Republicans

Locked
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Fri May 04, 2018 4:33 pm

Joe wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:34 pm
A six term Republican Congressman just got booted off the ballot for the GOP primary. If the decision stands, he's out of Congress!

That's one way to get change.

BTW. I'm going to celebrate this evening because he's my Congressman. :funny: :cheers: :yes:
They'll take an emergency appeal to federal court and get it overturned.

The issue is that he got petition signatures by means of a petitioner who resided outside of the State of Colorado. I.e., nothing wrong with the petition signature, just the guy going door to door was from another US State.

That kind of rule was already struck down in relation to "ballot initiatives" and the State law was found to violate equal protection and due process rights, because it's not substantively related to the integrity of the petition signers.

I would think most Democrats would be against this kind of ruling, since they are always carping on about disenfranchisement. What would your view be if it was a Democrat candidate who was dropped because the guy collecting signatures resided in a neighboring state?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Joe
Posts: 4981
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:10 am
Location: The Hovel under the Mountain
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Joe » Fri May 04, 2018 4:48 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Fri May 04, 2018 4:33 pm
Joe wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 10:34 pm
A six term Republican Congressman just got booted off the ballot for the GOP primary. If the decision stands, he's out of Congress!

That's one way to get change.

BTW. I'm going to celebrate this evening because he's my Congressman. :funny: :cheers: :yes:
They'll take an emergency appeal to federal court and get it overturned.

The issue is that he got petition signatures by means of a petitioner who resided outside of the State of Colorado. I.e., nothing wrong with the petition signature, just the guy going door to door was from another US State.

That kind of rule was already struck down in relation to "ballot initiatives" and the State law was found to violate equal protection and due process rights, because it's not substantively related to the integrity of the petition signers.

I would think most Democrats would be against this kind of ruling, since they are always carping on about disenfranchisement. What would your view be if it was a Democrat candidate who was dropped because the guy collecting signatures resided in a neighboring state?
Already done, and as you say, no surprise. However, it's very humorous if you know the back story.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"Wisdom requires a flexible mind." - Dan Carlin
"If you vote for idiots, idiots will run the country." - Dr. Kori Schake

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47393
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Sat May 05, 2018 12:47 am

Iowa governor signs most restrictive abortion ban in country
By RACHANA PRADHAN 05/04/2018 04:38 PM EDT
Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds on Friday signed into law the most restrictive abortion legislation in the country, prohibiting the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected, often at six weeks.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Seabass » Sat May 05, 2018 12:53 am

But it's easy to get an abortion! Just ask 42!

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#p1762231
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5712
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat May 05, 2018 1:09 am

Yeah, OK, uh, I guess you can stay on, then.

'House chaplain rescinds resignation'
House Chaplain Patrick Conroy has retracted his resignation from the post, arguing he did nothing to deserve being pushed out last month by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and wishes to remain at least through the end of the year, when his term expires.

“I have never been disciplined, nor reprimanded, nor have I ever heard a complaint about my ministry during my time as House Chaplain,” Conroy wrote in his letter to Ryan on Thursday. Ryan later said he had "accepted" the letter and would allow Conroy to stay on.

“It is my desire to continue to serve as House Chaplain … to the end of my current two-year term, and beyond, unless my services are officially terminated (however that is properly done) or I am not re-elected to the position by the membership of the House,” Conroy wrote.

In the letter, Conroy, a Jesuit priest appointed in 2011, said Ryan’s chief of staff, Jonathan Burks, approached the chaplain last month requesting his resignation on behalf of Ryan, himself a Catholic.

Conroy said Burks gave no specific cause, but suggested it was time for a non-Catholic to fill the chaplain post.

...

Conroy’s resignation ignited a firestorm on Capitol Hill last week after it was revealed that Ryan’s office had forced him out without providing a reason, even to Conroy himself. Ryan, in a closed-door meeting with Republicans, explained that he’d heard complaints from members that Conroy had neglected their “pastoral needs.”

Catholics in both parties condemned the move, and Democrats took to the House floor in a dramatic attempt to force the creation of a select committee to examine the reasons for Conroy’s ouster. The measure failed, largely along party lines.

The controversy deepened when Rep. Mark Walker (R-N.C.), a Baptist minister who heads the Republican Study Committee, had suggested the House chaplain should have a wife and kids in order to relate better to the needs of lawmakers — a stipulation that would exclude Catholics like Conroy, who take an oath of celibacy.

Ryan had initially appointed Walker as part of the panel charged with recommending Conroy’s replacement. Amid the furor over his remarks, Walker resigned from that spot over the weekend.

Ryan has defended the decision to ask for the priest's resignation, saying it was "based on feedback" he received from members.
Conroy, however, said that Ryan had warned him to “stay out of politics” after he delivered a prayer on the House floor about the GOP tax bill.

In his Thursday letter, Conroy cited remarks Ryan gave that his "spiritual counseling" had been found lacking.

"In fact, no such criticism has ever been leveled against me during my tenure," Conroy wrote.

...

