Indiana Senator Election

[chipbennett]

Well If Lugar was center right, then I am definitely fringe.

BTW When you mention a NAZI as being right that offends most on the right.

NAZI, KKK, Supremacists of any stripe is a blaring character flaw that is rooted in hatred not politics. They are heart conditions.

Besides, there's that whole Socialist part inherent in the NAZI belief system. Nazis aren't right-wingers.

 

[chipbennett]

No. You're right. It's not about women's health. There's another fringe on the other side of it. But you have to recognize that the Mourdock view of abortion is indeed a fringe position. Inside the bell curve, on the far left, is the idea that abortion is always okay during any part of pregnancy, up to birth. Definitely that's a fringe position. Then the curve gains space as you move towards the center, where the highest points of the curve you find the idea that abortion is kinda okay until after the first trimester. Then moving towards the right it goes towards kinda not okay, until you get to the fringes that say it's never okay anytime ever for any reason, period. That's fringe. That's pretty much Mourdock's view.

I'm not going to tell you that the fringe viewpoints are right or wrong. On controversial issues like this, there's obviously a grey area. Maybe it's not grey for you, but for most individuals, they decide it's okay-ness is elsewhere. It's really up to the individual to decide what is right for them, according to their own conscience. It's certainly not acceptable to the majority of people to accept either fringe. A large majority of people don't agree with always okay, and they don't agree with never okay.

Actually, that's a (distorted version of a) view held by about half of the population - hardly "fringe". The only (medically, biologically, physiologically, genetically) justifiable reason for an abortion is legitimate risk of death to the mother. Of course, that is almost never a reason. Over 98% of abortions are a matter of convenience. Fewer than 2% are even for, collectively, rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother. A great number of those that get lumped into your "never okay anytime ever for any reason, period" actually would accept elimination of abortion other than the class that comprises fewer than 2%. Some would quibble over rape and incest (me, included), but would be willing to come to the table. The only fringe comes from the other side.

Either way, Mourdock's position is not fringe. Not by a long shot.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Actually, that's a (distorted version of a) view held by about half of the population - hardly "fringe". The only (medically, biologically, physiologically, genetically) justifiable reason for an abortion is legitimate risk of death to the mother. Of course, that is almost never a reason. Over 98% of abortions are a matter of convenience. Fewer than 2% are even for, collectively, rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother. A great number of those that get lumped into your "never okay anytime ever for any reason, period" actually would accept elimination of abortion other than the class that comprises fewer than 2%. Some would quibble over rape and incest (me, included), but would be willing to come to the table. The only fringe comes from the other side.

Either way, Mourdock's position is not fringe. Not by a long shot.

I agree, he's not wrong. He just fumbled the answer. A better answer might have been: God didn't want the person to be raped but God doesn't want an innocent life ripped apart and its head crushed either. You don't return evil with evil.

 

[bwframe]

Where Mourdock faltered was NOT standing up strait and saying "It's not the child's fault who their parents are. Nor does it justify their ending of life."

"We" stood by and watched him flail because we were gutless too. Couldn't dare be branded as being against a woman's choice to end the life she was carrying.

Hopefully, we are in a different time now. We have learned about falling for the fear tactics of the left, haven't we?

 

[jamil]

Actually, that's a (distorted version of a) view held by about half of the population - hardly "fringe". The only (medically, biologically, physiologically, genetically) justifiable reason for an abortion is legitimate risk of death to the mother. Of course, that is almost never a reason. Over 98% of abortions are a matter of convenience. Fewer than 2% are even for, collectively, rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother. A great number of those that get lumped into your "never okay anytime ever for any reason, period" actually would accept elimination of abortion other than the class that comprises fewer than 2%. Some would quibble over rape and incest (me, included), but would be willing to come to the table. The only fringe comes from the other side.

Either way, Mourdock's position is not fringe. Not by a long shot.

You're a good apologist for your side. But you need to recognize, it's a side. And he's on the fairly far end of it. These are no where near the mainstream views you imply they are. We're talking about where his views are on the bell curve compared with everyone else. It may be mainstream on INGO. But the rest of the world had moved pretty far left of where Moudock was. Some quotes:

Let's do away with the Departments of Education, Energy Commerce, Housing and Urban Development.

I actually agree with Mourdock here. But I recognize that's a fringe opinion. Again, it's perhaps a mainstream opinion on INGO, but not out there in the real world. You say that in the real world, even in Indiana, and people look at you like you're insane. What? Get rid of the DoE? Are you crazy?

I always start my discussions with the Tea Party groups with telling them, 'you know I have only three words for you: God. Bless. You.' Because the Tea Party's bringing the Republican party back to a more conservative base.

