Nikki Haley, possible Republican presidential candidate "The order was framed as a matter of transgender rights. But really, it was an attack on women’s rights." - The Democrats are so F-ing stupid to hand this issue to the GOP...

submitted by BEB from twitter.com

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Again, maybe I'm just missing it as a man, but its seemed that the Democrats have morphed into the active threat against women's rights while the GOP continues to sit there and do nothing as always

[–]BEB[S] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please see the article I just posted about Tennessee. The GOP are taking control of this issue, and might win the votes of Independents, while a lot of "Progressive" women might stay home.

I didn't vote for Democrats in the last election (not GOP either) because of this issue.

Americans, sadly, tend to vote their irritations rather than for their own good, but in this case, the Democrats are both irritating the F out of anyone sane, and also actively threatening women's rights, so they will lose, I think.

And the ramifications for the US and for the world if we get Il Donaldo Parte Due, except smart, could be really, really tragic. Not that I'm happy with the Democrats - I want health care, I want clean water/air, food safety standards, excellence in education, affordable housing - things that benefit every American - but the Dems seem to be going all out The Origins of Totalitarianism ;-)

[–]kwallio 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think the GOP gives two shits about women's sports, but they see an opportunity to make political hay out of the issue. I mean the GOP is anti-abortion and anti-women in many ways.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think perhaps 20, 30 years ago this would have been correct. But today, most conservatives have accepted Roe v. Wade as the standard, particularly in the privacy rationale underpinning the decision - many just believe that your abortion should go on your tab, not the public's.

But what makes you think that the Dems care about women, let alone any of the groups they claim to champion? Because their track record is rather egregious, and not just in recent decades. From my perspective as a gay man, this includes the passing of DADT and DOMA by Bill Clinton.

[–]kwallio 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

most conservatives have accepted Roe v. Wade as the standard

citation needed. Didn't South Caroline just pass an abortion ban?

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This is a problem that goes beyond Democrat vs Republican, and is more tied to the fact that the United States uses the worst possible electoral system to choose its leaders, plurality voting (also called first-past-the-post voting). Plurality elections have been mathematically demonstrated to break down into two party dominance, where instead of a good balance and variety of representation, all you end up with are essentially two polar opposite parties aligned against each other, constantly trading power back and forth, with little real reason to work together.

A better voting system such as Score Voting that does not result in spoiler votes, where you can cast an opinion about everyone on the ballot, would give us better representation and a wider range of viable political parties. We could actually see parties that value strong social reforms such as public healthcare for all, and strong environmental policies, without being tied to the more wacky elements of the left such as strong trans activism.

[–]Finnegan7921 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem with multi-party coalition governments is that you can end up with situations like the current one in Italy where the governing coalition of multiple parties fell out with each other and the whole thing broke up, now they have to form a new government on the fly. I think we could live with a medium sized third party, but even that would just end in them being the ultimate power brokers b/c either side would court those members in the Congress. The real problem isn't the two party system, it is the fact that they are all bought and paid for b/c they can stay there forever and rake in massive amounts of money selling their vote. Politics was never supposed to be a lifelong career, now it is a path to becoming a multimillionaire.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don't need to change to a proportional system that encourages coalition governments to get good representation in a single-winner system.

The real problem isn't the two party system

It's not a question of it being a "two party system", it's a question of it being demonstrably a bad decision making system for selecting leaders that happens to lead to two party dominance. Don't listen to a random commenter; take it from a PhD mathematician with a specialty in election science who has real world data to back it up:

https://rangevoting.org/Plurality.html

[–]Franklintheturtle 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if they hand the issue to the GOP and women vote for them because of it they can split the vote, either women vote against their interest on this issue or they can more easily smear the women who switch parties as right wing

[–]usehername 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Some of her other views: Marriage is between one man and one woman. (Jun 2010) Paris climate agreement cost US too many jobs. (Jun 2017) Open the Savannah River Site nuclear reactor fuel project. (May 2014) Not now, not ever, support raising the gas tax. (Jan 2013) Supports off-shore drilling near South Carolina coast. (Jun 2010) Reduce red tape; time is money. (Jan 2011) Eliminate business taxes, starting with corporate income tax. (Nov 2010) Re-open Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste. (Apr 2012) Expand charter schools. (Nov 2010) No government-run health exchanges; transparency instead. (Jan 2012) Fought unionization; new jobs in 45 of 46 counties. (Jan 2013) Vetoed additional licensure for drug treatment facilities. (Mar 2011) Rated C- by NORML, indicating a "hard-on-drugs" stance. (Nov 2016) Just in case anyone here was thinking of supporting her...