Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2020? No, it's 2020!

[El Guapo]

I think the Democratic Party needs to stop allowing themselves to be perceived as extreme.

Embrace the idea that 60% of the people want gun safety and make it clear you are NOT going to take guns away.
Embrace the idea that there should be limits on abortion (3rd trimester abortions for non medical reasons), and the best way to prevent abortions is not by making them illegal, but by birth control and education.
Embrace the idea that you can be against illegal immigration and not be a racist.

Show that the Republicans have created a 1 trillion dollar deficit and our current economy is based on Obama's policies and Trump is destroying them with his trade wars (and other nonsense).

Sooo...they need to abolish Fox News, basically? Democrats can and do argue all of those things.

They can't really control their ability to be perceived as extreme, for the most part, especially since conservative media (and to some degree, mainstream media as well) have incentives to play up the lunatics in the Democratic base.

You're wrong.

Official platform - "We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment."
"keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets."

And while racism isn't a platform plank, even here where the moderates live, racism is thrown around at the mere mention of slowing immigration.

Edit: That's also lazy. They are politicians. If they can't even brand themselves, why should anyone listen to them about anything else?

That's pretty weak tea, insofar as neither of those policy planks are really inconsistent with what you're saying that they should say. They want to eliminate various abortion restrictions, including the Hyde Amendment. That's not saying that they want to eliminate ALL abortion restrictions, and "safe, legal, and rare" has been a mainstay of democratic rhetoric on abortion for a few decades now.

As for "keeping weapons of war" off our streets...again, that's not saying that we're going to go around and start taking everyone's guns. It's pretty vague rhetoric.

[Zarathud]

I don't think Pelosi has a bad reputation outside of Fox News viewers. Going on nothing but gut feel, I have a positive opinion of her.

This is the difference. The Republicans have a constant propaganda machine designed to constantly test messaging until something "sticks." This FOX machine is an outgrowth of the direct mail machine which evolved through talk radio and is morphing through Drudge/social media/Alex Jones InfoWars. Controlling the message "made" the Republicans, and Trump hijacked the machine.

The Democrats have policies. So many policies. But you never hear them. They get downed out and savaged in the Mainstream Media because policy is boring. And complicated and nuanced. Worst of all, Democrats go back to their "safe" opinion poll methods every time they try to message and reach out. Pelosi brings a knife to a gun battle.

Obama had the charisma to sell a dream of Hope, but his tech team delivered only a better way to crowdfund campaigns. That's huge because the Democrats FINALLY had a cash advantage in known contributions (probably not dark money IMO). But it's not enough when Trump and Fox and InfoWars are redefining truth in a way LordMortis and others doesn't know WHY they despise Pelosi, other that they do.

[GreenGoo]

And while racism isn't a platform plank, even here where the moderates live, racism is thrown around at the mere mention of slowing immigration.

Edit: That's also lazy. They are politicians. If they can't even brand themselves, why should anyone listen to them about anything else?

I can agree with this, but racists have dominated the conversation. Perhaps liberals are too quick to accuse people of racism. But that's because they've been fighting active, powerful racists on the topic for so long. While the dems hold some responsibility, those who want immigration reform should be absolutely pissed at the GOP for dominating the conversation with a racist viewpoint.

If you can't get a word in edge-wise because someone else is shouting about the same thing, but louder, for different, nefarious reasons, I think it becomes more difficult to blame those who refuse to listen to you, no matter how valid your viewpoint may be. Sifting through the racism to reach those who aren't racist is a daunting task, imo.

I alluded to something like branding earlier today. I don't agree with your branding comments, because political views are not about identical, monolithic platforms. Politics is not one size fits all. It's working for the GOP, so maybe I'm wrong, but what I see is less about how valid those platforms are, and more about cultivating an almost cult-like thought process. Many, many supporters of drumpf's would riot in the streets if the same behaviour came from Obama. Which is why I don't think the GOP branding is successful. It's more that loyalty to your party supersedes all else. That problem exists on the left as well, but I feel to a lesser extent. My feelings may not be valid.

Trying to unite a nation of 300 million people behind a few, basic platforms is obviously not reasonable, right? So why would the same idea be reasonable for 150 million people? Or 75 million people? etc. Or maybe it is reasonable and I'm just missing it.

