PA 18 Special Election Updates

[Starbuck1975]

No it isn't, it's a position that respects the boundaries between personal morals and public law. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think a particular action is wrong but not seek to ban it with the force of law. For example I imagine plenty of people think cheating on your spouse is wrong but don't wish to criminalize it.

Supporting something you morally oppose is hypocritical, although maybe I am holding Lamb to a higher standard because he was a Marine.

Tariffs are not pro-labor, especially the ones he put in place. They will almost certainly cost far more jobs than they will save. Trump's position is intended to reward friendly constituencies for supporting him while attacking unfriendly ones. It's massive corruption.

You and I may know that, but organized labor is often short sighted in its goals, and as you pointed out earlier, tariffs are traditionally in the domain of pro-labor.

Meh, nearly every Democrat has heresies on an issue here or there. I mean Joe Manchin is positively gun loving and no one sensible would claim he is a Republican.

True, but the far left is fueling the blue tide, and eventually the Democrats will face the same dilemma as the GOP of appeasing their version of the uncompromising Tea Party, who probably see people like Manchin as problematic.

It represented a 22 point shift from 2016 voting patterns. If that result held across the nation it would be the single largest loss of congressional seats in all of US history that I'm aware of. Furthermore, it can't be attributed to the Republican candidate being a child molester like in Alabama. If that's not a catastrophic result I don't know what is.

It’s not so shocking when you take into account how toxic Trump is, and also the hypocritical situation that opened the seat to begin with. Smartest thing the GOP could do now is impeach Trump.

And in a place like Kansas CA Republicans would probably run as Democrats. Doesn't change the fact that they are Republicans, it just means they are moderate ones. Lamb will be a moderate Democrat but he's still waaaaaaay to the left of your average Republican.

If he was wayyyyy to the left, he wouldn’t have won the seat.

 

[soundforbjt]

He’s waaaay to the left of the guy saying he was trump before trump..

 

[Paratus]

It’s pretty standard for Democrats who have to walk that fine line for constituencies where pro-labor and pro-life intersect, and they appease it by personally opposing it but publicly supporting it. This is a dishonest position to take for political convenience.


It is ironic that Trump took a populist pro-labor position. Wonder why that is? It seems working class Americans are now the battleground for winning elections.


That is a pretty significant departure

I also noticed that Lamb was pretty quiet on BLM and #metoo. I wonder why.


Characterizing this as catastropic is a bit desperate. This was a referendum against Trump. Trump may be motivating a blue wave, but it doesn’t solve the underlying political fault lines. In a place like CA, Lamb would have to run as a Republican, as he probably wouldn’t even survive a primary.

It’s hardly a dishonest position to take for someone attempting to be a good American as opposed to simply a a “good Christian”.

Recognizing that using government to force your religious belief on others is wrong is a nuanced position and one all US politicians should be up holding.

Now if that bothers you, I might be willing to meet you halfway and agree to use the government to force the religious to follow their religion.

 

[Maxima1]

No it isn't, it's a position that respects the boundaries between personal morals and public law. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think a particular action is wrong but not seek to ban it with the force of law. For example I imagine plenty of people think cheating on your spouse is wrong but don't wish to criminalize it.

Weak analogy. Being personally against abortion implies that it's similar to murder.

Meh, nearly every Democrat has heresies on an issue here or there. I mean Joe Manchin is positively gun loving and no one sensible would claim he is a Republican.

He would be if we had higher voter participation.

 

[fskimospy]

Weak analogy. Being personally against abortion implies that it's similar to murder.

To some people, but certainly not to everyone.

He would be if we had higher voter participation.

What is your basis for this? Please be as specific as possible.

 

[K1052]

True, but the far left is fueling the blue tide, and eventually the Democrats will face the same dilemma as the GOP of appeasing their version of the uncompromising Tea Party, who probably see people like Manchin as problematic.

I'll believe the lefty tea party is here when a bunch of Dems start getting successfully primaried. Not to say it won't happen but I'm not seeing it right now.

The blue wave appears to be a confluence of factors: blue collar dems who voted Trump but don't like the GOP/have become disenchanted with him, college educated suburbanites who in addition to finding Trump concerning got hosed with the tax bill, women who may have held their nose for Trump vs Hillary coming to truly hate the man now, and minority voters who are somewhat less than enchanted with Trump/GOP governance.

 

[interchange]

No it isn't, it's a position that respects the boundaries between personal morals and public law. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to think a particular action is wrong but not seek to ban it with the force of law. For example I imagine plenty of people think cheating on your spouse is wrong but don't wish to criminalize it.

Agreed. And I would also like to say that it's my personal position as well, and I'm no politician.

 

[fskimospy]

Supporting something you morally oppose is hypocritical, although maybe I am holding Lamb to a higher standard because he was a Marine.

