Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
BrandonTO416

The Politics of Development

Recommended Posts

^Some people live in a fact free zone. Just like I linked earlier that liberal northeastern Democratic governor Andy Cuomo passed a property tax cap in New York and explained liberals aren't just for high taxes for the sake of high taxes.

 

There's some people so paranoid that they cannot let information, facts, and truth seep into their brain for the potential to discuss. All they do is point to irrelevant facts, half truths, and ignore reality. We've heard that the US should be split up - civil war style - from the wisdom of FMJ, but he fails to acknowledge that America is the most homogenized culture you'll find anywhere in the world. The more places I live, the more I realize Americans are largely the same culture with a slightly different accent based on region. And it completely ignores the fact that the south isn't immune to switches in politics. In fact, places like New York and California have far more conservative, far more right wing policies in any number of areas. Usually its economic since Tennessee has a large, activist evangelical movement.

 

New York has a property tax cap (I wouldn't call this a conservative policy, especially since a liberal administration did it, but hey its worth mentioning again), New York has very low taxes for the capitalists who trade on Wall Street (Wall St is based there, they wouldn't remain if they didn't have low taxes for trading), the center of capitalism is based in markets in NYC (hence why the city is painfully expensive, its capitalism). They have a privatized electric grid (and a Republican governor with a complicit state assembly who passed it).

 

You can't tell someone who doesn't believe in learning these facts. Many southern states, Tennessee is no exception, have far more left wing principles in play. And Democrats do get elected here. There is an age of Republicanism in Tennessee right now, but its only been in effect since 1994. And in the middle of it was a very successful Democratic governor by the name of Bredesen. Give it time and people will tire of the ® brand just like anywhere else and power will switch hands.

 

Separating from the rest of the US won't have any effect on that. Some people believe - in paranoia - that they have far more power than they do. The right wing is running away with it here in TN while they have the chance. LOL

 

Even though Tennessee is in a "Republican age" of sorts at this very moment, the state consistently rejects Teabaggers and right wingers and tends to send more moderate Republicans to the Senate and Governorship. So I wouldn't say its a right wing state at all. Carr lost handily to Alexander, Jim Tracy couldn't unseat the womanizing doctor who sought abortions for his evenings of fun. Even FMJ complains about his party not being pure enough, so maybe he'll accept that his extremist views will never control the state even if the US does split apart as he wishes. Doesn't look like voters in Tennessee care for right wing nutbaggery to me, except in very small state districts or in a Congressional district or two where the vote population is much more "pure" as they put it.

Edited by BrandonTO416

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


^Well, kids, looks like a total blowout tonight. Amendment One passed despite the leftist demagoguery and the Dems failed to win a single additional seat in the legislature, losing at least 3 or 4 more at last check. Reduced to 5 seats in the Senate out of 33, the absolute bare bottom minimum. Obola's lead point gal Lenda Sherrill gets a paltry 35% despite vastly outspending DesJarlais. Good thing I got on the right side of history ahead of TN 28 years ago. You fellas are being left behind. ;-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Well, kids, looks like a total blowout tonight. Amendment One passed despite the leftist demagoguery and the Dems failed to win a single additional seat in the legislature, losing at least 3 or 4 more at last check. Reduced to 5 seats in the Senate out of 33, the absolute bare bottom minimum. Obola's lead point gal Lenda Sherrill gets a paltry 35% despite vastly outspending DesJarlais. Good thing I got on the right side of history ahead of TN 28 years ago. You fellas are being left behind. ;-D

 

You're a true class act, Davey.  Don't let anybody ever tell you different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voter turnout is super, super low in Tennessee is why Amendment 1 passed, which is unfortunate. Abortion isn't going anywhere. It is still a bit extremist to keep opposing it, the issue was settled in the 70's. Its still the Reagan generation that is keeping the fight going and that vote is getting older.

 

Even though turnout was anemic since its a midterm, Amendment 1 was close.

 

As of 11:48pm

 

Option Votes Percent Yes 728,751 52.61% No 656,427 47.39%

Source: elections.tn.gov

 

Compare this to governor:

 

Candidate Party Votes % Bill Haslam Republican 951,215 70.28% Charles V. "Charlie" Brown Democratic 308,803 22.82% John Jay Hooker Independent 30,554 2.26% Shaun Crowell Constitution 27,357 2.02% Isa Infante Green 18,513 1.37% Steven Damon Coburn Independent 8,651 0.64% Daniel T. Lewis Independent 8,315 0.61%

 

1,384,000 million votes for Amendment 1

1,350,000 million votes between the  governor races

 

 

If you compare this to votes during Presidential years, especially in the past, you'll see that vote turnout keeps getting lower and lower.