I get and agree that people need to unite behind a common cause, and that seems to be what you're advocating. But god help me I have no idea what that common cause would be, even with your few examples. But I'm not American and maybe your suggestions resonate with Americans in ways that they might not with foreigners on the outside looking in.

[Default]

I don't think Pelosi has a bad reputation outside of Fox News viewers. Going on nothing but gut feel, I have a positive opinion of her.

I don't hate her by any means but, like HRC, she's been in the spotlight too long and has had too much mud slung at her to be the face of the party, IMHO. And as a wealthy, elderly woman from the most liberal part of the country, she has little appeal to the independent voters that the Democrats need to be winning over.

I've lived in the information stream for almost thirty years. Admittedly, the Postal Service is a backwater now, but the GOP has vilified any strong Democratic leader for as long as I can remember. I am still delivering mail with the same font that I was delivering when I first stared humping mail at 28. The name gets changed, but (insert name here) is coming for your guns. Pelosi is terrifying to them because she is a woman and the belief is that women should sit down, shut up, and WHERE'S MY DINNER, DAMMIT! But in the end, it's all panic that the GOP is pushing, and the idea that somehow, some way, you will be lessened by the existence of people who aren't subservient to you.

[Zarathud]

The Democrats have plenty of policy wonks, right now what they need is more salesmen, IMHO...

Agreed. Either that or a great story. It's a shame that Beto didn't topple Cruz, as he would have made a great story.

[GreenGoo]

I will say that over the last few years I have heard from people frustrated with the Democrats that the Democrats should do this, or they should say that, when the truth is that they are doing this, and they are doing that. It's just not sticking. It's not sticking so well that people who think those activities are the solution have no idea they are already implemented.

I'm not talking about specifics or even anything mentioned today, necessarily. I'm just vocalizing an observation that has been years in the making.

Is it the Dems fault that people think they are solving all the Dems problems with their ideas, even though those ideas are not new and are already implemented? Maybe. I think it's probably a combination of weak messaging on the left, and incredibly strong, united and critical messaging on the right.

There is no Fox News on the left. I don't care what you say about bias or left leaning mainstream media. There is just no equivalent to Fox News on the left. Fox News enthusiastically supports ANYTHING coming out of the GOP and puts their full propaganda machine on it. It's good because the GOP is doing it, not the GOP is doing something good. No one on the left is so uncritical of the Dems. Hell, Fox News appears to have a direct line to the WH right now. They appear to be directly giving the president his views on many things. What Democratic president has enjoyed so much support from any news outlet as compared to Fox News and the GOP? Combine that with the fact that Fox News is the most watched news in the country, it's a powerful obstacle to overcome.

[noxiousdog]

That's pretty weak tea, insofar as neither of those policy planks are really inconsistent with what you're saying that they should say. They want to eliminate various abortion restrictions, including the Hyde Amendment. That's not saying that they want to eliminate ALL abortion restrictions, and "safe, legal, and rare" has been a mainstay of democratic rhetoric on abortion for a few decades now.

As for "keeping weapons of war" off our streets...again, that's not saying that we're going to go around and start taking everyone's guns. It's pretty vague rhetoric.

Those are official party platform; not vague rhetoric, and only get more amped up in both the media and the campaign trail.

If that's part of being a Democrat, that's fine. It's not like the platform isn't carefully contrived. But don't be surprised when those issues keep you from getting votes.

[gbasden]

So, are you saying that Democrats should embrace abortion restrictions such as the Republicans want? I'll guarantee that all but eliminating access would cost them more votes than it would gain them. I don't know of anything in the party platform that argues against the standard formula of Roe V. Wade, which made 3rd term abortions pretty difficult to come by. It's entirely possible I'm just not following what you are saying. What would you council them to propose to appeal to people outside of their base?

[El Guapo]

That's pretty weak tea, insofar as neither of those policy planks are really inconsistent with what you're saying that they should say. They want to eliminate various abortion restrictions, including the Hyde Amendment. That's not saying that they want to eliminate ALL abortion restrictions, and "safe, legal, and rare" has been a mainstay of democratic rhetoric on abortion for a few decades now.

As for "keeping weapons of war" off our streets...again, that's not saying that we're going to go around and start taking everyone's guns. It's pretty vague rhetoric.

Those are official party platform; not vague rhetoric, and only get more amped up in both the media and the campaign trail.

