JCC [Reactions] U.S. Presidential Election Day 2012

But the entire point of the pro-life movement is that they believe in personhood.

The measures that were defeated weren't "extreme personhood amendments." It's just that it was pointed out that the effects of any personhood amendment would be extreme. So extreme that even the most conservative states have rejected them, and by no small margin.

If the pro-life movement has been defeated on personhood, then they've been defeated. That's their only legal and moral argument, and it's hit a dead-end. They could still try and make abortion more difficult (and face a huge backlash from women in the next elections), but they'll never win now. They've lost. Abortion will never be banned in the United States.

And I'm not a big pro-choice person. Personally, I'm pro-life, I just don't want that view forced onto others. I'm just looking at this from a purely factual perspective.

 

I wouldn't say it's any worse than the vast majority of US cities (relevant maps here) - and certainly not Detroit/Chicago levels.

 

i think the democrats should (and will) absorb the moderate republicans and use their combined might to crush all opposition under their thumb. then we can have just one party and everything will be so much easier. what a relief that would be.

 

Dear bookstore customer,
turning around all of the books in the current affairs section with the President on the cover won't make it go away. Stop it.

 

i remember when people were doing that with the palin books.

 

In my day, the people you found in bookstores knew how to read.

 

Bwhahaha! I wonder what that person thinks of people who try to move the Bible to the fiction section.

 

did they pinch off in the middle of the restroom floor back then too, arawn?

 

Oh yeah, having just one party really does make things easier! So much that you don't really need to think any more, just shut up and fall in the line and do what the party tells you. Much better.

 

hey, you're right! i think we should do it! what do we have to lose mar7swirl?

 

I found the satanic bible in bibles last week. stop it.

 

And why is Hagakure in Sports? That is just retarded.

 

People, I've come to vent. I keep having issues with my white republican friends posting articles and quotes that aren't overtly racist, but really are once you think about it. Maybe I'm biased or overly sensitive to it, but every time it really makes my blood boil. Here's the latest one:

Since the traditional values that shaped this great nation are deemed "regressive" by the majority, this post will get plenty of static. I don't care. I don't always agree with Rush, but he's pretty spot on here ...

"Small things beat big things [Tuesday]. Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose. It's just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. Now, everybody is jumping on Romney's chain today, getting in his chili. Look, he may have not been the most optimal candidate, but he's a fine man. He would have been great for this country. Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs. But what was Romney's recipe? Romney's recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work. That gets sneered at. In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins? And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America. In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren't doing enough to help those who aren't. And that resonated." --radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh

My response: Looking at the demographics of who voted for who, I think making a claim that 93% of African Americans, 71% of hispanics, 73% of Asians, 55% of women, and 60% of people under 30 voted for Obama because they're basically lazy and don't believe in hard work doesn't address the real issue (and offensively stereotypes the majority of minorities). There are larger issues here that have historically plagued the Republican party: immigration, civil rights, and women's rights.

Does anyone else see racism there, or am I just reading into things? 'Cause apparently I'm his only friend who is, and in truth I'm still pretty pissed.

 

I deleted over 40 people from FB pre election because of this...

 

I'm fairly sure I had a few people unfollow me on Twitter because I kept retweeting Pro - Obama and glee over his victory all night Tuesday.

 

Cain is a moron -- the guy didn't even know that China had nukes.

It feels like we're living in 1963 again. It's scary.

My uncle's nephew changed his Facebook background to an upside down flag, and my uncle gave him a lecture and told him he was ashamed of him. It's sick.

(I haven't unfriended anyone on Facebook over this, because I have a lot of friends of different views. If they want to unfriend me, though, that's their choice)

 

I think it could be a combination of a number of things. It could be partially motivated by racism, but I think it could also be an intergenerational disconnect where people under 30 are not as likely to vote for Republican candidates because they grew up in a different time with different values. I think another part of the problem is that the Republicans fail to comprehend the fact that some people spend their entire lives working their asses off in crappy jobs for crappy pay and never get anywhere. As result, they fail to comprehend why the Democrats champion social programs, not just because it gets them votes, although it does, but it also makes upward social mobility if not easy, then at least possible, and because its the right thing to do.

 

"White people" mourning Romney? So the 7% of African-Americans who also voted for Romney didn't also have crestfallen expressions on their faces when Romney lost?

Oh, sorry, I forgot they don't count, so they don't fit into the morality play self-congratulatory liberals have staged in their heads.

 

i love free market capitalism, and i love your father.

 

I'd add that it's so utterly stupid and self-congratulatory...and of course utter BS.

What was Romney's plan? Massive tax cuts and increased defense spending. And remember, they attacked Obama for 'cutting' Medicare. Free stuff? Yea, maybe if you are broke and can't afford health insurance...but I say good, if someone loses their job or can't afford, I think they should still be able to go to the doctor.

There isn't really a 'hard choice' in Romney's plan. Whereas Obama had to make Obamacare revenue neutral, the Republicans gave us Medicare Part D, two wars, and no way to pay for it. They promise massive tax cuts to 'pay' for the debt.

And this notion that they work hard and that Democrats are lazy is a fantasy that plays in many of their heads. The Joe The Plumbers of this world who think they are John Galts but really are losers whose only business is in their imagination. Even the business owners they trotted out during the "you didn't build that" faux controversy, many of them had benefited from federal subsidies.

Point being, they can keep telling themselves that they are rugged individuals and Democrats are a bunch of young, lazy minorities, but it's not real.

Sincerely,
An over-30 white guy

 

I'm not a pro-choice person either, but I think that the pro-life movement as a whole needs to learn a few lessons from the prohibition movement and the big lesson is that just because you ban something doesn't mean that it will stop people from doing what ever it is that you've just made illegal. The temperance movement assumed that if alcohol were illegal, people would simply stop drinking, but they failed to understand that people actually like to drink and that if you try and tell someone that they can't, they'll just say, "well screw that!" and drink anyway. As a result when the sale and consumption of alcohol in the United States was banned in 1919, consumption actually when up, not down. When I say this, realize that comparing prohibition and abortion is like comparing apples and oranges, but my point is that prohibition failed because the forces behind the prohibition movement failed to change American culture to make prohibition possible. Today its a bit different, The sale of alcohol is still legal, but we teach school kids about the effects of alcohol on on the body, and about alcohol abuse. We also have law explicitly prohibiting drunk driving. If the pro-life movement wants to change attitudes about abortion, then they need to do more than change the law, they need to change attitudes as well, and the first lesson they need to learn is that if you do is ban abortion, you won't actually stop it. All you will do is push it underground.

 

I suppose Mitt Romney did achieve great wealth, but he was also born into it, whereas Obama is the one who worked his way up. Of course, that's a fact easily ignored by conservatives.

I consider myself a personal pro-lifer, political pro-choicer as well, and I agree that banning abortions is not going to stop abortions. A few years back a woman died from a botched abortion at an illegal clinic just a couple of blocks from where I used to live. It had been in operation for over twenty years, and targeted poor minorities. I don't want to see that tragedy magnified by an abortion ban. I don't know how conservatives respond to this argument; maybe some would argue that the thousands of babies saved would be worth the lives of a few Godless women, but I vehemently oppose that.