[mike777]

Abortion is such a huge issue.


As long as we see pro abortion voting up issues...the rest do not matter in this thread

Please see upvotes just in this thread


everyone is so cute on other issues...let us just start one one simple one

1) vote no for abortion
2) vote yes but still open and willing to vote other

IN America abortion is still after many many years a one issue vote

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-28, 10:22, said:

I think the Hillary forces need to think this through. Her response (summarized from what I saw) was to list some women's issues, sensible ones, that she supports. I would far have preferred her to say: "Woman card? I would be most happy to hold a public debate tomorrow with Mr. Trump on foreign policy. Brazil? China? ISIS? You name the topic, the time, the location for the debate, I'll be there."

I think that would be a mistake at this time Ken. The number and formats for the debates can have a major bearing on the final outcome. If Hillary is well ahead she is better off shutting down opportunities for direct debate with Trump, who would in that scenario surely throw everything at her. She and her team probably feel she can handle him but why open yourself to the risks that that could entail? Better at this stage in the campaign to play the short game so as not to get backed into an uncomfortable spot later on. She has amply chance to challenge him to debate later if that seems advantageous and her advantage there is that it would hurt Trump's image more to duck her than the other way around.

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-April-29, 02:23, said:

I think that would be a mistake at this time Ken. The number and formats for the debates can have a major bearing on the final outcome. If Hillary is well ahead she is better off shutting down opportunities for direct debate with Trump, who would in that scenario surely throw everything at her. She and her team probably feel she can handle him but why open yourself to the risks that that could entail? Better at this stage in the campaign to play the short game so as not to get backed into an uncomfortable spot later on. She has amply chance to challenge him to debate later if that seems advantageous and her advantage there is that it would hurt Trump's image more to duck her than the other way around.

I agree that my suggestion should not be taken literally. Let me draw it out a little. Trump's attack about the women's card was an accusation of identity politics. Here in Maryland there have recently been several unsuccessful attempts to appeal to racial or gender identity as part of a campaign. Eight years ago the Obama campaign handled it wisely, a strong slogan being "Race doesn't matter". Otherwise put "Yes, I'm black. So what?" The campaign must decide. Is she to run on the historical nature of becoming the first woman president or is she to take the approach of "Yes, I am a woman, so what?" She cannot do both.


She has a long record in politics. A long record always has accomplishments and failures, but I hope she chooses to run on it. Mostly I think she has. But "historical nature" can be tempting. A mistake, I think.

So construe my hasty suggestion not as an exact recommendation. Rather it was that she respond on the order of "Look, I am running on the issues and on my record. If Mr. Trump wants to talk about the women's card and who has the most attractive spouse, that's his choice. I am prepared to talk about foreign policy, about the economy, about cybersecurity, about wealth and educational inequality, and yes, as part of my campaign I will address some issues that may be of particular importance to women, or to African-Americans, or Latinos, or, for that matter, some issues of importance to white working class men. I will not be criticizing Mr. Trump for being male, I will be setting out clear reasons why I would make a better president than he would".

Trump has been very successful. I don't really understand it. But back when I made some effort to become decent at tennis I recall the advice "The answer to spin is power". Something like that is what I have in mind.

[Phil]

Trump was in Orange County last night at the fairgrounds. There was a riot that involved some protesters but I seriously doubt any of the instigators were from here.

The most excited people get about anything is deciding between the carnitas and carne asada.

[Al_U_Card]

Was there ever a time when elections were not about appealing to the specific interests of the electorate? (Somehow, rational, intellectual and philosophical argumentation just never seems to make it to the fore...)

Democracy has not been trumped by politicians, because they are all jokers. The occasional wild card can expose the hands being played, but for the most part, the number of tricks involved has more to do with finessing the spectators than end-playing the opponents.

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-29, 05:06, said:

She has a long record in politics. A long record always has accomplishments and failures, but I hope she chooses to run on it. Mostly I think she has. But "historical nature" can be tempting. A mistake, I think.

