Are liberals so comfortable with the idea of Mike Pence as president that they want to impeach President Trump?
My answer is based on working with Democratic politicians going back some 50 years. In those years I also was fortunate enough to meet and befriend several Republican office holders and strategists.A real politician is at heart a pragmatist. Politicians know that their chances of survival depend on what the public mood is. All politicians will tell you they have principles, whether liberal or conservative. But all of them are willing to bend or ignore those principles for the public good and for their own political well-being.Mike Pence is a politician. I may not agree with 90% of his beliefs, but I have seen one very important thing which sets him apart from Trump. He’s willing to abandon his beliefs in the face of public pressure. Trump isn’t.When Pence pushed for and got that draconian “religious freedom” bill in Indiana, the bill that opened the way for blanket discrimination against the LGBTQ community, before the ink was dry, businesses, celebrities, sports groups, entertainers and common people unleashed a tidal wave of condemnation. State and city governments forbade their employees from traveling to Indiana on business. Concerts and plays were cancelled. Businesses threatened to leave the state. Conventions were cancelled. Pence and the GOP legislature were caught off guard. So the man who had not long before declared “I am a Christian first. . .” immediately ordered the legislature to amend the language to be non-exclusionary. In short order, a new bill was presented Pence, who signed it. Less than 10 days had passed from the original bill’s signing to the new bill’s signing. In that 10 days, Pence’s “Christian-first” beliefs went out the window and he bowed to public pressure. That is pragmatism and that is what real politicians do.Pence has proven to be a politician first, a politician who understands what it means to be a politician. Trump has no such background, instead being an autocrat who is accustomed to getting his way, no matter who gets hurt or what the consequences are. He won’t last long. Pence, while in my opinion is flawed, will be a much saner, safer President.
Would conservatives favor a national registry of pregnant women who would be monitored to prevent abortion and be barred from international travel (in case they try aborting overseas)?
I don’t think they would. In my experience, all too often, conservatives imagine that other people (liberals and minorities) are the ones they want to apply their policies to.One person recently complained on Quora how he/she had been released from her contract after expressing pro-Trump views, and I felt obliged to remind the OP that conservatives have been championing “at will” employment for a very long time. The OP just didn’t imagine it would come back to be applied to him/her.Remember the signs “keep your government hands off my Medicare?” I’ve seen this happen so much—where all too often, Conservatives are always the ones first in line with their hands out. They want the goodies for themselves, but imagine that other people will get them, and that’s unacceptable to them.No—they still want to be able to arrange for their daughters to get an abortion—even if it means flying them to Canada. If all women had to register and get regular pregnancy tests—that door would close. No—most of them are not really concerned about “the sanctity of life”—they just want to make sure other people—those minorities. Those Liberals. Will no longer have “sex without consequences.”But I notice that the vast majority of conservatives who are responding to this question are suddenly getting cold feet. But if conservatives truly have the courage of their convictions, and really believe that a zygote, embryo or fetus is morally equivalent to a born baby, then that is what it would take. All women of child-bearing age would need to register, and take regular pregnancy tests, and be subject to arrest for murder and potential execution if found guilty.The reality of a free society is that not everyone has the same religious convictions regarding when life begins, and in a free society, religion does not dictate public policy. Matters involving sex, marriage, reproduction—these are the most profound forms of control the state can ever exercise over the individual. Freedom and privacy around such issues must be considered the cornerstone of a free society.
Why do liberals think the government should provide total healthcare for U.S. citizens?
