Wednesday morning

[mike777]

As I guessed it will not matter whether you think it is affordable or higher quality or not. These issues or facts just will not matter in the debate.

What does it matter whether I think it is affordable? I'm supposed to simply believe:

 

In any case the cornerstone of the Dems plan is that it is affordable so do not worry.

Yes, I think you finally got it. :)

[jtfanclub]

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.

Yes, but I didn't compare him to party-line Democrats. I compared him to Joe.

 

Both believe in limiting product liabiltiy, both believe in school vouchers, both are very pro-environmental, both are against same-sex marriage, both in favor of stem cell reasearch, both against the removal of the feeding tube from Terry Schiavo, both in favor of the Iraq war, both pro-Israel, both voted in favor of Don't Ask, Don't Tell....

 

Do I need to go on?

 

I am closer to the Lieberman positions than the Democratic positions. I am still waiting for the major differences (besides abortion) between Joe and John.

[TimG]

I am closer to the Lieberman positions than the Democratic positions. I am still waiting for the major differences (besides abortion) between Joe and John.

I don't know about Joe and John, but I can tell you one difference between Lieberman and jtfanclub: Joe seems to know he isn't a democrat!

[TimG]

Rumor had it that the ticket in 2004 was almost Kerry-McCain. A lot of people see McCain as more of a Lieberman Democrat/Independent than as a Republican.

 

Of course, as a Democrat, I think this is a good thing, but that's just me.

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat". I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

[han]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

[Winstonm]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

[luke warm]

I don't mean to say that McCain is a Democrat.  Just that his policies are very different from party-line Republicans.

McCain on the issues (from johnmccain.com):

• John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned
  
• John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.
  
• As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people.
  
• A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.
  
• John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
  

These views would seem to be rather different from party-line Democrats.

i know abortion is very polarizing, so leave that one aside for now... concerning the rest of the list you provided, which do you disagree with? the marriage one? how do you personally define marriage?

 

how about the others... do you disagree with the (constitutionally sound) premise that all things not mandated to the federal gov't by the constitution should be reserved for the states?

 

with the 'surge' presumably working, would more troops do a better job?

 

do you think the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right that should not be infringed upon by the federal gov't? or that gun control has not worked, even in the places with the most onerous of controls?

 

i agree that the list you posted would not be championed by many democrats, but i'm not sure why

[Winstonm]

Whether or not the Iraq surge is working should not even be an issue - by evading the primary issue of what got us there, we silently condone the invasion and occupation.

 

I refuse to do that.

[han]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

[jdonn]

Whether or not the Iraq surge is working is should not even be an issue - by evading the primary issue of what got us there, we silently condone the invasion and occupation.

 

I refuse to do that.

I agree with you. To put it another way, I can change the word Iraq to any number of other words and it will still be true. For example,

 

"A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Canada."

 

Isn't the first thought that enters your head "That's ridiculous, why would we invade Canada?"

 

...

 

Exactly

[mike777]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

 

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

 

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

 

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

 

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

 

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

[Winstonm]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

Just being cynical - the more accurate reason is because the U.S. is not far enough removed in history from its Victorian morality roots.

[mike777]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

Mostly, Han, it's because the world at large vastly overestimates the intelligence of the average American and underestimates the apathy. Much easier to be told how and what to think than to actually think for oneself - if you even care about such things.

Sounds nice but I don't believe the intelligence of average Americans is much lower than that of the average worlder, if at all smaller.

Just being cynical - the more accurate reason is because the U.S. is not far enough removed in history from its Victorian morality roots.

I knew it was all some English Queen's fault,,,darn her.

[han]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

 

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

 

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

 

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

 

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

 

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

Yes yes, but why is it so controversial?

[TimG]

concerning the rest of the list you provided, which do you disagree with?

I was not trying to offer an opinion on any of those issues, simply listing some of McCain's positions that appear to be in conflict with the Democratic party line.