I would tend to agree with you broadly but she has to be careful here too. It is a natural for her to position herself as the candidate with the experience to do the job but that leads to the obvious counter that she has experience only of Washington and is essentially the establishment figure, whereas Trump can sell himself as having a broader range of experiences untainted by Washington failures. It is this combination that seems to me to be the one that makes him dangerous, so voluntarily making the argument stronger is a potentially risky strategy. In the end it is not really something she can easily avoid though, so better for her to lead the debate than waiting for the attacks to come and playing catch-up.

Running on being the first female president would be bad I think. Sure she should acknowledge that "it would an honour to be the first female president" but add that she wants people to elect her because she is the best person for the job and thereby talk about her vision/plans/record. She can use this formulation to move the debate into areas that suit her and are more difficult for Trump, giving her a tactical advantage. She has a very strong and experienced team behind her though. I doubt we will see the same mistakes made by her campaign that have been made by the other Republican candidates. My expectation is still that she will win it in the end but that her lack of basic charisma and popularity will make it a reasonably close race.

[kenberg]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-April-29, 05:47, said:

Was there ever a time when elections were not about appealing to the specific interests of the electorate? (Somehow, rational, intellectual and philosophical argumentation just never seems to make it to the fore...)

Democracy has not been trumped by politicians, because they are all jokers. The occasional wild card can expose the hands being played, but for the most part, the number of tricks involved has more to do with finessing the spectators than end-playing the opponents.

Don't forget the cleverly chosen false card. Occasionally useful at bridge but of fundamental importance to politicians.

[Al_U_Card]

It is the intention behind the false card that does the heavy lifting. If, by intention, we infer politically that it is the influences behind the candidate that will dictate the type, extent and efficacy of the misdirection, which of the candidates appears the most nefarious?

DT is fairly obviously in tight with the plutocratic society that he exists within. The extent of his subterfuges and mendacity is pretty much WYSIWYG.

Hil, OTOH, is a real nest of vipers. From Whitewater through Benghazi to GS subsidized speaking tours, it brings to mind the old adage "Get thee behind me Satan!" but stay close for when I need you... Just what price are you willing to pay?

[kenberg]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-April-29, 08:35, said:

It is the intention behind the false card that does the heavy lifting. If, by intention, we infer politically that it is the influences behind the candidate that will dictate the type, extent and efficacy of the misdirection, which of the candidates appears the most nefarious?

DT is fairly obviously in tight with the plutocratic society that he exists within. The extent of his subterfuges and mendacity is pretty much WYSIWYG.

Hil, OTOH, is a real nest of vipers. From Whitewater through Benghazi to GS subsidized speaking tours, it brings to mind the old adage "Get thee behind me Satan!" but stay close for when I need you... Just what price are you willing to pay?

I would hate to have my life depend on the veracity of either of them. There are two very large problems for me with Trump.

1. I really can't stand the guy.

2. It is said that in negotiations it is sometimes useful to project the image of being a little crazy. As in: Maybe he really would use the nukes. Yes, perhaps there is such an advantage. The problem is that he has convinced me that it is no act.

I saw Breakfast at Tiffany's the other night for the first time in ages. There is this hotshot Hollywood guy who describes Holly Golightly "She's a phony, but she is a real phony". I'm not sure just what that means but it comes to mind when i think of Trump.

[Al_U_Card]

I agree. DT is as reprehensible (openly) as I expect most politicians are actually.
Could you stand Milhous?
How 'bout Dubya?
Slick Willie?
Despite the potential "lesser of two evils" choice. Aren't you most likely to vote your sentimental, habitual affiliation (Dem or Rep) than the candidate in question, since they are both (all) pretty evil?

[kenberg]

 Al_U_Card, on 2016-April-29, 15:27, said:

Aren't you most likely to vote your sentimental, habitual affiliation (Dem or Rep) than the candidate in question, since they are both (all) pretty evil?

Most people are and that probably includes me. [I mean that most people are likely to vote for their habitual affiliation, I don't mean that most people are evil, I thought I had better clear up the ambiguity here.]

But there are big swings. Goldwater-Johnson in 64, McGovern-Nixon in 68. This time around I cannot really predict. Not that my crystal ball works all that well even in simpler times. I was prepared to vote for McCain 8 years ago but he talked me out of it, even before Sara Palin got stirred into the pot. . I voted for Kennedy in 60, but at the time this did not seem obvious to me. I supported Stevenson, to the extent a 13 year old supports anyone, in 52, but I thought Ike was a pretty good president.