That's part of what brought the TEA Party down. Every conservative latched onto its early successes, hooking in their own ideological baggage. It was supposed to be about fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism, and certainly not the new wing of Evangelical lobbying. It drove away fiscal conservatives like me.

And, there's no such thing as bringing the Republican party "back" to a more conservative base. That's delusional. The GOP has traditionally been moderate. With a few exceptions, the GOP has been more of the party of Nixon than the party of Goldwater. That's a shame. There have always been fringe conservative elements in the party though. And sometimes circumstances have manifest the need for real conservatives to take leadership, like with Reagan. But Reagan was the closest to a real conservative president that the party has had. Trump, Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower. Maybe you could argue Eisenhower was a conservative but I'd say he wasn't very far right for his time. Pretty moderate.

What I've said about compromise, I hope to build a conservative majority so bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, and get America moving again.

This is simply delusional. I hate to say it from the hindsight of now, because now compromise is impossible given that the fringes have taken over both parties. They don't even speak the same language. And I certainly don't want to compromise with progressive moonbeams. No sane person believe that a conservative majority that dominant is possible. That's definitely fringe even for 2012.

The fact is, you never compromise on principles. If people on the far Left, they have a principle to stand by, they should never compromise; those of us on the Right should not either.

Again this exemplifies what I said about what tends to get people's opinions "fringed". It's not so much about compromise per se. It's that people have to have something that keeps them grounded in reality. Principle alone doesn't do that. A healthy dose of pragmatism that tempers their ideological principles, keeps them in the realm of reality. Ideological purity keeps you grounded in ideology.

I think people on the far left who stick to their principles in the face of a contradicting reality are bat**** crazy. Should communists really stick to their principles? If they come to their senses, should we really lose respect for them? Or should we celebrate that they've come to terms with reality? Mourdock's opinion here is not well thought out. This one isn't really an example of fringe. I think a lot of people on both sides agree with the faulty logic Mourdock employs, that sticking to principles of their respective ideologies, no matter what, is a virtue.

Actually, that's a (distorted version of a) view held by about half of the population - hardly "fringe". The only (medically, biologically, physiologically, genetically) justifiable reason for an abortion is legitimate risk of death to the mother. Of course, that is almost never a reason. Over 98% of abortions are a matter of convenience. Fewer than 2% are even for, collectively, rape, incest, and risk of life of the mother. A great number of those that get lumped into your "never okay anytime ever for any reason, period" actually would accept elimination of abortion other than the class that comprises fewer than 2%. Some would quibble over rape and incest (me, included), but would be willing to come to the table. The only fringe comes from the other side.

Either way, Mourdock's position is not fringe. Not by a long shot.

I'm not saying that Mourdock's is in the zero abortion category. I was establishing the outer extremities of the fringes. All abortions legal the far left side, and all abortions illegal, the far right side. Even fringes have a range. Surely you understood that. Mourdock is in the category of zero abortions except for mother's life in danger. That still puts him in the fringe. 85% disagree with him. That's hardly not by a long shot. And that's pretty much the answer that most cost him the election. If he'd have answered sanely, he may have won. But most people thought his view was too extreme. The most common viewpoint on abortion is, it's okay up until the first trimester. Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers have that view. The view that all abortion is okay anytime is pretty rare. And the view that abortion is never okay is rare. And there's not that much daylight between that and okay for mother's health.

And I said I did not want make this about Abortion. I just used that as an evidence of his more extreme views. Aside from White Nationalists, you can't get much further right than Mourdock on many views.

 

[jamil]

Besides, there's that whole Socialist part inherent in the NAZI belief system. Nazis aren't right-wingers.

National socialism isn't a leftist thing. I was formerly on the side that says Nazi is leftist until I did a lot of reading on it. Why can't right wing people admit that there can be some bad apples that take things too far right? Can't we admit that people can be to far right?

 

[jamil]

I agree, he's not wrong. He just fumbled the answer. A better answer might have been: God didn't want the person to be raped but God doesn't want an innocent life ripped apart and its head crushed either. You don't return evil with evil.

Yeah, that would have been a more palatable way to say it. But he's still trying to justify the viewpoint that abortions, except when the mother's life is in danger, should be illegal. That's just not where people are now. I oppose abortion, personally, but not for religious reasons. I think it is indicative of irresponsibility, and treating sex and reproduction of life without due respect.

But either way, it's not something I think I should impose on other people. There are objective moralities, but this falls more into the realm of subjective morality. I don't see day zero abortions as a murder, probably because I don't derive my belief from the same place you do. I'm unaware of many pro-life non-religious people who think day-zero abortions are murder. It's because they don't believe that god willed life into the fetus. I am not in agreement with imposing laws based on what is a subjective morality.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yeah, that would have been a more palatable way to say it. But he's still trying to justify the viewpoint that abortions, except when the mother's life is in danger, should be illegal. That's just not where people are now. I oppose abortion, personally, but not for religious reasons. I think it is indicative of irresponsibility, and treating sex and reproduction of life without due respect.