It most certainly is not hypocritical, and Lamb isn't supporting it. What he is saying is that there's a line past which we shouldn't enforce our religious beliefs on others. Again, he presumably also does not wish to use the force of law to ban adultery, something I imagine he also finds immoral. Is he a hypocrite for doing so?

You and I may know that, but organized labor is often short sighted in its goals, and as you pointed out earlier, tariffs are traditionally in the domain of pro-labor.

I agree that labor supporters often want tariffs and that they are often stupid, haha.

True, but the far left is fueling the blue tide, and eventually the Democrats will face the same dilemma as the GOP of appeasing their version of the uncompromising Tea Party, who probably see people like Manchin as problematic.

That's certainly possible, although I haven't seen efforts to purge the Democratic Party in the same way the Tea Party purged Republicans. There has been some ideological litmus testing going on, but not nearly as bad so far.

It’s not so shocking when you take into account how toxic Trump is, and also the hypocritical situation that opened the seat to begin with. Smartest thing the GOP could do now is impeach Trump.

I agree it's not that shocking maybe but it IS very, very bad news for the GOP. Maybe it's an aberration. They better hope so though as if it's not they are in deep... deep shit.

If he was wayyyyy to the left, he wouldn’t have won the seat.

Yet he was, and he did. I bet when his DW-NOMINATE score comes out it will be far, far to the left of the closest Republican.

 

[interchange]

Supporting something you morally oppose is hypocritical, although maybe I am holding Lamb to a higher standard because he was a Marine.

Was Lamb supporting abortion? Or stating he would not criminalize it? Cause there's a bunch of stuff I oppose that I want to protect from criminalizing/other government interference. That's pretty much the founding principle of our country...

 

[cytg111]

has anyone argued the point that Rick Saccone aka "Rick Saccone That" could have won if Trump had NOT campaigned for him days before the election? Is it not a legit question?

 

[Paratus]

To some people, but certainly not to everyone.



What is your basis for this? Please be as specific as possible.

I’m gettjng the sense of a lot of candidate envy coming from the right. They are having quite a time trying justify why a moderate Marine can’t be a republican anymore.

 

[Maxima1]

To some people, but certainly not to everyone.

Then what exactly would the beef with it be? I'm sure it's a similar feeling that Democrats generally have when they arbitrarily pick a point to cut off (generally the concept of viability) abortions.

What is your basis for this? Please be as specific as possible.

Simple. The elderly hold more Republican views, and they vote more. As voter participation goes up, the Republicans would need to shift on issues. It doesn't help that midterms makes this worse for Democrats, and it's a no-brainer why Republicans want governor races outside of presidential election years.

 

[Commodus]

has anyone argued the point that Rick Saccone aka "Rick Saccone That" could have won if Trump had NOT campaigned for him days before the election? Is it not a legit question?

It's a possibility, but I suspect Saccone was doomed well before then. If you're on Trump's side in a district where Republicans have anything less than a guaranteed seat, you're automatically at a disadvantage; having him chip in for you just hurts your chances further.

 

[Glaring_Mistake]

has anyone argued the point that Rick Saccone aka "Rick Saccone That" could have won if Trump had NOT campaigned for him days before the election? Is it not a legit question?

I've seen people think it had a positive effect for him and some think it had a negative effect.
The pollsters at Monmouth seemed to think it was a wash though, saying that what they saw was that for every republican Saccone got because of that Lamb got a democrat voting for him.

 

[cytg111]

It's a possibility, but I suspect Saccone was doomed well before then. If you're on Trump's side in a district where Republicans have anything less than a guaranteed seat, you're automatically at a disadvantage; having him chip in for you just hurts your chances further.

That sounds fair. I can just easily imagine its the sort of "idea" that gets tossed around after defeat when everyone is trying to point fingers at someone to blame... and thus tossing even more fuel on the GOP meltdown fire.

 

[Paratus]

It's a possibility, but I suspect Saccone was doomed well before then. If you're on Trump's side in a district where Republicans have anything less than a guaranteed seat, you're automatically at a disadvantage; having him chip in for you just hurts your chances further.

A good question these days is what’s now considered a guaranteed seat for a republican?

 

[fskimospy]

Then what exactly would the beef with it be?

That he personally has a bias towards giving every fetus the chance to be born but doesn't consider something akin to a miscarriage to be murder.

I'm sure it's a similar feeling that Democrats generally have when they arbitrarily pick a point to cut off (generally the concept of viability) abortions.

Uhmm, by definition that's not arbitrary, haha.

Simple. The elderly hold more Republican views, and they vote more. As voter participation goes up, the Republicans would need to shift on issues. It doesn't help that midterms makes this worse for Democrats, and it's a no-brainer why Republicans want governor races outside of presidential election years.

