Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I would cease talking to anyone who held either of them (as I think it is every reasonable person's duty to do).

Just because Flower has pointed out your prior uses, whether intentional or not, of irony, I thought I'd highlight this one.

Dude. You voted for fucking Johnson.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

All because that showboat Kenyan had to announce in advance that he had jury duty.

It really boils down to this: He will distract the Jurors away from listening. One side will like that and the other side will not wan that. The lawyer for the side that wants the jury to listen will have a choice. Let him stay and be able to tell people you tried a case with him on the jury OR do what is best for your case and bounce him? For that matter if it is clear you bounced him, wouldn't the other jurors hate you from the start. No, there were far bigger issues and challenges at play yesterday than your silly belt problem.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

...I think this is also pretty close to what might have happened a year ago if the Dems had run Not Hillary.

It's kind of hard to escape that conclusion given that we backlash against Trumpism we were hoping for/expecting actually showed up in VA.

I guess it's possible that it just took a year and Trump winning for people to realize that they really do need to go out and say no to this crap (and Hank's point about polling could be a factor. But it's hard not to think that distrust and dislike of Hillary was too.

...they probably need to do something to appeal to the white working class that has still not turned on Trump.

There is literally nothing that can be done. They don't like Trump because they believe he'll do anything for them. They like him because he hates the people they hate. There's no appealing to that group without joining in.

If the Dems could turn back the clock on their position on abortion by a decade or so, I'd probably become one.

That's not happening.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You're always welcome in the party, we got a big tent, but I don't think you'll change the consensus among Dems on choice any time soon. I've watched my wife, as we watch more people working through tragedies as we age, move well to the left on the issue from her Catholic upbringing, and I think that's true of an awful lot of people around Catholic Boston.

How about a tax plan that raises Trump's taxes and lowers taxes on earned income from working people? Maybe one that has a single rate for dividends, capital gains, and earned income, set in a way that is overall revenue neutral, to just shift the burden away from people who work.

How does one stick with Catholicism beyond third grade?

I've few early memories, but I recall as early as then, sitting through a service and thinking, this right here... this is some badly made up shit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A and B are not valid responses from a rational, sane person. I would cease talking to anyone who held either of them (as I think it is every reasonable person's duty to do).

But other than clergy, who are not rational people, have you ever heard anyone offer A or B as a serious position? I've never heard any lay person make that argument.

That's why Griswald V. Ct is such a good intro to the abortion cases. You're reading your case book thinking NWTAF?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

During our pre-cana, someone asked the Priest the question. He responded that people should talk to their doctor about Birth Control.

We were disappointed. We wanted to see the actual doctrine set out and defended. Because the right follow up question, once every is either laughing or looking utterly dumbfounded, is, "And the church's position on women priests is just as batshit crazy, isn't it?"

But it's my Church and I love it.

When will "cognitive dissonance" be listed by Webster's as a synonym for religion?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No, there were far bigger issues and challenges at play yesterday than your silly belt problem.

This is the dumbest thing you have ever said on this forum.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

In tightly contested districts, I ask the forum: Would this be enough to move the needle?

No, because most opposition to abortion isn't opposition to abortion but rather broader disapproval of sex and belief that sinful sex should have consequences, including childbirth. Doing things that actually reduce abortions - i.e., education about and access to contraception - doesn't reduce any sinful sex and thus is not an acceptable abortion strategy. Also, the intended audience likely wrongly believes that contraception actually increases the amount of sinful sex in the world.

[ferrets_bueller]

3G: I misread your survey question; apologies. We agree that Catholics ignore doctrine on birth control. The evidence is irrefutable.

But Dems have to get away from shunning people like Robert Casey, the former centrist governor of Pennsylvania, who was ardently pro-life. Given how tight some of the races in rust belt states are, just a wee bit of flexibility...toleration...if you will... for pro-Life candidates could lead to more progressive government.

You agree to disagree on the abortion issue and you find common ground on preventing unwanted pregnancy. Then you move to the other 10 issues where you agree.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Just because Flower has pointed out your prior uses, whether intentional or not, of irony, I thought I'd highlight this one.

Dude. You voted for fucking Johnson.

I couldn't stand either of them and figured she had it in the bag. That's not irrational.