If that's part of being a Democrat, that's fine. It's not like the platform isn't carefully contrived. But don't be surprised when those issues keep you from getting votes.

I'm saying it's both the official party platform AND vague rhetoric (at least the second amendment one). It's not inconsistent with the policy positions that you say that they should take (and that many if not most democratic politicians do in fact take).

In any event, individual Democratic candidates are going to take the positions (on average) that they feel will give them the best chance of winning where they run. The Democratic Party should not force individual candidates to be pro-choice or pro-gun control (which they tried to do on the pro-choice side, before IIRC backing down on that) because you're not going to win in Alabama or West Virginia being pro-choice or pro-gun control. Which is also part of why I don't think the Democrats can do all *that* much to avoid being labeled as extreme; anyone who wants to paint that picture can (especially if they're not arguing in good faith) pick and choose, from the endless amount of things that different Democrats are saying and writing, things that sound more extreme.

Which also points towards the problem that the Democrats (and indirectly the country) have on gun control. Polls tend to show that the public supports more gun control policies than are currently being enacted (though the phrasing matters a lot for the polls). However, the Senate is almost perfectly designed to amplify the power of people who are anti-gun control. So you wind up with a democratic (small d) deficit between public support for gun control and Senate support for gun control.

[noxiousdog]

I meant to type this up last night, but I can simplify it.

I am philosophically opposed to being a Democrat and it's very unlikely that I'll ever identify as one. I have in the past identified as Republican, and theoretically could again in the future if they return to things like science, balanced budgets, and open and competitive markets. (I'm not holding my breath).

However, as long as one party is willing to adopt reasonable compromise (which I know, doesn't fire up the base), I will continue to give that party my votes. I think there are a lot of people to the right of me that don't participate in politics enough to understand that their perception of the Republican and Democratic parties are not reality. My girlfriend is an example. Much to her dismay, dating me involves participating in politics.

If, as you say, the platform is more moderate than is perceived, then there's your answer. You don't even need a change, you just need to convey that message.

Currently, though, that effort is failing and something else needs to be tried.

[noxiousdog]

So, are you saying that Democrats should embrace abortion restrictions such as the Republicans want?

No.

I'll guarantee that all but eliminating access would cost them more votes than it would gain them.

Agreed.

I don't know of anything in the party platform that argues against the standard formula of Roe V. Wade, which made 3rd term abortions pretty difficult to come by. It's entirely possible I'm just not following what you are saying. What would you council them to propose to appeal to people outside of their base?

I would change the language mentioned in the platform (see above) to include science based restrictions on legal abortion with very specific exceptions. Defending abortion at all costs (current) is much different than defending abortion rights when there is no significant brain activity. Also, using the language that conveys "you will reduce abortions not by law, but instead by access to women's health and contraceptives" is a powerful too. Outcomes matter. That's the goal right? Fewer abortions? The abortion rate has been dropping since 1980. That's not law, that's contraceptives.

[LordMortis]

However, as long as one party is willing to adopt reasonable compromise (which I know, doesn't fire up the base), I will continue to give that party my votes.

That's pretty much it. One party is actively engaging with what it means to live to live in the 21st century US. They do a whole lotta shit I don't like but they're engaged. The other are engaged in a fantasy of what life was like post war 70 years ago and are obsessed with a roadmap on how to build the Delorean to get us there, believing Reagan almost did it nearly 40 years ago. Seeing these last 10 years it feels like there is a failure of the Generation Landslide I've come to appreciate. Maybe we're long overdue for the next art explosion, the next dadaism, the next expressionism, the next post modernism turned punk, the next whatever it is to grab our culture and desperately reject whatever it is we're doing with a sort of authenticity that is missing right now until it becomes woven in to the next culture. I'm sorry what were we talking about again?

[YellowKing]

I'm philosophically opposed to a party that tries to force me into adhering to a white, Christian, male-dominant view of the world. Which the Republican party does. It's enshrined in their platform.

This nation is founded on religious freedom, so it's not the Democrats' burden to make their platform more palatable to those of a particular religion. In fact, religion should be out of politics and government altogether. Which it would be if Republicans shed their hypocrisy and truly upheld the values of the Constitution they supposedly hold so dear.

[GreenGoo]

I like you LM. You think about difficult topics and and explore complex ideas. You seem to be incredibly scatterbrained and a poor communicator, but you take on complex concepts, turn them over in your head and explore them. This might appear to be a backhanded insult, but it's not supposed to be.