 

Bredesen

837,284

Van Hilleary

786,803

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_gubernatorial_election,_2002

 

Over 1.6 million voters in the 2002 election by comparison. The vote has been suppressed and interest has dropped, and with fewer votes the evangelical community when being activist has a larger voice than normal. 2002 wasn't a Presidential year, but voter participation was far higher back then.

 

 

Aside from that, nationally Dems did pretty bad, but it isn't exactly an embrace of GOP policy. Many races were competitive (Kansas, for example) that otherwise wouldn't be. Certainly not a shocking evening by any standard. Tennessee specifically has decreasing voter participation, this will change Democratic chances in this state. There's hundreds of thousands more residents in the state in 2014 vs 2002, yet hundreds of thousands of fewer voters. Anyone should find this disturbing.

Edited by BrandonTO416

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a true class act, Davey.  Don't let anybody ever tell you different.

 

He'll be back calling Haslam a liberal in a few days, so its immaterial.

 

I don't think anyone has said the state Democratic party is in a healthy position, they aren't. I'll be the first to say the state Dems run horrible candidates. Although, the voter participation is very low here and that concerns me more than anything. I'm not sure what the number will be, but it appears to be in the fourty percentile in range of participation.

 

In terms of urban transport, Tennessee is who is being left behind. It has nothing to do with me (or forumers here) individually. Numerous southern states have invested into transit over the years - and this is why the discussion began in the first place on politics - and if you look at Atlanta they're building a streetcar to compliment MARTA rail service. Charlotte is doing streetcars to compliment its Lynx service. Even New Orleans has funded its streetcars and got them back in working order post-Katrina with conservative politicians in the state. Cincinnati likewise is supporting and building its first modern streetcar service (Kasich, a conservative governor, has been in power since the initiative began). Numerous states in this region are running circles around Tennessee on this important issue.

 

Tennessee is being left behind on this issue, in particular Nashville. Its going to take backwards, hillbilly legislators in the Republican fold to stop banning forms of transit and a can-do attitude to get things done on transportation in Nashville.

Edited by BrandonTO416

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never accused Haslam of being a Conservative (nor did I vote for him either in 2010 or in this election - I didn't cast a vote for Governor so that Amendment 1 would pass). I voted for Hooker in 2010 (as I did in 1998 against Sundquist), and I endorsed him in this race (but didn't vote in it, as I said). Didn't vote for Lamar!, either. If it wasn't for an open primary, which is an invitation to chicanery, and no runoffs (another big mistake), he wouldn't have won renomination.

But your side has an enormous problem in TN, as I foretold back in the '90s with the House of Cards state Dem majority. With the lethal intellectual combo of urban ultraleft college-indoctrinated Whites and LIV's (the ones who vote for the first name on the ballot in alpha order) left on the Dem side, you're about as popular and influential as a Jesse Helms fan club in the Castro District of San Francisco (and at least ole Jesse was right). ;-D

It will be curious to see if the White leg leaders step aside, as they are now in the numerical minority in both houses to Black elected members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This is where I just stop listening to you specifically, because you're yaking right wing extremism. You don't even understand liberalism or how moderate an ideology it is... Your rants aren't relevant to anything. So, with that I throw your comments to the wind and talk about the election overall to others who entertain the discussion.

 

I actually am not upset about the national races. The GOP was bound to win something eventually, no party can ever be in control for a permanent length of time. The GOP nationally is the party of no, and they can't afford to be the party of no anymore. Now that they control both houses of Congress, they'll have to govern. With 2 years of governing, they'll lead right into a Presidential election with more attention and more voter participation.

 

I expected the GOP to have a good night tonight nationally, but race after race where they've won is narrow. Its different from the 90's when they really were winning large majorities while Clinton was in office. However, it is yet to be seen how the GOP will begin to govern with their new majority. If they go the route they did with Clinton: witch hunts, impeachment, etc. then it'll only help Democrats. If they actually pass legislation and moderate their extreme conservative elements, it'll actually make the party look competent and they might look better going into 2016.

 

2015 will be an interesting year for Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the fact that fmj came back to this thread, completely avoided addressing any of the posts where he was called out with facts, and is gloating about a gop victory despite the fact he hates the current republican party.