After his election, when he announced he'd be doing infrastructure, I thought, "This isn't so bad."

Now? The only silver lining I'm seeing is, perhaps serious people will stand up and say, we have to start reaching across the aisles and compromising.

I think the problem is with Congress. Yes, Trump worsens things. But the R Congress and Obama were at war for eight years before. And I know your reply to that: "Obama tried to work with them initially." I said that same thing to someone who ran a department under Obama. This person's response to me was, "No. Obama didn't really try to work with Rs initially. He just did a very good job of making it appear that way, which was politically shrewd and effective."

[ferrets_bueller]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, because most opposition to abortion isn't opposition to abortion but rather broader disapproval of sex and belief that sinful sex should have consequences, including childbirth. Doing things that actually reduce abortions - i.e., education about and access to contraception - doesn't reduce any sinful sex and thus is not an acceptable abortion strategy. Also, the intended audience likely wrongly believes that contraception actually increases the amount of sinful sex in the world.

I can't agree. Sure there is a puritan streak. Granted. Some people think sex leads to dancing, too. But I think a substantial number of people draw the line in the sand at abortion, not at premarital sex. Move those people into the Democratic column, and the national map looks a lot bluer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, because most opposition to abortion isn't opposition to abortion but rather broader disapproval of sex and belief that sinful sex should have consequences, including childbirth. Doing things that actually reduce abortions - i.e., education about and access to contraception - doesn't reduce any sinful sex and thus is not an acceptable abortion strategy. Also, the intended audience likely wrongly believes that contraception actually increases the amount of sinful sex in the world.

Re Catholicism, the prohibition on artificial birth control (they actually endorse using something called the Rhythm Method, which times a woman's fertility cycle) appears more a device to create more bodies to fill pews and donate. Mormonism is running a similar strategy at the moment with its emphasis on pumping out issue like rabbits.

It's a truly vile doctrine in areas where people are short on food and resources.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Growth in tech comes at a cost to growth elsewhere because it removes the need for labor to a degree far in excess of the jobs it creates.

Who do you think we get to leisure (if that's even the goal), without removing the need for labor? The whole basis of the Keynes prediction you cite is that technology drives the cost to produce human needs off a cliff.

It's probably wrong, but still, what you constantly leave out is that technology will make production cheaper (if it won't, it won't be adopted). You only consider one side of the equation. Even if it "weakens the pocket book" (it doesn't, but whatever), in your view of how the world works, it reduces the cost of what they need to buy.

Second, it eliminates various forms of spending entirely.

Now you're concerned about a glut of savings that can't find productive investment?? In a world of technologic advancement? That's nonsensical.

On that second point, consider how many things you might spend money on but for your iPhone. Print media. Calendars. Video games. TVs. Cable subscriptions. Assistants (why hire an assistant when your phone can tell you where to be and what to do, and manage all of your deadlines?) Going to bars or restaurants to meet possible significant others (why not just use online dating?) I could offer a million examples of economic transactions that little computer in your hand eliminates and does not replace with other transactions of anywhere near equal value. But you get the picture...

Yes, you're advancing straight-forward Ludditism (is that a word?).

In the absence of broad growth, we've seen debt, and a form of rentier capitalism (Hi Piketty!) take hold in this country.

You mean in the presence of changes in our tax and regulatory systems and social programs specifically designed to create rentier capitalism, we've seen rentier capitalism take hold.

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Re Catholicism, the prohibition on artificial birth control (they actually endorse using something called the Rhythm Method, which times a woman's fertility cycle) appears more a device to create more bodies to fill pews and donate. Mormonism is running a similar strategy at the moment with its emphasis on pumping out issue like rabbits.

It's a truly vile doctrine in areas where people are short on food and resources.

NFP is not the rhythm method, btw. It worked to help us expeditiously conceive the Chicklets (and the pregnancies we lost). Preventing pregnancy takes a fair amount of care and attention, but can be effective for people who know what they're doing. Cervical mucus and basal body temps are pretty good indicators.

And I'm not even Catholic.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

A big thing on abortion, though, is that I think the intensity of the issue has declined within the Catholic Church.

I don't think the abortion issue is primarily about Catholics.