Critics of the expansion of federal power under the commerce clause, myself included, have taken issue with something that is clearly not interstate commerce being regulated under the power to regulate interstate commerce. Not engaging in commerce with someone in a business that wholly takes place within one state is regulated under the interstate commerce clause. Congress could pass a law that defines a restaurant owner or hotelier refusing service to someone as interstate commerce (they won't because that would make them look idiotic) and it would be within their power. Instead they choose to regulate it without so defining it. Abortion as an issue separate from homicide would no longer exist, so in that way the power of the states to decide the issue of abortion would be removed. The power of Congress to decide the issue of abortion would also be removed. In a country where unborn children are considered something other than human beings, regulation of abortion is something properly within the states' powers to regulate, and not within the powers granted to the federal government. In a country where unborn children are considered people just like you and me, states have no right to deny them the equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment. The definitional issue determines the appropriate application of the constitution. The proposed bill doesn't disrespect states' rights, it defines the issue as one that correctly falls under the coverage of the 14th amendment. States, by the way, would still have the final say on how to punish murder in the state, so it would not be fully taken from them, it would just give victims of abortion the same justice as victims of shootings or stabbings. See above. I don't know that he is holding them as equally important, only that both are important. As explained above, I don't see the two views as inconsistent. If the fetuses are people then they are entitled to equal protection, if they are part of the mom, or some other non-person, then they are not so entitled and the states can regulate as they see fit.
lulz <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisChristie">@ChrisChristie</a> just now: "This New Hampshire primary is down to a choice between me and Marco Rubio and everyone knows it."</p>— Phil Mattingly (@Phil_Mattingly) <a href="https://twitter.com/Phil_Mattingly/status/694934781784625152">February 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
See ya Rick Santorum! I think Jim Gilmore is still in the race right? LOL Next to step out needs to be Carly Fiorina.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Started out as 1 of 17 GOP Candidates, now with Rand Paul & Rick Santorum out, 1 or 9. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/StillStanding?src=hash">#StillStanding</a></p>— Jim Gilmore (@gov_gilmore) <a href="https://twitter.com/gov_gilmore/status/694981770735935488">February 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Although I hated GWB jr.'s administration, I actually think Jeb is a nice guy but this is just sad: [youtube]DdCYMvaUcrA[/youtube]
I don't think it's sad, I think it's Jeb Bush being self-deprecating. If anyone gives speeches or presentations for a living, you've been there before. Normally what prompts something like that is you see people making thinking about clapping and acting unsure or something along those lines or you are trying to amuse the group. Happens all the time. I gave a presentation to a group of 35 individuals all under age 25 once and cracked a joke. WOMP WOMP. When I told the same joke to a group of middle aged people they laughed their butt off. I remember sighing and thanking them for the laughter. It can be an ice breaker. It can endear you to your audience to be self-deprecating.
I saw Rachel Maddow last night (which I never do). She said Jim Gilmore got 12 votes in Iowa. TWELVE.
Yeah, I thought that was refreshingly funny for a stiff like Bush. Kind of reminds me of people clapping in-between movements of a symphony. I remember in college some people kept mistakenly doing that one time and then they got so spooked that they were afraid to clap after the final movement. Our director turned around and said "it's okay, you can clap now." That got a big laugh from everyone.
So there's a minor report after the debates that Rubio repeated the same line, almost verbatim, 4 times. So clearly his team had researched this as something that would resonate with voters, but I don't get it. (paraphrasing): "Let's dispel a popular notion right now. Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing." Can someone explain how this message gets a high-five from a GOP primary voter? Well, yeah, he knows what he's doing. You may hate his policies, but why would you shift away from the incompetent confused community organizer narrative that you've used for 7+ years? Why does that statement move the needle. Why you would repeat it wholesale 4 times in a short debate is another interesting question. LOL. I want to hope for Rubio, but he doesn't seem ready.
I am on the same page with you. I really haven't focused on Rubio at all as he has been in the shadows, not polling well nor catching my eye. Watching a few of his responses, he strikes me more of a career politician, doubling down and reassuring his voting base, hoping to shore up more support in the long run. I dont need a candidate to tell me 10 times what he believes... that only signals that he doesn't have much substance. At the end of the day, I am less concerned with a candidates policies and more concerned about their reaction to developing events, and more concerned on how far they are willing to go to get their policies enacted. As a leaning right individual, i have more confidence in Bernie and Hillary by far than any of the Republican candidates, sans Rand Paul.
Thanks, Space Ghost. Interesting take on their ability to react to developing events. We don't really talk about it, but that's more than half the job, you could argue. Not to give off topic, but since you brought up Sanders and Clinton on this front...I think Bernie scares me a little in this respect too; I just have no clue how he would handle foreign policy. I kind of cringe if I picture him lecturing someone like Merkel about multinational corporations, but that is probably a cliche he doesn't necessarily deserve. Meanwhile, David Brooks (I know people hate him, but I don't) leveled a decent criticism of why Clinton's bid is not going so smoothly. What is her vision? And even though you can argue she has more experience than many other candidates, what has her vision been on, say, foreign policy? There's the perception that she's all process and no vision. Back to topic, Cruz especially terrifies me RE: foreign policy. Trump, I tend to think, would just get a decent secretary of state, or we could hope, and otherwise stay out of it. Though his promise to bring back waterboarding "and much worse" doesn't sound very good, in terms of global PR, or even basic human rights and what we stand for as a country. Big sigh.
Why does Cruz terrify you? I have no opinion on the subject. If I had to make one, I think he would be in over his head, taking bad advice and making bad decisions ala Bush. Trump is the one that terrifies me. He strikes me as the one who takes little advice and plunders ahead with his own personal perspective. The silver lining is the world would know he would be short term, so hopefully there would not be long term damage. What further bothers me about Trump is his focus on foreign policy and less on domestic.
His opponents are pinning the "way too inexperienced like Obama was" label on Rubio and comparing him to what Obama has become in that way. Rubio is trying to deflect that by arguing that Obama is actually really brilliant and effective - he just wants to do really bad things. So with Rubio, if you like my policies, there's no need to worry about the lack of experience. The argument is actually fairly sound and probably something he needs to make to stop those attacks. But his repeating it 4 times in a very robotic manner is what killed him. The other criticism of Rubio is that he's overly scripted and protected, and Christie basically destroyed him on that when he kept saying the same line over and over.
I guess I think he means it when he talks warlike, and I don't believe Trump means it. But that's totally subjective. I lean left, so maybe this goes without saying, but Cruz is nearly issue by issue as opposite of my views as a candidate could get. Last I checked he's still a climate denier (not to get into that whole issue), so that has important consequences in international policy as well. And Major, thanks for that. It makes sense. I hadn't understood that recent attacks had been comparing him to Obama.