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), a Methodist minister who was tapped to join the search for Conroy’s replacement, has also been adamant that Conroy, elected by the full House, cannot be removed without cause at the whims of the Speaker. The concern among Democrats is that Ryan’s move will politicize the chaplain position, setting a precedent for ritual firings whenever the House changes hands.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (N.J.), another Catholic Democrat, was more critical, accusing Ryan of pandering to the conservative evangelicals in the GOP conference.

“The feeble excuses offered by Speaker Ryan are merely a pretext to cover for the whims of extremists in his caucus,” Pascrell said Thursday in a statement.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5712
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat May 05, 2018 1:16 am

Image

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47393
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Tero » Sun May 06, 2018 3:15 am

Our one term senator got elected 2010. Now she is running a ”working together” ad with Trump. They will:
During her campaign against former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey, Fischer, 61, promised to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, including eliminating "ineffective agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration." She also told Nebraskans she would repeal the Affordable Care Act, the Dodd-Frank Act and the No Child Left Behind Act, while reducing taxes and balancing the federal budget.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40384
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Svartalf » Sun May 06, 2018 6:42 am

well, the first thing is that you don't give crucial work to intern, you give it only to people who can be trusted to do it righnt, and not to talk about it to the wrong people.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Sun May 06, 2018 6:37 pm

Seabass wrote:
Sat May 05, 2018 12:53 am
But it's easy to get an abortion! Just ask 42!

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#p1762231
It is. That's a brand new law, in Iowa only, and it will be struck down.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Animavore
Nasty Hombre
Posts: 39234
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:26 am
Location: Ire Land.
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Animavore » Tue May 08, 2018 6:39 am

Why does Trump tolerate hatred in his party? Why do his voters tolerate this?

Libertarianism: The belief that out of all the terrible things governments can do, helping people is the absolute worst.

User avatar
Scot Dutchy
Posts: 19000
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:07 pm
About me: Dijkbeschermer
Location: 's-Gravenhage, Nederland
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Scot Dutchy » Tue May 08, 2018 7:15 am

No more make believe
:funny: :funny:
"Wat is het een gezellig boel hier".

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Seabass » Tue May 08, 2018 10:35 am

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 08, 2018 12:22 pm

Always with the lists of links without setting out what is actually being talked about....

The laws being talked about are generally limitations on abortion after 20 weeks (about the same as in most other industrialized countries - the civilized world, I've been told - like the UK), and regulations on the safety of abortion clinics (like that the doctor has to have hospital admitting privileges). Another requirement in a few places is the requirement that abortion clinics comply with the same requirements as "ambulatory surgery centers," which are also known as outpatient surgery centers or same day surgery centers, are health care facilities where surgical procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stay are performed. Such surgery is commonly less complicated than that requiring hospitalization. This is not an onerous requirement. It's the same requirement for any other minor procedure, and the requirements involve sanitary rules and other technical aspects.

Outrage ensues when any US state places a regulation on abortion at 20 weeks. France, though, has abortion through 12 weeks after conception. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable. Would that be acceptable if enacted in Texas? Or, would it be an unfair and ridiculous limitation on abortion?

In the UK, it must be performed by a "registered medical practitioner" and two registered medical practitioners must certify that the pregancy has not gone beyond 24 weeks and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or, that termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent physical injury to the mother, or risk to her life greater than the risk associated with the termination, or that the baby would be born seriously handicapped. Lots of restrictions there.

Oh, by the way, according to the UK Abortion law, section 1(3), abortions generally must take place AT a hospital, and not just by a doctor with privileges at a hospital - the only except is where a medical practitioner signs off that the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life or prevent "grave permanent injury". Section 1(4).

Would the UK's laws be ok if adopted in the US, or would that be too much? Too oppressive?

Even in the Netherlands, abortion is legal on demand only through the 21st week. Cases involving urgent medical attention can be done through the 24th week. The Netherlands has a "five day waiting period." After the first trimester, two doctors must consent to treatment. And, abortions must be performed at a hospital, and are rarely done after 22 weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... etherlands
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5712
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue May 08, 2018 3:05 pm

Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 12:22 pm
The laws being talked about are generally limitations on abortion after 20 weeks (about the same as in most other industrialized countries - the civilized world, I've been told - like the UK), and regulations on the safety of abortion clinics (like that the doctor has to have hospital admitting privileges). Another requirement in a few places is the requirement that abortion clinics comply with the same requirements as "ambulatory surgery centers," which are also known as outpatient surgery centers or same day surgery centers, are health care facilities where surgical procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stay are performed. Such surgery is commonly less complicated than that requiring hospitalization. This is not an onerous requirement. It's the same requirement for any other minor procedure, and the requirements involve sanitary rules and other technical aspects.
Do you believe that instances of targeted regulation of abortion providers are genuinely motivated by concerns for safety, and have genuine basis in the actual requirements of medical necessity?

You blithely state that these regulations are not onerous, but (for instance) who do you expect to pay for remodelling or completely rebuilding clinics or doctors' offices that don't comply with the regulations?

