On the debate, here's what I posted over at Facebook (if we're not getting a post on that):
Some quick debate thoughts. (I caught it after a special showing of "The Birthday", starring Corey Feldman at the local Alamo. That film is BONKERS in all the best ways.)
1. I was pleasantly surprised by the debate and both debaters. I fully expected Vance to come in as a full-blown Chaos Monkey, and instead got a guy with a normal temperament that reminded me of the time before he went full Sith.
2. Tim Walz did an excellent job once he chilled out and showed a command of the issues (heavily drawing upon his time as MN governor) that I would have ZERO issues with him second in line to the presidency. (I actually wouldn't mind if he were at the top of the Democratic ticket this time.)
3. As for "who won", I think this was largely a draw. I think that will be the conclusion of a lot of folks, if only for how *normal* this debate seemed, in a sea of years of *abnormal* politics.
4. I'm skeptical that Vance's pivot to "censorship" was an effective non-answer to the question of whether Trump won in 2020, BUT I suspect there are few voters left who would be convinced one way or the other.
5. When Vance was criticizing the MN law on "late term abortions", Walz repeated what Vance was saying wasn't the actual law (OK), but I was left hanging waiting for Walz to explain WHAT the actual law was (NOT OK).
6. Walz was a VERY effective spokesman for saner firearm laws. It's nice to have someone who's been a hunter and sportsman remind viewers that the NRA once filled a valuable role in providing local firearm education before it decided to focus on politics at the expense of the education it provided.
7. I thought that Vance turned in a decent performance tonight, and have to wonder what actual populists thought of the performance. If I were in their shoes, I'd be rooting for Vance to be running things instead of Trump, AND without all the Trump baggage.
Populists made a grave political error in backing Trump instead of pulling a guy like Vance off the bench. It would be like Democrats doubling down on Gore after 2000, and having Obama yoked to Gore and his issues (admittedly, MANY fewer issues than Trump), instead of having Obama emerge organically in 2008, free to to be his best self and NOT tethered to any of the existing Democratic dynasties.
I'll be interested to see whether Vance can learn from this debate and begins to turn the conservative populist energy away from hating on immigrants (as Trump seems determined to triple-down on) and more towards topics he discussed well, such as caring for the full life of children instead of just myopically focusing on outlawing abortion. I wouldn't put any money on that happening, but it is an available path for the GOP and the populists that run it that branches away from the grievance politics tar pit they seem determined to stay stuck in.
8. Overall, a surprisingly pleasant debate. I doubt that it moves any needles (Vance's Jan. 6 non-answer is an instant disqualifier for me), but it was a nice peek into a world where we get back to normal politics once again.
Walz definitely is not a good debater, but then that's not really a skill that's required or necessarily useful in terms of administration of the government.
Both men ultimately did fine, and likely improved their favorability amongst voters.
Seems like you are correct on Mideast status quo changed. Not going to undue last year. Israel appears to be on decapitation strategy concerning terror organizations.
"the Biblical doctrine that life begins at conception"
I know that's a Catholic doctrine: I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible that states this. At the least, it is definitely not in the Old Testament.
Since it appears you're taking a "state's rights" argument on abortion: does that apply to everything? If yes, then form a state's rights perspective would slavery be A-OK in your book? Or keeping women unable to vote?
You may state in response that "These are Federally protected rights", but humor me: what if they weren't? What if, similar to Roe, these rights were "thrown back to the States"?
I'll add some other quotes from that decision in Georgia:
"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman."
"When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then -- and only then -- should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it."
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy."
So perhaps to be more blunt: do you think women should enjoy equal rights, or are they to be second-class citizens? Are you of the mind that it is OK to force others to live according to your preferred religious interpretation rather than according to their own (with appropriate "swinging fist" limitations)? Is it OK for others to force you to live by their preferred religious interpretation? Or are you endorsing the idea of religious power struggles?
States’ rights has long been used as a last ditch defense for some unsavory policy.
Yes we are a federalist nation. States matter. But it is unsettling to me that we can replace the word life with slavery and have the same States’ rights arguments seen before the Civil War and beyond. I know that is not Steve’s intention, argument or belief. That being said I would in an ideal world like to see life protected uniformly at a reasonable number of weeks across all states. Pre-Roe is not all roses. This will take years to sort out in a proper way.
I will agree that I do not think it its Steve's intention/argument/belief, though I cannot say I "know" it. That's the issue with the discussion: there are important principles in terms of how we organize our laws and society that makes America what it is. Those principles may be in conflict with any number of religious interpretations: which is why it's so important that we protect each others' freedoms. Your freedoms are my freedoms, and vice versa.