The Republicans now seem determined to make it impossible for me to vote for them. I was not that big an Obama fan, I often react badly to people who give highly praised speeches before they have actually done much. But Trump?? No.

It's ok to be rich, really it is, I could have voted for Nelson Rockefeller.

Hillary has a lot of baggage but I think she wants very much to be a good president. She will assemble a good team, she will listen, she will do her best. I think it is possible, I would not bet heavily but I think it possible, that once she actually gets the job she might surprise me and do very well indeed.

In the nineteenth century this country expanded westward, Manifest Destiny and all that. Remember the Alamo. In the first half of the twentieth century we were isolationist. Japan had to bomb Pearl Harbor to get us into the war. Since the end of WW II I would describe us as confused. Or maybe it's just me that's confused.

For someone my age, the most astonishing thing is to hear the Republican establishment lament about how they are now losing the vote of the white working class to Trump. Hey. They were never supposed to be there in the Republican camp at all. But they are, and have been. I was back in Minnesota in 68 and someone who grew up across the street from me was wearing a Nixon button. His father belonged to a union, as did my father. This was not natural Republican territory. Or so I thought. It was disorienting.

Ok, I ramble. I'm old, I get to.

[PassedOut]

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks: A Texan who called Obama a gay prostitute may soon control what goes in children’s textbooks

Quote

Members of the state board of education wield considerable influence over Texas curriculums. The board changed the state’s social studies standards in 2010 after it decided that the previous standards had a liberal slant, but even these revisions have earned a D rating from the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

“The document distorts or suppresses less triumphal or more nuanced aspects of our past that the Board found politically unacceptable (slavery and segregation are all but ignored, while religious influences are grossly exaggerated),” read the institute’s review of Texas standards. “Complex historical issues are obscured with blatant politicizing.”

These curriculum guidelines dictate how publishers write textbooks for Texas schools. And as the state has an outsize market, the content of those textbooks can influence materials nationwide.
...

As recently as last October, Bruner declared in a post that President Obama used to be a gay prostitute:

Obama has a soft spot for homosexuals because of the years he spent as a male prostitute in his twenties. That is how he paid for his drugs…Since he supports gay marriage, he should be proud of his background as a homosexual/bisexual. He is against everything else Christians stand for, he might as well be for infidelity.

Speaking to Breitbart last month about these statements, she said, “I don’t intend to apologize for my opinions because I still believe my statements are accurate.”

Bruner holds a Masters of Education degree from East Texas State University and worked as a teacher and counselor in Texas public schools for 36 years. Her campaign website states that if she is elected, she will “advocate for a return to traditional education,” “promote conservative curriculum standards aligned with Texas values” and “protect the children’s textbook fund from lobbyists.”

Texas values...

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2016-April-30, 09:39, said:

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks: A Texan who called Obama a gay prostitute may soon control what goes in children’s textbooks


Texas values...

The question to me is: how is this thinking combated?

Mike777 hit upon a theme earlier that I didn't think was accurate, but upon observing the world around me I think he is right, after all, that there are many people who are one-issue voters, abortion being toward the top of that list.

I read the other day that new studies have found that people with anxiety disorders have brains that are hardwired to think it a certain fashion; perhaps this applies to other types of personalities with stress and anxiety.

Regardless, I think it is imperative we turn this thinking around to adopt positions where truth and accuracy are paramount to "winning" the argument.

[hrothgar]

 PassedOut, on 2016-April-30, 09:39, said:

One of the problems with US education is the influence of idiots in the writing of textbooks:
Texas values...

I've long felt that that any textbook that is approved for use in Texas should automatically be deemed unsuitable for use anywhere...

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2016-April-30, 11:17, said:

I've long felt that that any textbook that is approved for use in Texas should automatically be deemed unsuitable for use anywhere...

Unfortunately, Texas isn't alone in crap like this. Didn't another southern state try to get their textbooks to teach Intelligent Design as a legitimate alternative to Natural Selection?