Fmj, over the next two years I anticipate the hip will cut the budget deficit and unemployment will decrease and the stock markets will soar. Is that correct? Can we come back in two years and see what has happened?

Gop **

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I'll completely throw moderating caution to the wind here. Amendment 1 shows just how hypocritical the South can be. On the one hand, there's the preaching for smaller government. On the other, let's give the government more power to legislate what ultimately should be a decision between a woman and a doctor. 

 

Hell, the only people who should be allowed to vote on such matters should be women and doctors - everyone else is unqualified. EVERYONE.

 

Stupid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain why you believe only women and doctors should be allowed to vote on matters concerning abortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain why you believe only women and doctors should be allowed to vote on matters concerning abortion?

 

Not that I agree with it but I am sure it is because it is the woman's body and her choice and doctors have an educated understanding of science and abortion and the health or the women they are caring for. The argument actually makes some logical sense, more logical sense than voting yes on Amendment 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain why you believe only women and doctors should be allowed to vote on matters concerning abortion?

 

If a bunch of Jehova's Witnesses took over the state GOP and decided to make blood transfusions illegal, would you be arguing in favor of the government's right to interfere with a Doctor and a patient's decision in that case?  What if that patient is a toddler who will die without the transfusion and the parent is either a devout believer or can not afford to take their child to a non-anti-blood-transfusion state for the outlawed procedure? 

 

What about if a sect of Snake Handlers wins a majority in the state government and make it illegal to medically treat poisonous snake bites, because, of course, the snake bite is clearly a test that will allow the righteous people to heal while the evil ones will suffer from the venom.  Can you imagine how angry you would be if you were hiking, got a potentially life-threatening snake bite, then went to a hospital only to find that the doctor is unwilling to treat you because of the social stigma he'd face from the snake handling majority, not to mention the risk of losing his medical license altogether. 

 

There's a reason that we (try to) keep religion out of governance, especially when it comes to medicine.  It's because nobody wants their healthcare to be compromised by other peoples' dogma that is in no way whatsoever based on medical science. 

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I agree with it but I am sure it is because it is the woman's body and her choice and doctors have an educated understanding of science and abortion and the health or the women they are caring for. The argument actually makes some logical sense, more logical sense than voting yes on Amendment 1.

That is an interesting idea, but it can't accurately be called an argument because it lacks a connection between the premise and conclusion. There is a gap in reasoning between the self-evident fact that women carry and bear children and the belief that this fact entitles them to unique moral authority concerning the yet-to-be born humans that they carry.

 

Furthermore, you or I or anyone could attain an educated understanding of the science of abortion and women's health without being a licensed and accredited medical professional, so it does not follow then that only doctors have unique authority in this matter - at least on the grounds of scientific understanding. There may of course be other conditions that you could present in favor of doctors having unique authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting idea, but it can't accurately be called an argument because it lacks a connection between the premise and conclusion. There is a gap in reasoning between the self-evident fact that women carry and bear children and the belief that this fact entitles them to unique moral authority concerning the yet-to-be born humans that they carry.

 

Furthermore, you or I or anyone could attain an educated understanding of the science of abortion and women's health without being a licensed and accredited medical professional, so it does not follow then that only doctors have unique authority in this matter - at least on the grounds of scientific understanding. There may of course be other conditions that you could present in favor of doctors having unique authority.

A simpler way of saying it - why should the local government have authority to dictate what is allowable and what isn't? Does the local government offer a unique moral authority that should be contributed to the decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting idea, but it can't accurately be called an argument because it lacks a connection between the premise and conclusion. There is a gap in reasoning between the self-evident fact that women carry and bear children and the belief that this fact entitles them to unique moral authority concerning the yet-to-be born humans that they carry.

 

Furthermore, you or I or anyone could attain an educated understanding of the science of abortion and women's health without being a licensed and accredited medical professional, so it does not follow then that only doctors have unique authority in this matter - at least on the grounds of scientific understanding. There may of course be other conditions that you could present in favor of doctors having unique authority.

 Agreed completely, as I said it isn't a belief I subscribe to, just giving a potential reasoning.