I am in agreement on the reasonable number of weeks compromise: I think that number must be tied to viability, as I've stated numerous times here and elsewhere. One thing I wonder: can a law setting this restriction be tied to viability (which can change depending on advancements in medical technologies and techniques), or do we need to have an explicit number?
If a firm number is needed then it's going to be 24 or 25.
The reason I bring up medical tech is that natural viability is 32 weeks. So, if one does not have access to said tech (for reasons of money or perhaps lack of medical tech due to unforseen issues in supply or disaster) then the 24 week mark becomes invalid.
And generally speaking, after 24 weeks it's likely a desired pregnancy. If it's not then the usual exceptions apply anyways: so it's not likely that many abortions happen at 32 weeks.
Tough one to crack, though - and perhaps it's best to keep it simple.
It's a tough nut - but one where actually having 50 different laboratories of democracy to study might not be the worst thing when it comes to crafting public policy, as opposed to having an extremely contentious national policy that only gets updated when the political power at the federal level swaps.
The issue will always be contentious - but so was/is civil rights. This is - to me, at least - ultimately a civil rights issue about what women's rights are - and that is not something that I think can be left to individual states.
This goes back to the whole "states' rights as enabling slavery" sort of argument. There are some things that necessarily need to be protected at a Federal level: this seems like one of them, and the important thing is what kind of reasonable compromise can be made.
I cannot change biology, and try as they might, neither can the government. Women have rights consistent with what the definition of “woman” is (try to get most liberals to explain that—they won’t or can’t). In that vein, a woman’s right to her body extends to a duty when she is a mother. We would not support a state law that allows a mother to abandon a newborn at a gas station, or to flush a newborn down a toilet. The ideal here is that a mother’s duty reaches into the area of expectant mothers. How far does it reach? That depends on one’s beliefs. I believe it extends all the way back to fertilization. Others believe it is nonexistent until a successful live birth. There are nearly always other options for mothers who do not wish to (or are unable to) raise a child. Waiting lists for infants for adoption are common. It’s not a problem without a solution. It is, a difficult problem reconciling belief systems. In my mind, the duty of motherhood outweighs the “reproductive freedom” to end a pregnancy. Of course, women and men have a choice not to cause pregnancy, but somehow that freedom is ignored in most discussions as “prudish.” Rape and incest make up a tiny portion of pregnancies and I’m willing to cede them in any abortion discussion. But where there is a choice it is nearly always traceable to the choice to have sex in the first place. The Bible has a lot to say on that topic. That’s what I believe and what I teach my kids (boys). Don’t get a woman pregnant if you don’t intend to be a father, and have her as the mother of your child.
So then I'm gonna say you made Jay a liar: you actually do believe that women are second-class citizens in this regard, and that their rights are subject to involuntary removal because of their biology.
Suffice to state I think that is a deeply un-American viewpoint, and is counter to American conservativism as it pertains to maintaining the principles of our system.
Thank you very much for clarifying your viewpoint.
Unapologetically. But let me ask you: were you born, or decanted? If you have a mother, then what’s wrong with saying women are exclusive to that role? Is it second class to bring children into the world? To me, that’s a dim view of motherhood.
As I said: your freedoms are my freedoms, and vice versa. If that does not apply to women as well, then it does not apply at all.
You state you are unapologetic about it: so then yes, we will indeed have to fight religious conflicts, something that the Founders wanted to avoid and eliminate from the American system.
Thank you again for showing where you really stand, Steve.
You act as if I have some kind of evil position when in fact it’s not. Would you teach boys to go out and impregnate as many women as would sleep with them and then just say “go have an abortion” if they become pregnant? Would you tell daughters to sleep with whomever they please and then run to the abortion clinic anytime there’s an inconvenient pregnancy? This is not “punish them with a baby” like Obama said. It’s basic societal duties of people when they grow up. Freedom isn’t free.
I think you hold an un-American position. One can argue that it is evil on the basis that we are all entitled to our own religious interpretations and are not to force others to adhere to them.
As I said, thank you for clarifying where you actually stand.
On the debate, here's what I posted over at Facebook (if we're not getting a post on that):
Some quick debate thoughts. (I caught it after a special showing of "The Birthday", starring Corey Feldman at the local Alamo. That film is BONKERS in all the best ways.)
1. I was pleasantly surprised by the debate and both debaters. I fully expected Vance to come in as a full-blown Chaos Monkey, and instead got a guy with a normal temperament that reminded me of the time before he went full Sith.
