers or voting power to make or break an out-of-state senate campaign. (BTW 13% of Mourdock's campaign funding comes from PACs. )

Getting back on track though, do you think that if this guy gets elected with his views that he'd be able to really cause a substantial change in abortion policy?

[Blaidd Drwg]

that was never anyone's point....but you raise an interesting corollary... This fucktard has a better chance of changing abortion policy than nearly every person in this country outside the Senate and House. So yeah...if people want to get wound the fuck up about him, I can understand that.

[Turdacious]

Not trying to change your views, but a few things to consider:

The spread of congressmen with unchallenged batshit views means abortion rights are being restricted to making abortions essentially impossible in many states, and putting severe restrictions on states where it is possible.

You're trying to do an apples to oranges comparison without acknowledging the difference between the views: pro-life people believe that the fetus is a human life before birth (generally starting at conception; pro-choice people do not.

- Outlawing late-term abortions save when the fetus is already dead in the womb or likely to die during birth (see: Georgia)

AFAIK most Western European countries have this restriction. Even Roe v. Wade acknowledges that states have the right to restrict abortion once the fetus is viable. Advances in medical technology have increased this time since 1973 by a significant amount.

- defund clinics and non-profit healthcare groups who may provide abortion services or even just referrals

Arguing that abortion should be publicly funded is a different argument than arguing that it should be legal.

- increase regulation on clinics to a degree that makes it impossible for them to stay open.

Some abortion clinics are absolute shitholes that cater to poor women (i.e. those least likely to sue-- partly because of their poverty; partly because of the social stigma attached to abortion) and put the lives of the women they serve at risk. Are you arguing that abortion providers should face a lower malpractice threshold than other medical providers? Even the old Democrat argument was 'Safe, Legal, and Rare.'

- increase restrictions on getting abortions, such as forcing vaginal ultrasounds, multi-day waiting periods (not possible for women who have traveled hours to get to a clinic because no closer clinics are available due to above reasons)
- allow the spread of evangelical-funded clinics that pretend to be abortion clinics but bombard the women who go there with anti-abortion material
- sponsor "Personhood Amendments"

Done at a state level-- has less to do with Congress than you suggest. Want to blame somebody for this-- blame the same institution that gave you Roe v. Wade

- force abstinence-only education, leading to lack of knowledge about birth control

School curriculum is largely a state and local matter.

- decrease access to birth control because they consider it to be abortions

Big difference between birth control methods. Given the difference in views regarding the personhood of a fetus, this is a logical conclusion.

- force doctors to tell women abortions are associated with higher risk of cancer and suicide when they're not

This is also a tough area. Studies in formerly socialist countries (like this one) suggest otherwise. Given the limitations on studies in the US-- abortions are largely self reported (i.e. underreported) by women; considerable stigma regarding abortion; difference in health care access between the groups most likely and least likely to get abortions-- this is a much more complicated issue than you suggest.

Finally, there is a pretty broad agreement among pro-choice people about abortion; there is less on the pro-choice side. Sex selective abortion is one example.

[kreator]

- sponsor "Personhood Amendments"

To the Constitution?

How would that work, exactly?