 

I am against abortion, but was very against No 1. It is not my right to restrict access to abortions. The Supreme Court gives women the right to seek them, whether I am against them or not. And that is it. The rest of it posturing and pathetic pandering to the base by the GOP. Any laws they attempt to pass restricting abortion will be challenged and they will lose and be outraged.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an interesting idea, but it can't accurately be called an argument because it lacks a connection between the premise and conclusion. There is a gap in reasoning between the self-evident fact that women carry and bear children and the belief that this fact entitles them to unique moral authority concerning the yet-to-be born humans that they carry.

 

Furthermore, you or I or anyone could attain an educated understanding of the science of abortion and women's health without being a licensed and accredited medical professional, so it does not follow then that only doctors have unique authority in this matter - at least on the grounds of scientific understanding. There may of course be other conditions that you could present in favor of doctors having unique authority.

 

It's not so much an authority issue as it is a freedom of religion and a privacy issue.

 

I wouldn't say that only doctors and women should be allowed to vote on matters related to abortion.  Everyone is free to vote on matters related to abortion, so long as those new rules don't severely hinder access to abortion or try to make it illegal altogether.  In that case, no one--not even doctors and women--have the right to cast that vote.  Putting such policies on the ballot would not be unlike letting people vote on whether we should re-institute slavery, or whether on not women should have the right to vote, or whether on not homosexuality can be a legally punishable offense.   Rights like these don't get to be put on a ballot, because our constitution doesn't allow even a majority of citizen voters to take them away

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a bunch of Jehova's Witnesses took over the state GOP and decided to make blood transfusions illegal, would you be arguing in favor of the government's right to interfere with a Doctor and a patient's decision in that case?  What if that patient is a toddler who will die without the transfusion and the parent is either a devout believer or can not afford to take their child to a non-anti-blood-transfusion state for the outlawed procedure? 

 

What about if a sect of Snake Handlers wins a majority in the state government and make it illegal to medically treat poisonous snake bites, because, of course, the snake bite is clearly a test that will allow the righteous people to heal while the evil ones will suffer from the venom.  Can you imagine how angry you would be if you were hiking, got a potentially life-threatening snake bite, then went to a hospital only to find that the doctor is unwilling to treat you because of the social stigma he'd face from the snake handling majority, not to mention the risk of losing his medical license altogether. 

 

There's a reason that we (try to) keep religion out of governance, especially when it comes to medicine.  It's because nobody wants their healthcare to be compromised by other peoples' dogma that is in no way whatsoever based on medical science. 

The gist of your statement is well taken, ruraljuror. You and I would agree that American government should not be a theocracy. 

 

You have used inapt analogies, however. The procedures you mentioned (blood transfusions and antivenom) are treatments for life-threatening medical conditions. Pregnancy is not generally considered such a condition, though in some cases complications can indeed endanger the life of the mother, child or both. Therefore abortion cannot be considered a lifesaving treatment by definition in the majority of cases and is not in the same class as the medical procedures you mention.

 

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from those who believe abortion should be broadly permissible. Please PM me if you would like to discuss further over a beer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A simpler way of saying it - why should the local government have authority to dictate what is allowable and what isn't? Does the local government offer a unique moral authority that should be contributed to the decision?

As you know, goverment has the authority to dictate what is allowable in a wide range of areas, from zoning issues to traffic regulations to firearms laws and on and on. It certainly wields unique authority over the use of violence to take human life, which is vested in the military, law enforcement and correctional system. Seeing as how abortion is precisely that, whether by chemical or physical means, it would follow that the government should also wield authority over such decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not so much an authority issue as it is a freedom of religion and a privacy issue.

 

I wouldn't say that only doctors and women should be allowed to vote on matters related to abortion.  Everyone is free to vote on matters related to abortion, so long as those new rules don't severely hinder access to abortion or try to make it illegal altogether.  In that case, no one--not even doctors and women--have the right to cast that vote.  Putting such policies on the ballot would not be unlike letting people vote on whether we should re-institute slavery, or whether on not women should have the right to vote, or whether on not homosexuality can be a legally punishable offense.   Rights like these don't get to be put on a ballot, because our constitution doesn't allow even a majority of citizen voters to take them away

Mr. ruraljuror, as disagreeable as such measures would be, technically rights like these could be put on a ballot as constitutional amendments or repeals of amendments if the voting public and legislature were so inclined. That's exactly what just happened. We voted to amend or not amend the TN state constitution on 4 issues.

 

So we as citizens do indeed have the right to cast votes on restrictions of abortions as granted by federal and state law, if such matters are put to a public vote. If it came to passing a federal constitutional amendment restricting abortion or requiring everyone to only eat pepperoni pizza on Tuesdays, we would have that right. How to vote would be the matter for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gist of your statement is well taken, ruraljuror. You and I would agree that American government should not be a theocracy. 