But either way, it's not something I think I should impose on other people. There are objective moralities, but this falls more into the realm of subjective morality. I don't see day zero abortions as a murder, probably because I don't derive my belief from the same place you do. I'm unaware of many pro-life non-religious people who think day-zero abortions are murder. It's because they don't believe that god willed life into the fetus. I am not in agreement with imposing laws based on what is a subjective morality.

You're probably right. People have been conditioned for so long that abortion is OK, not only OK but a legitimate form of birth control. This thought is aided in the fact that the procedure is hidden away in a "operating room". I contend that as more and more people see better and better ultrasounds, opinions will change. The morality will become less and less subjective and if we showed aborted babies like we do abused animals on TV, that subjective part would turn to outrage in short order.

All morality is subjective unless there is an objective standard of good.

 

[jamil]

You're probably right. People have been conditioned for so long that abortion is OK, not only OK but a legitimate form of birth control. This thought is aided in the fact that the procedure is hidden away in a "operating room". I contend that as more and more people see better and better ultrasounds, opinions will change. The morality will become less and less subjective and if we showed aborted babies like we do abused animals on TV, that subjective part would turn to outrage in short order.

All morality is subjective unless there is an objective standard of good.

That’s a good way to think of the difference between subjective and objective morality. The most objective standard of good is, not causing harm/suffering, especially to the innocent. I think people who are not pathological agree with that.

So, if people start to recognize abortion as causing suffering, it’s reasonable to be against it. And that’s why I think most people agree with the the first trimester. It is less clear that it’s causing harm/suffering.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That’s a good way to think of the difference between subjective and objective morality. The most objective standard of good is, not causing harm/suffering, especially to the innocent. I think people who are not pathological agree with that.

So, if people start to recognize abortion as causing suffering, it’s reasonable to be against it. And that’s why I think most people agree with the the first trimester. It is less clear that it’s causing harm/suffering.

Which is why I rail on the idea of the humanity of the child from day 0. If we recognize that, strip away the anonymity the womb causes, it is obvious that harm is caused anytime after conception.

 

[2A_Tom]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GodFearinGunTotin again.

It is intellectual dishonesty for convenience sake.

 

[alabasterjar]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to GodFearinGunTotin again.

It is intellectual dishonesty for convenience sake.

Got him for you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Which is why I rail on the idea of the humanity of the child from day 0. If we recognize that, strip away the anonymity the womb causes, it is obvious that harm is caused anytime after conception.

So no "next day" pill?

 

[chipbennett]

National socialism isn't a leftist thing. I was formerly on the side that says Nazi is leftist until I did a lot of reading on it. Why can't right wing people admit that there can be some bad apples that take things too far right? Can't we admit that people can be to far right?

Sure, people can be too far right. They are called Sovereign Citizens.

Nazis are leftwing. Really, they are their own brand of crazy-evil that transcends the left-right spectrum (a spectrum that I define as state control vs individual liberty).

 

[chipbennett]

So no "next day" pill?

Probably a discussion better-left to an abortion thread, but: yes, Plan B is basically a self-administered abortion.

 

[JettaKnight]

So no "next day" pill?

AFAIK, that prevents inception, so no.

 

[JettaKnight]

And to get us back on topic, is Todd a career politician?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Sure, people can be too far right. They are called Sovereign Citizens.

Nazis are leftwing. Really, they are their own brand of crazy-evil that transcends the left-right spectrum (a spectrum that I define as state control vs individual liberty).

Ok, I disagree, but ok. Can you name me a right-wing extremist group?

 

[chipbennett]

You're a good apologist for your side. But you need to recognize, it's a side. And he's on the fairly far end of it. These are no where near the mainstream views you imply they are. We're talking about where his views are on the bell curve compared with everyone else. It may be mainstream on INGO. But the rest of the world had moved pretty far left of where Moudock was. Some quotes:

Oh, I readily recognize and admit that I'm on a side. That's not the argument here; rather, the argument is whether particular views - or, more accurately, a particular set of views - constitute a "fringe."

I actually agree with Mourdock here. But I recognize that's a fringe opinion. Again, it's perhaps a mainstream opinion on INGO, but not out there in the real world. You say that in the real world, even in Indiana, and people look at you like you're insane. What? Get rid of the DoE? Are you crazy?

