Go republicans! Let's restrict womens bodies again!

[Trell]

A license or a degree to certify politicians for running in an election? Who would run the licensing agency, elected politicians?

Josh Hawley? He attended Stanford and Yale, and even clerked for US Supreme Court Justice Roberts. A perfect candidate for oversight, don’t you think?

 

[GO-NAD!]

Politicians should need a license and particular degree, just like any other job that requires you to be licensed. Meaning. You bring something real to the table , and also truly held accountable, and the possibility of being fired . People in positions in government forever that stink at there jobs .

What kind of degree would be appropriate? And, what potentially great leaders would be disqualified?

No Winston Churchill, who had no degree and whose only formal post-secondary education was a couple of years at Sandhurst, learning how to soldier?

No Vaclav Havel, a poet and playwright with no degree, who lead Czechoslovakia out of communism?

No David Ben-Gurion, whose education ended at the age of 13, later to become the first prime minister of Israel?

My point is, there is no post-secondary education that would point to any innate suitability for political office.

 

[Trell]

Here is a fallout of the Republican forced-birth laws following the US Supreme Court to permit banning of abortions resulting in worse medical care, especially for the pregnant. And for everyone else as well. Bold added.

The US for many years have had the highest maternal mortality of any developed/industrial world and this will now become even worse. Expect this to be (more?) under-reported as well going forward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/08/06/abortion-maternity-health-obgyn/

>>>In a few years, Olgert Bardhi’s skills will be in high demand. A first-year resident in internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, he’ll be a full-fledged physician by 2025 in a nation facing a shortage of primary care doctors.

The trouble for Texas: Because of the state’s strict antiabortion laws, Bardhi’s not sure he will remain there.

Although he doesn’t provide abortion care right now, laws limiting the procedure have created confusion and uncertainty over what treatments are legal for miscarriage and keep him from even advising pregnant patients on the option of abortion, he said. Aiding and abetting an abortion in Texas also exposes doctors to civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution.

“It definitely does bother me,” Bardhi said. “If a patient comes in, and you can’t provide them the care that you are supposed to for their well-being, maybe I shouldn’t practice here. The thought has crossed my mind.”
...
One large medical recruiting firm said it recently had 20 obstetrician-gynecologists turn down positions in red states because of abortion laws. The reluctance extends beyond those interested in providing abortion care, as laws meant to protect a fetus could open doctors up to new liabilities or limit their ability to practice.
...
Florence [president of Merritt Hawkins, an AMN Healthcare company, large health-care staffing firm] said the shift has especially serious implications for small, rural hospitals, which can afford just a small number of maternal specialists or, in some cases, only one.

“They can deliver hundreds of babies each year and see several thousand patients,” he said. “The potential absence of one OB/GYN that might be in their community, if not for the Supreme Court decision, is highly significant. The burden will be borne by the patients.”
Tellingly, Florence added, none of the recruiters had encountered a single physician seeking to practice in a state because it had banned abortion.
...
A third-year OB/GYN resident at U-N. M., Alana Carstens Yalom attended medical school at Tulane University, in New Orleans. She had entertained the idea of going back to Louisiana for her medical practice. Not anymore. She wants abortion care to be a part of her OB/GYN practice, and Louisiana has a ban.

“Now I don’t think that is even an option for me,” she said.
...
Hospital systems in states with abortion restrictions, including Utah, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and Ohio, did not respond to requests for comment or declined to respond to questions about how they are approaching potential retention and recruiting challenges. ...<<<

 

[MaxInValrico]

Go away. Republicans don't think this shithead should have been allowed into the country at all. Why don't YOU sponsor some of them, so they can get a load of your hospitality and you can find out why we're sick of the Democrats giving the country away. This particular POS is a disgusting example of what happens when someone's home country doesn't give a poop about its people.

BTW- nobody thinks it's OK for a 10 year old to need an abortion.

The guy was in the country working for a Republican. It's Republicans who are giving the country away.

 

[highfigh]

Politicians should need a license and particular degree, just like any other job that requires you to be licensed. Meaning. You bring something real to the table , and also truly held accountable, and the possibility of being fired . People in positions in government forever that stink at there jobs .

The idea was that anyone who met the requirements could hold office, not just the ones who could afford college and at today's tuition price, it's pretty hard to say that 'anyone can be elected.

Which particular degree(s) and who should tech them the 'correct' version of things? You need to know that some colleges are slanted to the extremes of the political spectrum and if you want those students to be in office, it would be a good idea to look at the whole picture more clearly.

Fired, by whom? Congress is in charge of Congress- who's going to step in and arrest them, try them, charge and convict them? They determine their own pay & bennies, have special immunities and can do whatever they damn well please.

 

[Danzilla31]

True, Kansas has a long history of being very conservative and very Republican. But Kansas isn't the same kind of red state as the deep south or Texas. For example, the governor of Kansas is Democratic.

The recent election result in Kansas is interesting because of the very high turnout for an off-year primary election in August – nearly double the turnout of 4 years ago, 2018. This year was a primary election in which Democrats had little reason to go vote, other than the question of the abortion rights amendment in the Kansas constitution. And yes, it's clear that many GOP also voted with them. The big turnout, the largely GOP makeup of Kansas voters, and the decisive results all made it such big news.
That is the fundamental flaw of GOP/conservative thinking over the last 40 or 50 years. How can someone support the extreme interpretation of gun ownership – while, at the same time, also support extreme government interference of people's private decisions on sex, family, and health care? It's a major disconnect. You might be the first GOP/conservative I've seen who actually recognized and spoke about this disconnect.
Yes, it will interesting to see if the Kansas vote is an example of wide-spread opinion. Or is it limited to only a few other regions of the country.