2. Tim Walz did an excellent job once he chilled out and showed a command of the issues (heavily drawing upon his time as MN governor) that I would have ZERO issues with him second in line to the presidency. (I actually wouldn't mind if he were at the top of the Democratic ticket this time.)
3. As for "who won", I think this was largely a draw. I think that will be the conclusion of a lot of folks, if only for how *normal* this debate seemed, in a sea of years of *abnormal* politics.
4. I'm skeptical that Vance's pivot to "censorship" was an effective non-answer to the question of whether Trump won in 2020, BUT I suspect there are few voters left who would be convinced one way or the other.
5. When Vance was criticizing the MN law on "late term abortions", Walz repeated what Vance was saying wasn't the actual law (OK), but I was left hanging waiting for Walz to explain WHAT the actual law was (NOT OK).
6. Walz was a VERY effective spokesman for saner firearm laws. It's nice to have someone who's been a hunter and sportsman remind viewers that the NRA once filled a valuable role in providing local firearm education before it decided to focus on politics at the expense of the education it provided.
7. I thought that Vance turned in a decent performance tonight, and have to wonder what actual populists thought of the performance. If I were in their shoes, I'd be rooting for Vance to be running things instead of Trump, AND without all the Trump baggage.
Populists made a grave political error in backing Trump instead of pulling a guy like Vance off the bench. It would be like Democrats doubling down on Gore after 2000, and having Obama yoked to Gore and his issues (admittedly, MANY fewer issues than Trump), instead of having Obama emerge organically in 2008, free to to be his best self and NOT tethered to any of the existing Democratic dynasties.
I'll be interested to see whether Vance can learn from this debate and begins to turn the conservative populist energy away from hating on immigrants (as Trump seems determined to triple-down on) and more towards topics he discussed well, such as caring for the full life of children instead of just myopically focusing on outlawing abortion. I wouldn't put any money on that happening, but it is an available path for the GOP and the populists that run it that branches away from the grievance politics tar pit they seem determined to stay stuck in.
8. Overall, a surprisingly pleasant debate. I doubt that it moves any needles (Vance's Jan. 6 non-answer is an instant disqualifier for me), but it was a nice peek into a world where we get back to normal politics once again.
Vance does indeed code-switch very well.
Walz definitely is not a good debater, but then that's not really a skill that's required or necessarily useful in terms of administration of the government.
Both men ultimately did fine, and likely improved their favorability amongst voters.
Seems like you are correct on Mideast status quo changed. Not going to undue last year. Israel appears to be on decapitation strategy concerning terror organizations.
I'm sure there will be an article in the next few days, but to prime the pump a bit:
Jack Smith's filing with evidence (and redactions) is available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148/gov.uscourts.dcd.258148.252.0.pdf.
"the Biblical doctrine that life begins at conception"
I know that's a Catholic doctrine: I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible that states this. At the least, it is definitely not in the Old Testament.
Since it appears you're taking a "state's rights" argument on abortion: does that apply to everything? If yes, then form a state's rights perspective would slavery be A-OK in your book? Or keeping women unable to vote?
You may state in response that "These are Federally protected rights", but humor me: what if they weren't? What if, similar to Roe, these rights were "thrown back to the States"?
I'll add some other quotes from that decision in Georgia:
"While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman."
"When someone other than the pregnant woman is able to sustain the fetus, then -- and only then -- should those other voices have a say in the discussion about the decisions the pregnant woman makes concerning her body and what is growing within it."
"Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy."
So perhaps to be more blunt: do you think women should enjoy equal rights, or are they to be second-class citizens? Are you of the mind that it is OK to force others to live according to your preferred religious interpretation rather than according to their own (with appropriate "swinging fist" limitations)? Is it OK for others to force you to live by their preferred religious interpretation? Or are you endorsing the idea of religious power struggles?
States’ rights has long been used as a last ditch defense for some unsavory policy.
Yes we are a federalist nation. States matter. But it is unsettling to me that we can replace the word life with slavery and have the same States’ rights arguments seen before the Civil War and beyond. I know that is not Steve’s intention, argument or belief. That being said I would in an ideal world like to see life protected uniformly at a reasonable number of weeks across all states. Pre-Roe is not all roses. This will take years to sort out in a proper way.
I will agree that I do not think it its Steve's intention/argument/belief, though I cannot say I "know" it. That's the issue with the discussion: there are important principles in terms of how we organize our laws and society that makes America what it is. Those principles may be in conflict with any number of religious interpretations: which is why it's so important that we protect each others' freedoms. Your freedoms are my freedoms, and vice versa.