So why would Lamb, specifically, have to be a Republican? Again, please be as absolutely specific as you can, citing policy preferences where possible.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Was Lamb supporting abortion? Or stating he would not criminalize it? Cause there's a bunch of stuff I oppose that I want to protect from criminalizing/other government interference. That's pretty much the founding principle of our country...

I don’t want to turn this into an abortion debate, but if you believe that life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion inherently criminal?

Better question, give another example of something you morally oppose but wouldn’t criminalize.

 

[Maxima1]

That he personally has a bias towards giving every fetus the chance to be born but doesn't consider something akin to a miscarriage to be murder.

So he helps perpetuate the pro-life position. You know, if it's not a person, then who cares? It's like killing a live cell, tumor, or whatever. That position makes little sense. That's falling into the "future like ours" argument.

Marquis is best known for his paper "Why Abortion Is Immoral", which appeared in The Journal of Philosophy in April, 1989. This paper has been reprinted over 80 times,[3] and is widely cited in the philosophical debate over abortion.[4] The main argument in the paper is sometimes known as the "deprivation argument", since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours".[5]

Uhmm, by definition that's not arbitrary, haha.

Of course it's arbitrary, and the point of viability is a moving target. It's akin to the Republican argument that they should be given a chance.

So why would Lamb, specifically, have to be a Republican? Again, please be as absolutely specific as you can, citing policy preferences where possible.

I was quoting the comment about Manchin , but okay. I'm suggesting to you that higher voter participation would make the US more akin to other western countries where their conservatives are like our Democrats. You're overselling the guy and Manchin.

 

[fskimospy]

So he helps perpetuate the pro-life position. You know, if it's not a person, then who cares? It's like killing a live cell, tumor, or whatever. That position makes little sense. That's falling into the "future like ours" argument.

Marquis is best known for his paper "Why Abortion Is Immoral", which appeared in The Journal of Philosophy in April, 1989. This paper has been reprinted over 80 times,[3] and is widely cited in the philosophical debate over abortion.[4] The main argument in the paper is sometimes known as the "deprivation argument", since a central premise is that abortion deprives an embryo or fetus of a "future like ours".[5]

You may not agree with it, but viewing a fetus, which is a potential new human life differently than a tumor is common sense.

Of course it's arbitrary, and the point of viability is a moving target. It's akin to the Republican argument that they should be given a chance.

You do not appear to know what the word arbitrary means. Arbitrary is defined as: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Deciding that a pregnancy should no longer be terminated once the fetus no longer requires the mother to survive is not random or without reason, therefore it is not arbitrary. Easy peasy.

I was quoting the comment about Manchin , but okay. I'm suggesting to you that higher voter participation would make the US more akin to other western countries where their conservatives are like our Democrats. You're overselling the guy and Manchin.

It's certainly possible that Manchin would be a Republican if our politics moved significantly to the left, I will agree with that.

 

[WelshBloke]

I don’t want to turn this into an abortion debate, but if you believe that life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion inherently criminal?

It's a position built on a belief that others may not agree with, therefore I'd leave it up to the individual to make the choice.

 

[Commodus]

A good question these days is what’s now considered a guaranteed seat for a republican?

I suspect quite a few seats in the deep South and Texas are pretty much locks for the Republicans, like it or not. With that said: if polling starts to suggest that someone like Ted Cruz could realistically lose his seat, all bets are off.

 

[jackstar7]

I don’t want to turn this into an abortion debate, but if you believe that life begins at conception, then isn’t abortion inherently criminal?

This line of logic leads to every miscarriage being investigated by the police as a potential murder.

 

[Maxima1]

You may not agree with it, but viewing a fetus, which is a potential new human life differently than a tumor is common sense.

There isn't even a person. People in philosophy and elsewhere also even argue that killing babies to a certain point is no different (though that raises some issues like neglect).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/he...s-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

You do not appear to know what the word arbitrary means. Arbitrary is defined as: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Deciding that a pregnancy should no longer be terminated once the fetus no longer requires the mother to survive is not random or without reason, therefore it is not arbitrary. Easy peasy.

Funny. Because then many are using it wrong. I'm hardly the only person who has ever argued this. With the way you want to define it, I guess the conservative line on conception isn't arbitrary either.

You realize that viability is not even a 0% or 100% thing? Never mind that there is no being there that can experience anything and hasn't experienced anything just like any other point in pregnancy. This makes it rather arbitrary.

 

[Starbuck1975]

This line of logic leads to every miscarriage being investigated by the police as a potential murder.

Yes, and we have a thread going about masturbation being mass murder, you damn serial killer!

Scott Peterson faced charges for a double murder in the death of his wife AND unborn son. Despite the narrative of choice, our society does place shifting moral boundaries on abortion, because who get to decide at what point a person is truly a person?

Specific to this thread, I don’t see how Lamb can believe life begins at conception and be pro-choice. Take away the believe of life at conception and there is no moral paradox.