To be honest I cannot even predict how midterms are going to go. Both parties have made to be fair terrible misteps on certain issues with there constituents.

The only thing I can conclude is that 1: the long term establishment politicians are so out of touch with day to day Americans lives.

And 2: the radical elements of both parties have more influence then prior due to the need to keep voters from fragmenting

That these 2 factors contribute to each party making some head scratching decisions at times that can just make independent voters decisions really hard to track.

I really think it's going to be a toss up to be honest. And honestly I'm so burnt out I really don't care anymore. Whatever happens happens come midterms.

 

[Danzilla31]

True, Kansas has a long history of being very conservative and very Republican. But Kansas isn't the same kind of red state as the deep south or Texas. For example, the governor of Kansas is Democratic.

The recent election result in Kansas is interesting because of the very high turnout for an off-year primary election in August – nearly double the turnout of 4 years ago, 2018. This year was a primary election in which Democrats had little reason to go vote, other than the question of the abortion rights amendment in the Kansas constitution. And yes, it's clear that many GOP also voted with them. The big turnout, the largely GOP makeup of Kansas voters, and the decisive results all made it such big news.
That is the fundamental flaw of GOP/conservative thinking over the last 40 or 50 years. How can someone support the extreme interpretation of gun ownership – while, at the same time, also support extreme government interference of people's private decisions on sex, family, and health care? It's a major disconnect. You might be the first GOP/conservative I've seen who actually recognized and spoke about this disconnect.
Yes, it will interesting to see if the Kansas vote is an example of wide-spread opinion. Or is it limited to only a few other regions of the country.

I don't think people get Texas very well at all. It's not as deep red as one would think. Most of our bigger cities are run by democrats currently.

And the huge mix of cultures leads to a lot more diversity and open mindedness then people think no matter they're political alignment. Not to say I haven't seen some dumb redneck sh$t down here but it's a lot rarer then people think especially in the big cities

 

[Steve81]

Alright, going to post a few thoughts on this topic, and walk away when it gets disrespectful.

I’m pro-choice. It goes against my sense of ethics to force someone to do something. That’s what it boils down to. That’s not to say I’m some monster who cares nothing for a potential new baby.

Look, I at least understand and empathize with the pro-life argument. But the reality is, it’s not our business. And that’s an important idea. In a way, it’s the idea behind the 10th amendment. Outside of a few defined parameters, what one state did was its own business. Anything else is tyranny by the majority.

That’s why I now feel the Supreme Court rightly struck down Roe v Wade.

 

[Danzilla31]

Alright, going to post a few thoughts on this topic, and walk away.

I’m pro-choice. It goes against my sense of ethics to force someone to do something. That’s what it boils down to. That’s not to say I’m some monster who cares nothing for a potential new baby.

Look, I at least understand and empathize with the pro-life argument. But the reality is, it’s not our business. And that’s an important idea. In a way, it’s the idea behind the 10th amendment. Outside of a few defined parameters, what one state did was its own business. Anything else is tyranny by the majority.

That’s why I now feel the Supreme Court rightly struck down Roe v Wade.

That is an interesting point thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

[lovinthehd]

Alright, going to post a few thoughts on this topic, and walk away.

I’m pro-choice. It goes against my sense of ethics to force someone to do something. That’s what it boils down to. That’s not to say I’m some monster who cares nothing for a potential new baby.

Look, I at least understand and empathize with the pro-life argument. But the reality is, it’s not our business. And that’s an important idea. In a way, it’s the idea behind the 10th amendment. Outside of a few defined parameters, what one state did was its own business. Anything else is tyranny by the majority.

That’s why I now feel the Supreme Court rightly struck down Roe v Wade.

So tyranny by the majority in a given state would be fine? The very idea of banning abortion is forcing someone to do nothing, rather than something....not much difference really. Forced abortions would be bad, tho.

Pro life is fine as long as all those folks take care of the unwanted babies themselves....to use an often conservative based complaint, I don't wanna pay extra for that! How do you figure they rightfully struck down Roe when it was doing fine as is?

 

[Steve81]

So tyranny by the majority in a given state would be fine?

By my interpretation of the Constitution, yes. Sometimes, people have to be free to make mistakes.

 

[lovinthehd]

By my interpretation of the Constitution, yes. Sometimes, people have to be free to make mistakes.

Hopefully each state reaffirms what was in place already then by much extra expense and effort rather than something that simply already worked....typical government I suppose. Sperm isn't magic.

 

[lovinthehd]

By my interpretation of the Constitution, yes. Sometimes, people have to be free to make mistakes.

Just don't see the need of males to have anything to do with it particularly myself. Sperm isn't magic.

 

[Danzilla31]

Just don't see the need of males to have anything to do with it particularly myself. Sperm isn't magic.

I agree with you there Lovin I wouldn't want women voting on what I could do with my pecker. Like you said tho maybe women voters will decide it for us. I guarantee you they sure played a big role in Kansas.

 

[lovinthehd]

I agree with you there Lovin I wouldn't want women voting on what I could do with my pecker. Like you said tho maybe women voters will decide it for us. I guarantee you they sure played a big role in Kansas.

That's the way it should be marketed! Pecker regulation wouldn't even be a starter issue! Then again there's too much thinking done with guys' dicks (let alone the lack thereof).