On what basis do you claim that it is a fringe? According to the Gallup historical poll, 29% believe that abortion should always be legal under all circumstances, 18% believe that abortion should never be legal under any circumstances, and 50% believe that abortion should only be legal under certain circumstances. None of these positions can reasonably be referred to as "fringe."

That's part of what brought the TEA Party down. Every conservative latched onto its early successes, hooking in their own ideological baggage. It was supposed to be about fiscal conservatism, not social conservatism, and certainly not the new wing of Evangelical lobbying. It drove away fiscal conservatives like me.

TEA party represents fiscal conservatism. Its policy positions very much represent a return to fiscal conservatism, which is a subset of "conservative." Not a fringe position.

And, there's no such thing as bringing the Republican party "back" to a more conservative base. That's delusional. The GOP has traditionally been moderate. With a few exceptions, the GOP has been more of the party of Nixon than the party of Goldwater. That's a shame. There have always been fringe conservative elements in the party though. And sometimes circumstances have manifest the need for real conservatives to take leadership, like with Reagan. But Reagan was the closest to a real conservative president that the party has had. Trump, Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower. Maybe you could argue Eisenhower was a conservative but I'd say he wasn't very far right for his time. Pretty moderate.

The Republican party is the party of Lincoln. Basing one's view of the party's conservative vs moderate policy positions only from Nixon onward is to ignore the 150 years of history of the party. Even so, to claim that the Republican party has a base that is more conservative than it is today is by no means a "fringe" position.

This is simply delusional. I hate to say it from the hindsight of now, because now compromise is impossible given that the fringes have taken over both parties. They don't even speak the same language. And I certainly don't want to compromise with progressive moonbeams. No sane person believe that a conservative majority that dominant is possible. That's definitely fringe even for 2012.

That you disagree with the assertion does not make it a "fringe" statement. To believe that those who hold fundamental principles should hold fast to those principles and not compromise on them is a "fringe" position? Really?

Again this exemplifies what I said about what tends to get people's opinions "fringed". It's not so much about compromise per se. It's that people have to have something that keeps them grounded in reality. Principle alone doesn't do that. A healthy dose of pragmatism that tempers their ideological principles, keeps them in the realm of reality. Ideological purity keeps you grounded in ideology.

The statement does not imply, much less require, a lack of pragmatism.

I think people on the far left who stick to their principles in the face of a contradicting reality are bat**** crazy. Should communists really stick to their principles? If they come to their senses, should we really lose respect for them? Or should we celebrate that they've come to terms with reality? Mourdock's opinion here is not well thought out. This one isn't really an example of fringe. I think a lot of people on both sides agree with the faulty logic Mourdock employs, that sticking to principles of their respective ideologies, no matter what, is a virtue.

Sticking to the principles of one's ideologies is indeed a virtue. What is not a virtue, however, is ascribing to ideologies that one has not well-thought out, and that one has not allowed to be challenged by alternate ideologies and viewpoints.

But not sticking to the principles of one's ideologies is not pragmatism; it is hypocrisy.

I'm not saying that Mourdock's is in the zero abortion category. I was establishing the outer extremities of the fringes. All abortions legal the far left side, and all abortions illegal, the far right side.

As pointed out above, those two positions are held by 29% and 18% of the population, respectively. Not fringe.

Even fringes have a range. Surely you understood that. Mourdock is in the category of zero abortions except for mother's life in danger. That still puts him in the fringe. 85% disagree with him. That's hardly not by a long shot. And that's pretty much the answer that most cost him the election. If he'd have answered sanely, he may have won. But most people thought his view was too extreme. The most common viewpoint on abortion is, it's okay up until the first trimester.

Again, not true: Abortion polls 2014: Do most Americans think most abortions should be illegal?

Only 20% believe that abortion should be legal for any reason, through the first trimester. A total of 42% believe that abortion through the first trimester for any reason should be legal (the 22% difference counts those who allow for second- and third-trimester abortions, 10% and 12%, respectively). 53% believe that abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances (11%), legal only to save the life of the mother (14%), or legal only in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother (28%).

Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers have that view. The view that all abortion is okay anytime is pretty rare. And the view that abortion is never okay is rare. And there's not that much daylight between that and okay for mother's health.

Per the above poll:

Always okay: 12%
Never okay: 11%
Okay for life of mother: 14%
Okay for rape, incest, life of mother: 28%

There is quite a bit of daylight there.

And I said I did not want make this about Abortion. I just used that as an evidence of his more extreme views. Aside from White Nationalists, you can't get much further right than Mourdock on many views.

Again, his views are not fringe, and would be welcomed by a majority of people, based on their current views of abortion.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, I disagree, but ok. Can you name me a right-wing extremist group?

I named one previously: Sovereign Citizens