 

You have used inapt analogies, however. The procedures you mentioned (blood transfusions and antivenom) are treatments for life-threatening medical conditions. Pregnancy is not generally considered such a condition, though in some cases complications can indeed endanger the life of the mother, child or both. Therefore abortion cannot be considered a lifesaving treatment by definition in the majority of cases and is not in the same class as the medical procedures you mention.

 

I'm interested in hearing perspectives from those who believe abortion should be broadly permissible. Please PM me if you would like to discuss further over a beer.

 

I understand where you're coming from, and I think it's totally fair.  In fact, I think just about everyone opposes abortion, at least in the sense that they'd like to see as few abortions happen as possible.  That's one reason that I for one support things like better sex education in school and the widespread availability of contraception including health insurance coverage for birth control.

 

And you're right that my analogies fall a little short.  There's really no comparable scenario that either side can point to for reference that lines up with all the particulars and the gravity of the situation involved.  That said, even wading through this muddy water, it's clear that the pro-life agenda (while certainly morally justified albeit misguided in my opinion) is completely impossible to practically implement as a matter of law enforcement.

 

For example, let's say the pro-life movement is correct that decisions about abortion should not only be made by a women and her doctor, but that the state also has a compelling interest to step in on behalf of the unborn, as well.  Does that mean that pregnant mothers who fail to take the proper prenatal vitamins can be charged with neglect?  What if a pregnant mother goes to a monster truck rally where she's breathing in exhaust fumes all day--is that child abuse?  What if a women gets in a bad fender bender that causes her to miscarry--is the driver of the other car now charged with vehicular manslaughter?  To me, this just seems like a clearly untenable policy to promote. 

Edited by ruraljuror

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. ruraljuror, as disagreeable as such measures would be, technically rights like these could be put on a ballot as constitutional amendments or repeals of amendments if the voting public and legislature were so inclined. That's exactly what just happened. We voted to amend or not amend the TN state constitution on 4 issues.

 

So we as citizens do indeed have the right to cast votes on restrictions of abortions as granted by federal and state law, if such matters are put to a public vote. If it came to passing a federal constitutional amendment restricting abortion or requiring everyone to only eat pepperoni pizza on Tuesdays, we would have that right. How to vote would be the matter for debate.

Actually... pizza Tuesdays sounds pretty awesome.

 

By the way - I appreciate how the last several posts have been very cordial, even though it's politics and views. Good job! That's how this board is supposed to interact.

 

Anyway, returning to some semblance of a topic, I am interested to see how Austin changes it's rail discussion after the vote for no on that project... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. ruraljuror, as disagreeable as such measures would be, technically rights like these could be put on a ballot as constitutional amendments or repeals of amendments if the voting public and legislature were so inclined. That's exactly what just happened. We voted to amend or not amend the TN state constitution on 4 issues.

 

So we as citizens do indeed have the right to cast votes on restrictions of abortions as granted by federal and state law, if such matters are put to a public vote. If it came to passing a federal constitutional amendment restricting abortion or requiring everyone to only eat pepperoni pizza on Tuesdays, we would have that right. How to vote would be the matter for debate.

 

We voted to amend the Tennessee Constitution, but that doesn't get us around the reproductive right protections in the U.S. Constitution.  The Tennessee Constitution still allows for abortion rights too, for that matter, though we'll see how long that lasts before the legislature closes as many clinics as they can before the courts get involved. 

 

You are, however, correct that we could theoretically amend the U.S. Constitution to remove those abortion rights (or mandate pizza Tuesdays) or the Supreme Court could reverse Roe v. Wade, but none of those scenarios are very likely in the foreseeable future.  That said, you never know when the Snake Handlers are finally going to get to be king of the mountain, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, goverment has the authority to dictate what is allowable in a wide range of areas, from zoning issues to traffic regulations to firearms laws and on and on. It certainly wields unique authority over the use of violence to take human life, which is vested in the military, law enforcement and correctional system. Seeing as how abortion is precisely that, whether by chemical or physical means, it would follow that the government should also wield authority over such decisions.

 

It goes back to religion and when life begins for you, and no one will change your mind on that. I will say this: Most of the young professionals we so covet, the ones that are rapidly expanding our city and clamoring for some sort of mass transit solution, disagree with your views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.