I just want you to know that I acknowledge that you spend time on things that I perceive to be worthwhile and you do your best to share those thoughts. Because you get a hard time from a lot of us including me, even in good spirit, I in no way consider you a clown to tease and then ignore what you say.

I'm saying this because as I get older I can feel my thoughts developing ruts that my brain is more comfortable staying in. I explore new ideas less, I spend less time on complex ideas, and I'm in general becoming a lot more simple minded. Some of that is just old age codger-syndrome, but some of it is a decrease in my mental ability and flexibility. I absolutely do not expand my mind like I did when I was younger. At some point in my life I considered myself an averagely educated, world-ignorant intellectual. I think I'm more worldly now and slightly less ignorant, but I feel that the intellectual label I think I earned as a kid still applies. But that's probably not true. I have rested on my laurels for too long and while my mind can still handle fairly complex ideas, I don't use it to do so and my thoughts are getting shallower by the year. (edit: Note this is not me fishing for compliments. I'm expressing some observations that have been years in the making. Just facts I believe are true. They are only slightly dismaying).

So in recognizing my own decay, I value those who have maintained at least a modicum if not more of flexibility and deep thought. You are not alone in this, there are many people here with lots of interesting thoughts to contribute, which is why I'm here in the first place, but you are someone who we give a (sometimes very) hard time about your communication skills. I think it's important that you hear that I recognize that you're a thinker, even if you are a poor communicator. You've told us that you are not a poor communicator, just lazy/fast here on OO, and I have no reason to doubt you. At the same time I just have your OO presence to go by.

Just a passing thought that came to mind as I read your post. You suck. But only when communicating your ideas. Your thoughts are awesome when we can understand them, even when I disagree with them.

edit: More importantly, you're not afraid or shy away from complex thoughts. I think I do that a lot these days. It's a lot of work, I think.

[Jeff V]

The way things have been cycling the last few decades, the Democrats have been victimized by irresponsible actions that the GOP has taken which then require unpopular measures to mitigate. When Bush drove the economy into the ground, economists said it would take 8 years for everything to recover. That they couldn't do it 4 was considered a failure of Democrats, not a continuation of the hole the GOP put us in. And the Democrats did eventually turn things around, only to have an orange ape step in and take credit for it.

What they desperately need is a vocal and charismatic voice that will keep their accomplishments front and center while at the same time continuing to hold the Republicans responsible for their misdeeds no matter how long it takes to undo them. They shouldn't have to suck up the consequence of being the adult in the room, there is nothing wrong with reminding people constantly who shit the bed.

[LordMortis]

I'm saying this because as I get older I can feel my thoughts developing ruts that my brain is more comfortable staying in. I explore new ideas less, I spend less time on complex ideas, and I'm in general becoming a lot more simple minded. Some of that is just old age codger-syndrome, but some of it is a decrease in my mental ability and flexibility. I absolutely do not expand my mind like I did when I was younger.

That's me and I don't even have kid to blame it on. There is nothing I would like more than to retire to find 1/4 of the energy and drive I had thirty years ago to grapple with the world beyond going to work, coming home, and going to bed.

You are not alone in this, there are many people here with lots of interesting thoughts to contribute, which is why I'm here in the first place, but you are someone who we give a (sometimes very) hard time about your communication skills.

My inability to see what I have written versus what I meant to write goes back to long before I started typing and long before I became be distracted by constant multitasking. I can't help it. I hate it. But, no matter what I type, what I read is what I meant to type. It's divorced the the reality of what is on the screen. I don't see the missing words. I don't see how I jump from way of saying something to a totally different way of saying the same thing in the same sentence as my mind was forming the thought. I only see what I meant to type. It's really psycho if I let myself think about it. I live with it. The only way around it for me would be to leave everything I write in draft form and come back to it the next day, reading my writing freshly, as if someone else was the author and then edit my work. Others having fun (or having comprehension frustration) at my expense is a cost of me publishing my thoughts in writing publicly.

Being scatterbrained and making references to things as if others could see inside my brain? That's who I am. I'm not ashamed. I rather enjoy it most of the time. It keeps me exploring everything when I otherwise have a very strong will to stasis. The exception is when I am trying to be direct but don't know how to get there. Today I was trying to explain to my manager (verbally) why I needed a drive share for a counterpart in at another office. I was trying to so directly and simply. I failed miserably.

