Democrats: Help me find common ground.

[Saul Good]

The people have spoken. Obama gets four more years. Congress remains split. It's compromise or gridlock, but is compromise possible? Everyone talks about bipartisanship, but they usually mean unconditional surrender by the other side.

It's pretty well known around here that I am a conservative. Liberals out there, let's pretend we're in congress. Pick an issue that you would like to address, and let's see if we can really agree to meet somewhere in the middle.

Tax rates, abortion, drug legalization...whatcha got?

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's a ridiculous statement by a man that knew it had absolutely no substantive meaning.

It's like saying "if I ever land on the moon, I'll plant a skull and crossbones flag there". I love the freaking skull and crossbones but I ain't ever landing on the moon.

In truth, it's all the more reason the Republicans should remove it from their platform. In pandering to a religious community that they will never serve, they're providing political fodder to their opponent.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. NEVER.

Then why make it a political issue? Why put it in the party platform? If it is such an impossibility, why use it as red meat?

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why do you keep bringing up in vitro fertilization as if banning it is some kind of mainstream GOP/conservative position? I understand that it's opposed by the Catholic Church, but from what I can tell it's more like contraception than abortion in the sense that it's effectively a dead letter with the rank and file. I certainly don't remember any big pushes by the GOP to ban it in the last decade or two (in contrast to the abortion issue).

Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Thank you.

In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Shaid

If you are over $250k, you can probably afford to pay more. If you're up to a million, you could definitely pay more. $100-$150k isn't rich, it's comfortable.

I went from $25K to $125K in a span of about 15 years.

My tax burden went up in almost direct proportion as I went from $25K to $80K and then bam, a spike.

There's definitely an invisible barrier around $100K.

You can sim it for yourself - somebody posted a site around here the other day.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Then why make it a political issue? Why put it in the party platform? If it is such an impossibility, why use it as red meat?

Pandering for evangelical votes. It's one of the few blocks of voters they have left.

You and I both know it's dumb but I can't think of any other reason. (edit: short of some tinfoil hat conspiracy in which the Republicans are losing elections on purpose)

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Thank you.

Happy fencing!

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

"I am pro-life and believe that abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. I support the reversal of Roe vs. Wade, because it is bad law and bad medicine."

-Mitt Romney, June 2011, National Review

[MagicHef]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

FYI on wind energy. There's a field of nearly 200 a few miles north of my house. The power generated there is sold to consumers in a state 600 miles away.

Yep. 600 miles really isn't very far. The best wind resource in the US (and possibly the world) is the I-80 corridor through the Rockies in Wyoming. How many people live within 600 miles of there?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

In a televised debate, Romney was asked "If Roe vs. Wade was overturned and Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it, yes or no?"

"I would welcome a circumstance where there was such a consensus in this country that we said, we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period," Romney said. "That would be wonderful. I'd be delighted."

The moderator pressed Romney and asked if he would sign such a bill.

"Let me say it. I'd be delighted to sign that bill," Romney said. "But that's not where we are. That's not where America is today. Where America is is ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return to the states that authority. But if the Congress got there, we had that kind of consensus in that country, terrific."

Is your point that Romney didn’t bring it up, that the moderator at a debate did?

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

In truth, it's all the more reason the Republicans should remove it from their platform. In pandering to a religious community that they will never serve, they're providing political fodder to their opponent.

Roe v. Wade will NEVER be repealed. NEVER.

The only problem with that is it's a core belief of their party and constituents.

If the Republicans were to stop pandering to the Religious Right, who would make up their core? The party would likely cease to exist because the millions upon millions who believe in those issues would likely find another party.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Because it's in the 2012 Republican Platform PDF.

More proof that the Republican Party is anti-science.

And Puerto Rico becoming a state is of "overwhelming importance" according to the Democrat platform. So what?

[HolyHandgernade]

You keep saying "sign a bill". That's not what the electorate hears. They hear rhetoric that scares them to believe if Republicans can find someway to get such a bill to such a President, he will sign it. You can talk about the reality of that scenario all you want, but the masses don't sit down an discuss why it won't happen, they get upset when someone initmates they would like to see it happen, would welcome it, would sign it if it comes to them. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by Shaid

I know it's not what you want to hear but the abortion issue is not going to change. The country will continue becoming more liberal. The way to combat it is through education, not law. I'm against it as well but I don't believe law is the way we'll solve it. People will still get abortions if it's outlawed but it'll be the back-alley abortions or in someone's garage, etc. and we'll have a lot of problems because of it.

The truth is that from Reagan through Bush 2 there were 20 years of Republican control of the Presidency and 8 years of Democratic control. I don't believe it's in the Republican party's best interest to have abortion overturned. They can keep trumpeting it as a reason to overturn it as a way to get elected. If they somehow got it overturned, Democrats would probably have landslide victory's until it was overturned again.

Just the way I see it from a purely political sense.

you made a good response. It is sad that abortion will continue to be viewed the way it is. Politics and religin can go together. It matters to me what God says about it and if more understood that and could see it that way....Roe v. Wade could be reversed. But, the trend doesn't show that happening.

[DoucheMcCloud]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Again, 100% hollow.

He can't sign a bill that has less than zero chance of every arriving on the President's desk.

No but the Republican party wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion for any reason.

IF Romney would have won, he likely would have nominated at least one, if not three, Supreme Court justices and in doing so, would have made it easier to strike down Roe V. Wade.

If the Republican party could stay out of the bedroom and out of people's spiritual beliefs and come up to speed on 2012's social issues, they would have a better chance on a national level.

Until they do, they will not win the White House.