You seem to find government regulations undesirable on principle, but here you dismiss what are acknowledged attempts to restrict access to abortions through superfluous regulation as "not onerous." Why is that?
Between 2011 and August 2015, nine states enacted “hospital admitting privilege” laws that require clinicians offering abortion services to obtain the right to admit patients to a local hospital in order to legally provide abortions in their private practice or clinic setting; seven states have similar, facility-level “hospital transfer agreement” laws. These stringent, medically unnecessary laws, a form of targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP), restrict the availability of abortion services and disproportionately decrease abortion access among women of color and rural and low-income women. Abortion is a very safe procedure, and there is no evidence to support the claim that hospital admitting privilege laws protect or improve women’s safety. [Emphasis mine. - L'E]

[source]
In the years immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, several states moved to impose strict regulations on abortion clinics, beyond what is necessary to ensure patients’ safety. Since many of these requirements were struck down by lower federal courts starting in the early 1980s, states moved on to other ways to restrict access to abortion, such as limitations on public funding. Efforts to use clinic regulation to limit access to abortion, rather than to make its provision safer resurfaced in the 1990s and have gained steam since 2010. However, in June 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down some of the most burdensome of these restrictions that had been enacted in Texas, paving the way to challenge other states’ overly burdensome regulations that target abortion providers.

While all abortion regulations apply to abortion clinics, some go so far as to apply to physicians’ offices where abortions are performed or even to sites where only medication abortion is administered. Most requirements apply states’ standards for ambulatory surgical centers to abortion clinics, even though surgical centers tend to provide more invasive and risky procedures and use higher levels of sedation. These standards often include requirements for the physical plant, such as room size and corridor width, beyond what is necessary to ensure patient safety in the event of an emergency. State standards, however, do vary, with the most burdensome standards in place in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania.

They also often require that facilities maintain relationships with hospitals, provisions that add nothing to existing patient protections while granting hospitals effective veto power over whether an abortion provider can exist. Several states mandate that clinicians performing abortions have relationships with local hospitals, requirements that do little to improve patient care but that set standards that may be impossible for providers to meet. [Emphases mine. - L'E]

[source]

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Republicans

Post by Forty Two » Tue May 08, 2018 4:45 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:05 pm
Forty Two wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 12:22 pm
The laws being talked about are generally limitations on abortion after 20 weeks (about the same as in most other industrialized countries - the civilized world, I've been told - like the UK), and regulations on the safety of abortion clinics (like that the doctor has to have hospital admitting privileges). Another requirement in a few places is the requirement that abortion clinics comply with the same requirements as "ambulatory surgery centers," which are also known as outpatient surgery centers or same day surgery centers, are health care facilities where surgical procedures not requiring an overnight hospital stay are performed. Such surgery is commonly less complicated than that requiring hospitalization. This is not an onerous requirement. It's the same requirement for any other minor procedure, and the requirements involve sanitary rules and other technical aspects.
Do you believe that instances of targeted regulation of abortion providers are genuinely motivated by concerns for safety, and have genuine basis in the actual requirements of medical necessity?
I'm sure people have different motivations. But, do you believe the targeted regulation of abortion in European countries is motivated by concerns for safety, and have a genuine basis in the actual requirements of medical necessity? In the UK, France etc. they need two doctors to certify the need for an abortion in many instances, and the cutoff in European countries range from 20 to 24 weeks - the netherlands rarely "allows" abortion after 22 weeks. What about the requirements that abortion be done at a hospital? If those requirements are warranted there, why would they not also be warranted in the US? Are the medical necessities different?
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:05 pm
You blithely state that these regulations are not onerous, but (for instance) who do you expect to pay for remodelling or completely rebuilding clinics or doctors' offices that don't comply with the regulations?
Remodeling and rebuilding? To abide by the rule that applies to all ambulatory surgical sites? These are not tough guidelines. But, what if they just said that abortions would only be done in hospitals, and shut all those sites down? That's o.k. in Europe, isn't it? Surely abortion is a medical procedure that warrants some regulation for safety and standard medical procedural safeguards? Or, is abortion something that warrants less regulation than other invasive procedures?
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:05 pm

You seem to find government regulations undesirable on principle, but here you dismiss what are acknowledged attempts to restrict access to abortions through superfluous regulation as "not onerous." Why is that?
Because they are not onerous and they are actually less onerous than most or many first world, "civilized" countries who are not being hounded and criticized as if they're making abortion illegal.

Second, I am not against all regulations - I've never said that government regulations are always undesirable on principle.

Third, I am pro choice. I actually oppose many of regulations that would require a doctor to have hospital privilges, for example. I am, however, not an a pure anarchist or libertarian, either.

It just seems to me that if the laws are not as onerous as the UK or France, the hysteria here might be a bit overblown for political purposes.

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 3:05 pm
Between 2011 and August 2015, nine states enacted “hospital admitting privilege” laws that require clinicians offering abortion services to obtain the right to admit patients to a local hospital in order to legally provide abortions in their private practice or clinic setting; seven states have similar, facility-level “hospital transfer agreement” laws. These stringent, medically unnecessary laws,
Is it medically unnecessary to require abortions to be done in a hospital and is such a regulation "stringent" and overly oppressive?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 21 guests