I don’t like the term “liberal” because I “lean” left-ish I guess? Not on everything - and I think in many parts of the world, a moderate is considered left here.I love this country. I’m an immigrant that really liked it here after studying. I want to contribute to this society. I see numerous stories of people getting sick, and money worries once it happens. If this country is important to me, aren’t the people that live there as well?I would like to live in a country where health isn’t much of a worry. Where people can visit the doctor if sick, and not think “hmm, maybe I’m not that sick; I’ll wait a few days because the doctor would charge me $100 since I haven’t hit a ridiculous deductible yet, and my green stuff should hopefully pass…”.I’m still lucky to have my bad insurance. I know some parents at my kids school - both working, and my crappy insurance is like a luxury they can’t afford. One way to get help - emergency room. A lot of patients without insurance don’t actually pay the bill. When something like that happens, the cost to taxpayers is a multiple of what it should be. Insurance rates go up - and we all still lose.Maintaining the health of the population should be in our best interests. Healthy people are happier. More productive. Can recover better from ailments. Often preventing major problems means preventing major bills.BTW - This isn’t something to just help liberals.In fact, this can help the states which have the highest poverty rates that are generally more conservativeInteractive Poverty Map | State and County Level Poverty InformationRed/blue US states (2004-2016)The states with the highest poverty levels are Arizona, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, West Virginia.If we assume poverty is a good indication of whose that will have a hard time affording healthcare, then looking at the states with the highest poverty ratio, only New Mexico is “liberal”.So “red” states where the highest ratio of people can be helped that lean conservative:ArizonaArkansasLouisianaMississippiAlabamaGeorgiaKentuckyWest VirginiaAm I saying we should spend money on these “red” states to ensure the health of their mostly conservative populace?YES!
Why do many mainstream liberals have such trouble accepting that religious objections can be sincere?
Do I believe the objections are sincere? Absolutely.Objections, however, are not good material on which to govern. Religious sentiment is similarly not good material on which to govern.The result of that ruling is likely to mean the refusal of various groups to provide portions of heath care to their employees--the precedent set could allow employers who believe in faith healing to exempt themselves from covering large swathes of medical insurance, Christian Scientists to exempt transfusions, and any established religious group to prevent its employees from accessing some part of their health care.Christian objections are no more or less valid a basis for legal decisions than the religious sentiment of any other established religion. If I seem less than happy about Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, it's because it opened a giant, ugly can of worms that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for, because it further entangles the Christian church and the US state, and because it's yet another attack on access to health care for women.The portions of birth control they don't want to cover are apparently arbitrary--Plan B, Ella, and IUD are NOT abortifacents. Alito's opinion literally states, in the footnotes of page 9, that while the plantiffs believe these methods of birth control to be abortificants, they are not classified as such by the FDA because medical science believes pregnancy begins at actual implantation. (See: Page on supremecourt.gov)Why implantation? Because women's bodies routinely do not allow implantation, and you can't have a pregnancy without it.Moreover, you, if you pay taxes, are now going to be paying for that birth control. These companies and their religious objections have effectively off-sourced part of their costs onto taxpayers, under the guise of religious objections. Someone has to pay for that health care. Guess it'll have to be everyone else. The employees of companies now dropping parts of their federally mandated health insurance are who suffers, as do you and I when we pay taxes. But the real losers will be women, because almost all of the religious objections currently being mounted are mounted on removing some facet of health care from women. History is pretty clear on what happens when women don't have birth control.It tends to result in very high mortality rates for women.
Can a Conservative please explain the "Liberal Agenda" to me?
I'm a liberal. I understand my own beliefs. But I would like to know what Conservatives believe is so wrong with the Liberal point of view. Points will be awarded to the person whose comments is the most eloquent, not whether I agree with you or not.
Is firing woman who take birth control a perfect example on republicans war against woman?
No one FIRED a woman on birth control. I STILL believe it's not my responsibility to pay for YOUR birth control. AZ is saying that they will only cover MEDICAL reasons why women are on the pill to get reimbursed. They are not asking nor are they requiring anyone to tell if they are on the pill. IF YOU WANT YOUR EMPLOYER TO PAY...you must tell them WHY. If you don't want THEM to pay...no one has to know. **note to liberals...READ carefully. This is NOT what you are saying it is.
Why do Republicans want to control women?
Someone asked a question about how liberals resemble Middle Eastern men and it got me thinking about how much in common the Rethuglicans have with some Middle Eastern countries in respect to the rights they think women should have. When Bush reinstated the Global Gag Rule, missions of women around the WORLD started DYING from it. All for even just MENTIONING abortion. How is that any different from stoning women for doing something the men don't like? Why do Rethuglican men (and some Democratic men too) think they should have ANY say over what women do with their own bodies? Where does that kind of arrogance come from? Our culture. And it's the same with the middle eastern men's culture. They grow up priviledged. The Rethuglicans think women should DIE for even mentioning abortion. If you are a Republican, you support these needless deaths. What do you think?