You suck. But only when communicating your ideas.

[LordMortis]

What they desperately need is a vocal and charismatic voice that will keep their accomplishments front and center while at the same time continuing to hold the Republicans responsible for their misdeeds no matter how long it takes to undo them.

Thanx Obama.

[Jeff V]

What they desperately need is a vocal and charismatic voice that will keep their accomplishments front and center while at the same time continuing to hold the Republicans responsible for their misdeeds no matter how long it takes to undo them.

Thanx Obama.

Obama could have been that person, but he tried to be, well, presidential. I'm not sure you want the mouthpiece to necessarily be the president, for all the reasons that was the Obama presidency.

[GreenGoo]

You suck. But only when communicating your ideas.

See: forum giving you a hard time, but in good spirit.

Plus, dude, sometime in the last few years my typos and spelling errors have morphed into entirely inappropriate but correctly spelled words being substituted for the intended word. The intended word and the written word aren't even related, although sometimes they are similar. I just recently typed anyway when I meant anyone. Anyway made exactly zero sense in the sentence context. But really there are much worse examples that I can't think of right now.

So I get it.

[LordMortis]

The motivation to culture vs the reality of the practical vote sent me off, as is my way and I ended up on this op ed from early 2017.

https://www.thenation.com/article/its-t ... -movement/

I was thinking art in reaction to oppression and I somehow totally left out civil right movement beyond artistic rebellion. I'm a terrible student of history. Still, this caught my eye. In particular this painful bit forced me to read on

Why recall this history exactly 50 years later, in the age of Donald Trump? Curiously enough, King offered at least a partial answer to that question in his 1967 warning about the deeper malady. “If we ignore this sobering reality,” he said, “we will find ourselves…marching… and attending rallies without end.” The alternative? “We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.”

[gbasden]

So, are you saying that Democrats should embrace abortion restrictions such as the Republicans want?

No.

I'll guarantee that all but eliminating access would cost them more votes than it would gain them.

Agreed.

I don't know of anything in the party platform that argues against the standard formula of Roe V. Wade, which made 3rd term abortions pretty difficult to come by. It's entirely possible I'm just not following what you are saying. What would you council them to propose to appeal to people outside of their base?

I would change the language mentioned in the platform (see above) to include science based restrictions on legal abortion with very specific exceptions. Defending abortion at all costs (current) is much different than defending abortion rights when there is no significant brain activity. Also, using the language that conveys "you will reduce abortions not by law, but instead by access to women's health and contraceptives" is a powerful too. Outcomes matter. That's the goal right? Fewer abortions? The abortion rate has been dropping since 1980. That's not law, that's contraceptives.

For sure, and I'd absolutely agree with that.

[GreenGoo]

That's the goal right? Fewer abortions? The abortion rate has been dropping since 1980. That's not law, that's contraceptives.

That's not actually the goal of abortion law. That's the exact opposite of the goal of abortion law. That might be society's goal, and it's a worthy goal, but abortion law isn't about reducing abortions by any stretch of the imagination.

If the two sides are not arguing over the law, what is it they are arguing over? The philosophy of abortions? To what end? The law, presumably. No one on the pro-choice sides gives even a single shit what those on the pro-life side do about their own, personal lives. They wouldn't even be a argument if the pro-life side stopped telling everyone else what to do. Abort, don't abort, use contraceptives, don't use contraceptives, give the baby up for adoption, don't give the baby up for adoption. The Pro-choice has absolutely no interest in making the pro-life side do anything. At all. They are fighting so the pro-life side doesn't force everyone else to live by their rules, particularly because those rules are harmful to women's health.

The abortion debate about deciding who has control over a woman's body. The woman, or society. Reducing abortion/increasing abortion is irrelevant to the legal argument.

So I get that you're saying that politically, to convince people to vote for you, you alter the message. But the debate is not about reducing abortion and neither is the law.

[noxiousdog]

That's the goal right? Fewer abortions? The abortion rate has been dropping since 1980. That's not law, that's contraceptives.

That's not actually the goal of abortion law. That's the exact opposite of the goal of abortion law. That might be society's goal, and it's a worthy goal, but abortion law isn't about reducing abortions by any stretch of the imagination.

