Mrebo said:
I really am serious about it. I'm not actually a Republican, never have been. When I registered, I chose no party.
I can not find the words to express how much this shocks me.
For the formative years of my political life, I identified as a moderate. I finally realized the "moderate" label was just a way to convey to others that I'm not nuts, not an ideologue, not like those people you hate in the news, that I'm actually thoughtful. It's an excuse to talk up the positions where I'm less reliably "conservative."
Do I need to endear myself to those who would dismiss me as a partisan? Do I need to constantly attack people who are generally on my side to make a point? I don't think so.
I don't love political parties to begin with but see them as a necessary evil. As I identify most with the Republican Party, I object to dishonest and cheap attacks used in an effort to marginalize it.
So you are telling if someone were to win the Republican primary, but then was arrest for murder, that there is no way for the Republican party to get that person's name off the ballot and have him replaced by someone else?
It would depend on the state's law, there may be provisions for incarceration. There was a certain date after which if Akin did not withdraw the party would have been forbid from replacing him. Mostly the party can declare they do not support the candidate and then not give him money. There may be a state that would allow the party to have the candidate removed from their party line but that is completely speculative and there would certainly be time restrictions on doing so. But I think it's a good thing that backroom bosses of party hierarchy don't have such total control.
Mrebo said:
You shouldn't believe the disgusting narrative pushed by Democrats that Republicans don't have sufficient sympathy for rape victims.
and the republicans make the narrative more believable every time an Akins opens his big mouth.
Expressing a principled view against abortion doesn't make one an Akin. With due respect, that is an ignorant point of view. It would be like me calling every pacifist a Jane Fonda and attacking the Democratic Party for being traitorous wimps. And you know what, that basically has been the Republican argument for a very long time against Democrats. It was at least an undercurrent of the attack on John Kerry. Each party tries to push a narrative, cobbling it together by finding a bunch of examples, saying they typify the party. It diminishes independent thought to accept such arguments!
Mrebo said:
I agree Akin was an idiot who deserved shunning. Murdock was talking about how he can possibly have a moral opposition to all abortion. Even if you don't agree with him, it's a respectable position. It's the way I respect pacifists even though I think they are terribly naive.
it may be a respectable position, but it doesn't mean it is wise to call a pregnancy via rape, a gift from God. Its insensitive.
I'll grant you that. But I wouldn't run a person out of the party for not expressing himself well. You already know I don't agree with his principled stance, but as with many principled stances I respect it. His point was that any life is a gift from God. And Mourdock lost. The party doesn't need to boot out people who take a principled stand against abortion and those believe that life is a gift from God.
Mrebo said:
Mrebo said:
Obama said there should be no restriction on abortion, ever. The Democratic Party removed the word "rare" from their platform when it comes to abortion. To me, that is extreme. If we want to demonize a party based on the issue of abortion it should be the Democratic Party.
of course you'd say that, you're pro-life.
Intentionally removing from a party platform the idea that abortions should be "rare" is only objectionable because I'm pro-life?
well who the heck is it going to be more objectionable for, the pro-lifer or the pro-choicer?
I'd hope that people on both sides want it to be rare. That had been in the Democratic platform. But I suppose you're right, rare abortions would be more objectionable to pro-choice people. (I see what I did there)
Mrebo said:
Permit an abortion of a 9 month old fetus is only objectionable because I'm pro-life? No, no, no.
if you were pro-choice you wouldn't find it objectionable.
walkingdork expressed some...let's say reservations about it.
I like how you've (however unintentionally) reduced Feminism to concern about ladyparts and pro-choice to being pro-abortion.