I am in agreement on the reasonable number of weeks compromise: I think that number must be tied to viability, as I've stated numerous times here and elsewhere. One thing I wonder: can a law setting this restriction be tied to viability (which can change depending on advancements in medical technologies and techniques), or do we need to have an explicit number?
It is a legal hornet’s nest. My gut is a firm number, but I am open to better methods if devised.
If a firm number is needed then it's going to be 24 or 25.
The reason I bring up medical tech is that natural viability is 32 weeks. So, if one does not have access to said tech (for reasons of money or perhaps lack of medical tech due to unforseen issues in supply or disaster) then the 24 week mark becomes invalid.
And generally speaking, after 24 weeks it's likely a desired pregnancy. If it's not then the usual exceptions apply anyways: so it's not likely that many abortions happen at 32 weeks.
Tough one to crack, though - and perhaps it's best to keep it simple.
It's a tough nut - but one where actually having 50 different laboratories of democracy to study might not be the worst thing when it comes to crafting public policy, as opposed to having an extremely contentious national policy that only gets updated when the political power at the federal level swaps.
The issue will always be contentious - but so was/is civil rights. This is - to me, at least - ultimately a civil rights issue about what women's rights are - and that is not something that I think can be left to individual states.
This goes back to the whole "states' rights as enabling slavery" sort of argument. There are some things that necessarily need to be protected at a Federal level: this seems like one of them, and the important thing is what kind of reasonable compromise can be made.
I cannot change biology, and try as they might, neither can the government. Women have rights consistent with what the definition of “woman” is (try to get most liberals to explain that—they won’t or can’t). In that vein, a woman’s right to her body extends to a duty when she is a mother. We would not support a state law that allows a mother to abandon a newborn at a gas station, or to flush a newborn down a toilet. The ideal here is that a mother’s duty reaches into the area of expectant mothers. How far does it reach? That depends on one’s beliefs. I believe it extends all the way back to fertilization. Others believe it is nonexistent until a successful live birth. There are nearly always other options for mothers who do not wish to (or are unable to) raise a child. Waiting lists for infants for adoption are common. It’s not a problem without a solution. It is, a difficult problem reconciling belief systems. In my mind, the duty of motherhood outweighs the “reproductive freedom” to end a pregnancy. Of course, women and men have a choice not to cause pregnancy, but somehow that freedom is ignored in most discussions as “prudish.” Rape and incest make up a tiny portion of pregnancies and I’m willing to cede them in any abortion discussion. But where there is a choice it is nearly always traceable to the choice to have sex in the first place. The Bible has a lot to say on that topic. That’s what I believe and what I teach my kids (boys). Don’t get a woman pregnant if you don’t intend to be a father, and have her as the mother of your child.
So then I'm gonna say you made Jay a liar: you actually do believe that women are second-class citizens in this regard, and that their rights are subject to involuntary removal because of their biology.
Suffice to state I think that is a deeply un-American viewpoint, and is counter to American conservativism as it pertains to maintaining the principles of our system.
Thank you very much for clarifying your viewpoint.
Unapologetically. But let me ask you: were you born, or decanted? If you have a mother, then what’s wrong with saying women are exclusive to that role? Is it second class to bring children into the world? To me, that’s a dim view of motherhood.
Free contraceptives for every woman, unless there are health hazards.
As I said: your freedoms are my freedoms, and vice versa. If that does not apply to women as well, then it does not apply at all.
You state you are unapologetic about it: so then yes, we will indeed have to fight religious conflicts, something that the Founders wanted to avoid and eliminate from the American system.
Thank you again for showing where you really stand, Steve.
You act as if I have some kind of evil position when in fact it’s not. Would you teach boys to go out and impregnate as many women as would sleep with them and then just say “go have an abortion” if they become pregnant? Would you tell daughters to sleep with whomever they please and then run to the abortion clinic anytime there’s an inconvenient pregnancy? This is not “punish them with a baby” like Obama said. It’s basic societal duties of people when they grow up. Freedom isn’t free.
I think you hold an un-American position. One can argue that it is evil on the basis that we are all entitled to our own religious interpretations and are not to force others to adhere to them.
As I said, thank you for clarifying where you actually stand.
Lot's of words, lots of topics but here is the one cut-line i focused on: "as it is well-tucked under the umbrella of American firepower in the gulf."
There-in lies the problem with "single issue voters," life is never that simple is it?