If the two sides are not arguing over the law, what is it they are arguing over? The philosophy of abortions? To what end? The law, presumably. No one on the pro-choice sides gives even a single shit what those on the pro-life side do about their own, personal lives. They wouldn't even be a argument if the pro-life side stopped telling everyone else what to do. Abort, don't abort, use contraceptives, don't use contraceptives, give the baby up for adoption, don't give the baby up for adoption. The Pro-choice has absolutely no interest in making the pro-life side do anything. At all. They are fighting so the pro-life side doesn't force everyone else to live by their rules, particularly because those rules are harmful to women's health.

The abortion debate about deciding who has control over a woman's body. The woman, or society. Reducing abortion/increasing abortion is irrelevant to the legal argument.

So I get that you're saying that politically, to convince people to vote for you, you alter the message. But the debate is not about reducing abortion and neither is the law.

The vast majority of the pro-life movement believes human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected. Your "control women" theory is grade A conspiracy. I challenge you to find any literature akin to the Southern Strategy that abortion is being used to control women.

How would that even work?

[Carpet_pissr]

What the Democrats needs is a Great Person, specifically, the one Great Person that Civ lacks for some reason: Great Politician:

Ability 1: Charisma: Increase Production, Happiness and Culture in all cities by +5, for 20 turns
Ability 2: Write Political Treatise (that one actually exists in the game): Generates a large amount of culture, instantly. This can help you advance to the next Social Policy. Specifically, help to modernize the American Constitution so it can work for another 100 years.
Bonus Ability: Bipartisanship: +2 relations with all Civs and city states.

Seriously, we could use a JFK right now. SOMEthing to really pull us together. I was hoping Obama would be that person, but sadly, I think he was too black for those citizens mentally stuck in 1950's America. Biden could have been that guy, maybe. It needs to be someone VERY vocal about denouncing the current shittiness of character we witness everyday in the White House. Maybe build a Great Wonder that is NOT divisive like The Great Fucking Wall (TM).

[GreenGoo]

The vast majority of the pro-life movement believes human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected. Your "control women" theory is grade A conspiracy.

Dude. Because you think the thing inside her body has it's own rights does not change anything. The reasons why you're taking away a woman's control of her own body doesn't make it any different.

Abortion is about a woman's sovereignty over her self. That's it. The reasons why people feel they are justified to tell a woman what she can and can't do with it is not a counter-argument.

That she's a factory for more humans doesn't mean society get to tell her to keep making them after she's started. And that doesn't even address the fact that she often started without her awareness or intent or ability to handle the outcome.

Are we really going to do this?

Actually, no we are not. Decades where much smarter people have argued much more thoroughly than we ever could. If we're still far apart, we will continue to be, notwithstanding your belief that you know what Dems should do to get more votes because what you think their stance is is extreme on the subject.

I'm not angry, I'm just perplexed that someone could believe that abortion law is not about telling a woman what to do with her baby factory, or in actual fact, abortion law is about keeping other people from telling a woman what to do with her baby factory.

[Paingod]

The vast majority of the pro-life movement believes human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected. Your "control women" theory is grade A conspiracy. I challenge you to find any literature akin to the Southern Strategy that abortion is being used to control women.

The vast majority of pro-choice people see it as those in power (mostly old white men) impressing their religious beliefs on women who want none of it - by proxy exerting direct control over women's bodies, telling them what they can and can't do. Up to a certain point in development (which is debatable) the growth inside a woman is no more special than fingernails that you clip off for appearances or the skin you slough off during the day. Your "life begins at conception" is grade A religious crock.

I've thought the pro-lifers, generally backed by religious intent, would rather see a girl get knocked up through rape and keep the baby - because it'll be more people in the pews, feeding the religious machine. I know it's cynical, but I don't put much stock in people who only do "good" because they're afraid of what will happen when they die.

[GreenGoo]

The vast majority of the pro-life movement believes human life begins at conception and therefore should be protected. Your "control women" theory is grade A conspiracy. I challenge you to find any literature akin to the Southern Strategy that abortion is being used to control women.

The vast majority of pro-choice people see it as those in power (mostly old white men) impressing their religious beliefs on women who want none of it - by proxy exerting direct control over women's bodies. Your "life begins at contraception" is grade A religious crock.