[mike777]

Yes, I do think there are many many voters where you can predict who they will vote for based on one and only one single issue when it comes down to a choice between the final two options.



Abortion, pro choice or pro life is one such issue.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2016-April-30, 21:48, said:

Yes, I do think there are many many voters where you can predict who they will vote for based on one and only one single issue when it comes down to a choice between the final two options.

Abortion, pro choice or pro life is one such issue.

Does that mean Hillary Clinton is certain to win the election? She is clearly pro-choice.

[mike777]

 PassedOut, on 2016-April-30, 21:54, said:

Does that mean Hillary Clinton is certain to win the election? She is clearly pro-choice.

Perhaps, to put it another way many many voters will decide on the simple question; candidate A is for more restrictions on abortion, candidate B is for less restrictions on abortion. Or perhaps climate change, candidate A is for killing off one way or another fossil fuels, Candidate B is for more oil and coal drilling.

[awm]

 mike777, on 2016-April-30, 21:59, said:

Perhaps, to put it another way many many voters will decide on the simple question; candidate A is for more restrictions on abortion, candidate B is for less restrictions on abortion. Or perhaps climate change, candidate A is for killing off one way or another fossil fuels, Candidate B is for more oil and coal drilling.

There is a lot of correlation between candidate positions. For example, the anti-abortion position is usually held by candidates who are fundamentalist christians, and see no problem with using the bible to guide most of their political decisions. These candidates also tend to be opposed to teaching evolution in school, opposed to some forms of birth control, opposed to rights for LGBT, want government money for parochial schools, etc. So while I'd be willing to vote for a candidate who was anti-abortion if I agreed with their other positions (and had some disagreements with the alternative candidates, of course), this choice is never really relevant because the anti-abortion candidates have so many other views with which I also disagree. I expect that many of the "single issue voters" are actually voting on a overall viewpoint that goes together (in this case either "the bible is the literal word of God, and should be the source of our laws" or alternatively "the bible is the book of one religion and we should not impose it on non-believers"). For example, I very much doubt that if a religious pro-life muslim were running he would get many of the "pro-life single issue" votes in the US even if his opponent was pro-choice.

In fact most of the time I find myself voting for candidates where I disagree with them on issues I find important. I doubt this is an unusual experience in American politics, and it's a problem with a two-party system (especially when there are major issues like the continuing "war on drugs" and "war on terror" which both parties basically endorse even though a significant percentage of the American public does not).

[mike777]

 awm, on 2016-April-30, 22:26, said:

There is a lot of correlation between candidate positions. For example, the anti-abortion position is usually held by candidates who are fundamentalist christians, and see no problem with using the bible to guide most of their political decisions. These candidates also tend to be opposed to teaching evolution in school, opposed to some forms of birth control, opposed to rights for LGBT, want government money for parochial schools, etc. So while I'd be willing to vote for a candidate who was anti-abortion if I agreed with their other positions (and had some disagreements with the alternative candidates, of course), this choice is never really relevant because the anti-abortion candidates have so many other views with which I also disagree. I expect that many of the "single issue voters" are actually voting on a overall viewpoint that goes together (in this case either "the bible is the literal word of God, and should be the source of our laws" or alternatively "the bible is the book of one religion and we should not impose it on non-believers"). For example, I very much doubt that if a religious pro-life muslim were running he would get many of the "pro-life single issue" votes in the US even if his opponent was pro-choice.

In fact most of the time I find myself voting for candidates where I disagree with them on issues I find important. I doubt this is an unusual experience in American politics, and it's a problem with a two-party system (especially when there are major issues like the continuing "war on drugs" and "war on terror" which both parties basically endorse even though a significant percentage of the American public does not).

Adam when it comes down the two, final two for President have you really voted for the someone where you feel strongly on one issue, very strongly and they disagree and the other candidate is for your viewpoint?
--

I will use my first vote for President as an example...I voted McGovern basically on one issue, the war


As far as 2016 election, I do not feel that strongly on one and only one issue but I grant many do. I grant that many Democrats will vote D no matter what and many Republicans will vote R no matter what...those who vote back and forth for President will decide.