[Al_U_Card]

Isn't the first thought that enters your head "That's ridiculous, why would we invade Canada?"

We have the largest proven oil (tar sands) reserves in the world?

[mike777]

You vastly underestimate how huge the abortion issue is in the USA.

Absolutely true. Can you explain how come this is the case?

I think you are asking why is the divide still so red hot and divisive 35/40 years after Roe vs Wade.

 

Roe vs Wade is a court case that found abortion legal based on rights ( I think privacy rights but someone could double check). It is not a law passed by Congress or the states.

 

Abortion rules, legal or illegal or those yet to be determined rules (and there are many) are set by unelected judges rather than by elected politicians. This is really the crux of the issue.

 

You have a highly controversial issue that is ultimately being settled in the courts by unelected judges rather than through some forced political compromise through elections.

 

Almost 40 years later judges are still deciding the abortion rules, and new ones keep coming up, rather than elections that would force some compromise.

 

Yes there would always be controversy but elections to force compromise on issues lessen the passion. In this case the passion grows rather than lessens.

Yes yes, but why is it so controversial?

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial or OTOH are you asking why others would deny women complete 100% reproduction rights is controversial? Or are asking why something in between might be controversial?

 

I do not know why but people seem to care about one side of the issue, killing unborn babies or the other side, denying women full reproduction rights and control over their body and whatever cells/genes are inside it.

 

And all of this is decided by unelected judges.

[TimG]

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial

Given the number of people that believe abortion is killing babies, I'm surprised it's not more controversial.

[PassedOut]

On the plus side of the ledger, it seems that the US will be out of the torture business as soon as the next president takes office: A President Who Tortured.

 

McCain knows (from personal experience) that torture is always unacceptable. And the democratic candidates understand that same principle, even without having undergone torture themselves.

[jtfanclub]

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat". I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat, and I refer to myself as a Democrat. Therefore, I am a Democrat. This definition is complete, and has legal meaning. For example, I can vote in a closed Democratic caucus. Nobody asks what my positions are prior to letting me through the door.

 

I didn't think that required clarification. My mistake.

[TimG]

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat".  I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat, and I refer to myself as a Democrat. Therefore, I am a Democrat. This definition is complete, and has legal meaning. For example, I can vote in a closed Democratic caucus. Nobody asks what my positions are prior to letting me through the door.

 

I didn't think that required clarification. My mistake.

That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

[jdonn]

You might have said "as a Democrat who agrees with lots of Republican positions" or "as a centrist Democrat".  I took your "as a Democrat" to mean something more along the lines of "as one who tends to agree with the Democratic party line".

I am a registered as a Democrat

Therefore you are a Democrat. Wow I'm glad I could clear up that confusing situation.

[kenberg]

All this discussion of what it means to be a Democrat brings to mind an old issue. As a child in Minnesota in the 1940-50s, most everyone's father that I knew belonged to a union and for the most part they voted Dem. It was Hubert Humphrey country. As the neighborhood weirdo I grew up to become a mathematician (to the great puzzlement of my father) and I am perhaps out of touch, but when I am with people who remind me of my father I find they mostly vote Republican.

 

It seems to me today that both parties may again be be undergoing a change of personality. I am thinking, in both cases, this might be all to the good.

[han]

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

 

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

[hrothgar]

Are you asking why killing babies is controversial ...

No, I was asking why abortion is controversial, it seems to me that killing babies is not a controversial topic.

 

More precisely, why is abortion such a dangerous topic in the US elections but not so much elsewhere (maybe it is in some other countries too, I don't know).

The US is an outlier in any number of ways

 

1. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that takes religion seriously

 

2. We're pretty much the only large developed democracy that maintains the death penalty

 

3. We're pretty much the only large developed economy that considers Evolution controversial

 

4. We're still fighting over abortion (However, the Economist ran an interesting article a couple monthes back about the renew process for abortion access bills in the UK)

 

Personally, I think that item one is driving a lot of other behaviours