But that's not the whole picture either. Plenty of women are anti-abortion and plenty of people are anti-abortion for ethical reasons that have nothing to with with religion. I understand and am sympathetic to the "protecting human life" argument. I'm less sympathetic about when that human life deserves to be protected over the objections of it's incubator though. I agree that "my religion says" is not a valid argument. But that's not the only argument. It's not that simple.

Yes, I realize my terminology is offensive to women. I'm actually trying to emphasize the nature of the specificity being discussed. It's also supposed to be mild parody.

[noxiousdog]

And that's why you guys are considered elitist and out of touch.

The logic is simple.
A fetus is homo sapiens.
It's alive.
The end.

You can argue justification. You can argue which is more important (mother or fetal tissue). But it's a unique genetic being that is being terminated.

I'm even fine with you telling me it's not a baby.

But the fact that you won't even consider how people could believe another way and be passionate about it is infuriating.

Honestly it feels like mental gymnastics because you don't want to even consider the possibility you might be wrong because that presents an irreconcilable ethical dilemma similar to the push the button to kill one person to save 10,000.

[Paingod]

Plenty of women are anti-abortion and plenty of people are anti-abortion for ethical reasons that have nothing to with with religion.

I would be curious to see those numbers on a Venn diagram. I'm sure there's outliers in a lot of things, and the motivations aren't always one or another - humans are complex... but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority (90%+) of pro-lifers are such because of their religious beliefs.

A fetus is homo sapiens.

Which is why I used the word debatable. That growth of cells isn't a fetus until it's past 9 weeks, right? That's well beyond "conception" and two cells merging and dividing into four. Most pro-lifers seem to stick to "abortion at any stage of cellular development is murder" - it's an easy platform, much like the NRA's "No" platform for all gun regulation.

The logic is simple.
A fetus is homo sapiens.
It's alive.
The end.

My blood cells are genetically homo sapiens, and also alive. Should I not give blood? When I spit, do I not expel homo sapiens DNA? When they cut a tumor out of a person's spleen, is it not also living homo sapiens tissue? Yes, the human egg cells and sperm cells are amazing little machines - but still just cells, like all the other ones. It's very cool that they combine from two donors to create a new type of cell. It's neat that that new cell rapidly divides. This is a biological process, though. It's not "alive" any more than the chicken egg you eat for breakfast is, or the snot you blow out of your nose is. Is it special? Yes. Is it alive? Sure. Is it a HUMAN LIFE? No.

[noxiousdog]

Plenty of women are anti-abortion and plenty of people are anti-abortion for ethical reasons that have nothing to with with religion.

I would be curious to see those numbers on a Venn diagram. I'm sure there's outliers in a lot of things, and the motivations aren't always one or another - humans are complex... but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority (90%+) of pro-lifers are such because of their religious beliefs.

A fetus is homo sapiens.

Which is why I used the word debatable. That growth of cells isn't a fetus until it's past 9 weeks, right? That's well beyond "conception" and two cells merging and dividing into four. Most pro-lifers seem to stick to "abortion at any stage of cellular development is murder" - it's an easy platform, much like the NRA's "No" platform for all gun regulation.

Sure, and it's a pretty close to fringe belief. Only 18% of people believe that it should be illegal in all cases. Just like what started this path of the conversation, fringe opinions usurp party platforms.

[noxiousdog]

Here's a good list of opinions

[LordMortis]

What the Democrats needs is a Great Person, specifically, the one Great Person that Civ lacks for some reason: Great Politician:

Ability 1: Charisma: Increase Production, Happiness and Culture in all cities by +5, for 20 turns
Ability 2: Write Political Treatise (that one actually exists in the game): Generates a large amount of culture, instantly. This can help you advance to the next Social Policy. Specifically, help to modernize the American Constitution so it can work for another 100 years.
Bonus Ability: Bipartisanship: +2 relations with all Civs and city states.

Seriously, we could use a JFK right now. SOMEthing to really pull us together. I was hoping Obama would be that person, but sadly, I think he was too black for those citizens mentally stuck in 1950's America. Biden could have been that guy, maybe. It needs to be someone VERY vocal about denouncing the current shittiness of character we witness everyday in the White House. Maybe build a Great Wonder that is NOT divisive like The Great Fucking Wall (TM).

Maybe if this guy were to get in to politics.

https://makezine.com/author/dalepd/

He's is at the forefront of the all of these tiny communities rejecting where we're at. Bringing them all together by virtue of them getting together in their own maker tribe under a sort of DIY punk ethic. The back of my mind has been haunted by what is not yet here and needs to happen and the DIY really does seem to be thing in the background that is positive and moving forward and could fill the void without regard to the will of the body politic in the US and it appeals to both sides of the aisle. The Maker movement is the movement I've been trying to nail down all day and missing because its an artisan movement rather than an artist movement.

[YellowKing]

And that's why you guys are considered elitist and out of touch.

That's great spin, but how can the party that *most Americans agree with on major social positions* be the one that's elitist and out of touch?

The truth is that Democrats are only elitist and out of touch to conservatives. Not to the broader American public.

Abortion? A majority of Americans believe it should be legal.

Gun control? A majority of Americans believe we should have more of it.

Same-sex marriage? A majority of Americans support it.

The list goes on.

If anything, it's conservatives who are out of touch with mainstream America. As much as they don't want to admit it. And that's not rhetoric - go look up the polls yourself.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, if supporting all those things makes me elitist then fetch me my monocle.

[GreenGoo]

And that's why you guys are considered elitist and out of touch

Give me a break. You understand that you are not just in the minority in the US but in the western world, right?

But somehow I'm the elitist and out of touch?

But here's the deal. I understand exactly what your argument. I even agree with it in principle.

So what? I do not have the right to tell a woman to keep producing a baby. Period. Full stop. I don't have to like abortions, I don't have to approve of abortions, I don't have to make any sort of judgement about their life style, the circumstances, their reasons, medical situation, nothing. I do not get to force a woman to produce more humans if she doesn't want to do so. The very idea is ludicrous.

That's it.
I get your reasoning. Do you get mine?

There is no compromise here. Even if we agree that abortion should be legal but with restrictions, there is no way we will agree on the restrictions.

There's a reason that logical arguments and science have not resolved this debate over the centuries that abortions have been performed, legal/ illegal not withstanding, and we sure as hell aren't going to do it today between the two of us.

Unlike many I don't blame you for not agreeing with me. Or as many blame pro-choicers for not agreeing with them. I believe that I understand why it is so important to many pro-lifers, and don't mock that reason, I empathize.

But it does not sway me enough for me to force my beliefs onto the bodies of women.

What you misunderstand about my expressed disbelief is that you apparently think it's not about state control of a woman's uterus. Laws by their very nature are state control over their subject matter.

None of this matters because no one's view is going to be swayed.

But I get it. I'm the elitist. That the debate rages on in the US is people like me's fault for being inflexible, got it. Despite the fact there are already a TON of restrictions on abortion, but those aren't good enough for pro-lifers and that's pro-choicers elitism at work.

[Zaxxon]

Indeed. In general within today's political environment, if you find yourself using the term 'elitist,' you're likely under the effects of the conservative kool-aid.

Those portrayed as elitist are the ones with the mainstream views, as YK mentioned.

[YellowKing]

It's just frustrating because conservatives have done an amazing job using labels and name-calling to win arguments they can't win on facts. They are extremely good at flipping the argument around, and putting those with more progressive beliefs on the defensive. When in fact the progressives are the ones with the numbers on their side.

I know that because I used to be one and I engaged in those very tactics.

[Jeff V]

Yeah, if supporting all those things makes me elitist then fetch me my monocle.

Would you have any Grey Poupon?

[Jeff V]

It's just frustrating because conservatives have done an amazing job using labels and name-calling to win arguments they can't win on facts. They are extremely good at flipping the argument around, and putting those with more progressive beliefs on the defensive. When in fact the progressives are the ones with the numbers on their side.

I know that because I used to be one and I engaged in those very tactics.

Oh, facts are very much their enemy so bring on the ad hominum attacks. Really, their ability to debate anything is about the level of my 5 year old:

Me: "With the sole exception of scientists employed in industries generating greenhouse gases, there is no debate to whether global warming is occurring"

Boy: "You're a poopy head."

[malchior]

And that's why you guys are considered elitist and out of touch.

That's great spin, but how can the party that *most Americans agree with on major social positions* be the one that's elitist and out of touch?

It isn't great spin. It is a purely lazy argument. Anyway, why shouldn't we aspire to be elite as a society? Not everyone can be the best but we shouldn't look down on those who want us to be better collectively. I know I want to live in the United Federation of Planets...not this hellscape idiocracy that we live in.