Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
redqueen
redqueen's Journal
redqueen's Journal
March 9, 2024
https://www.vox.com/policy/23710432/independents-abortion-democrats-midterms-2024-election-voters
Independents back abortion rights. They're less sure Democrats do.
Speechless - hopefully some of these voters get a clue. The part after the last heading in the snip is shocking to me. I knew lots of voters are ill-informed but holy shit.
...
But there is one worrying sign for Democrats in the polling data. Over the past two weeks, for example, two new national polls and data from three focus groups conducted in swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, and Michigan) indicated that significant numbers of independent voters remain confused and skeptical about where Republicans and Democrats stand on protecting abortion rights. The upside for Democrats is they may have substantial room to grow with these voters.
...
Bennett noted that among independent women, the gaps were even higher, with 43 percent in their latest survey saying they weren’t sure what Democrats’ position on abortion was. “Focusing on that, and trying to reach that 34 percent of independents who don’t have a position, represents a real chance to drive that [pro-abortion rights] advantage,” he said.
...
Still, independents definitely reported broad pro-choice attitudes in NARAL’s exit survey, with 54 percent saying they’d be less likely to support Republicans if they tried to pass more abortion bans, and 74 percent of independents said women and their doctors should make decisions about abortion, not politicians.
...
New focus groups suggest some voters are very confused
...
But there is one worrying sign for Democrats in the polling data. Over the past two weeks, for example, two new national polls and data from three focus groups conducted in swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, and Michigan) indicated that significant numbers of independent voters remain confused and skeptical about where Republicans and Democrats stand on protecting abortion rights. The upside for Democrats is they may have substantial room to grow with these voters.
...
Bennett noted that among independent women, the gaps were even higher, with 43 percent in their latest survey saying they weren’t sure what Democrats’ position on abortion was. “Focusing on that, and trying to reach that 34 percent of independents who don’t have a position, represents a real chance to drive that [pro-abortion rights] advantage,” he said.
...
Still, independents definitely reported broad pro-choice attitudes in NARAL’s exit survey, with 54 percent saying they’d be less likely to support Republicans if they tried to pass more abortion bans, and 74 percent of independents said women and their doctors should make decisions about abortion, not politicians.
...
New focus groups suggest some voters are very confused
...
https://www.vox.com/policy/23710432/independents-abortion-democrats-midterms-2024-election-voters
March 7, 2024
https://twitter.com/Proud_2b_BLUE/status/1765283067910828120?s=20
Am I being paranoid about candidates running as Dems then switching parties
So this guy Geoffrey Grammer apparently has voted in the last 3 Republican primaries. He has John Fetterman's endorsement for MD06.
Thoughts? Getting a bad feeling this list is going to keep growing.
GOP Trojan Horses (win as "D" and switches parties, soon after).
D > R
Van Drew
Ari Kagan
Eric Johnson
Elliott Pritt
Tricia Cotham
Jeremy LaCombe
D > I
Kyrsten Sinema
D > R
Van Drew
Ari Kagan
Eric Johnson
Elliott Pritt
Tricia Cotham
Jeremy LaCombe
D > I
Kyrsten Sinema
https://twitter.com/Proud_2b_BLUE/status/1765283067910828120?s=20
March 6, 2024
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/kentucky-senate-child-support-unborn-children
https://twitter.com/iamMauriceW/status/1765428788723105835
Kentucky Senate passes bill to grant the right to collect child support for unborn children
Measure allows parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses
The Republican-led Kentucky senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for fetuses, advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support despite nationwide fallout from a controversial Alabama decision also advancing “fetal personhood”.
The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. The legislation – Senate Bill 110 – won senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.
The Republican state senator Whitney Westerfield said afterward that the broad support reflects a recognition that pregnancy carries with it an obligation for the other parent to help cover the expenses incurred during those nine months. Westerfield is a staunch abortion opponent and sponsor of the bill.
...
The Republican-led Kentucky senate voted overwhelmingly on Tuesday to grant the right to collect child support for fetuses, advancing a bill that garnered bipartisan support despite nationwide fallout from a controversial Alabama decision also advancing “fetal personhood”.
The measure would allow a parent to seek child support up to a year after giving birth to retroactively cover pregnancy expenses. The legislation – Senate Bill 110 – won senate passage on a 36-2 vote with little discussion to advance to the House. Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.
The Republican state senator Whitney Westerfield said afterward that the broad support reflects a recognition that pregnancy carries with it an obligation for the other parent to help cover the expenses incurred during those nine months. Westerfield is a staunch abortion opponent and sponsor of the bill.
...
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/06/kentucky-senate-child-support-unborn-children
https://twitter.com/iamMauriceW/status/1765428788723105835
March 5, 2024
I don't think tsf will be the nominee
Fox news hosts started fact checking him. Daily fail and the Washington examiner are publishing the story about his fake ai pics with Black people.
More than anything, the loss of DC by such a huge margin, to me, is a sign that he's done. I don't know if they'll oust him at the convention or just stop covering for his cognitive decline or what, but I would bet money I don't have that he won't be the nominee
We need to focus on Republican policies and project 2025 and stop talking about tsf
March 4, 2024
Can someone please explain what is happening in Haiti ?
Just saw this very worrying tweet but no idea if it's at all credible.
https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1764675059384246309
The US government and its media apparatus are telling you Haiti has a gang problem that demands foreign military intervention.
It's true there is a problem with criminal gangs that kidnap, terrorize and murder innocent people.
What they don't tell you is that these criminal gangs are creations of the system, supported by the US-backed oligarchs.
They also don't tell you that their invasion is targeted against the only figure fighting against those criminal gangs: Jimmy 'Barbecue' Cherizier, leader of the G9 anti-crime federation.
Watch him speak to a huge crowd of supporters about how the ruling class exploits the poor masses.
Unlike Cherizier, US puppet Ariel Henry is reviled by the people. He can't appear in public, let alone draw a crowd of hundreds or thousands like Cherizier.
This is enemy number one of the U.S. empire in Haiti.
Anti-imperialists must resist war propaganda promoted through mass media and defend him, and Haitian sovereignty.
It's true there is a problem with criminal gangs that kidnap, terrorize and murder innocent people.
What they don't tell you is that these criminal gangs are creations of the system, supported by the US-backed oligarchs.
They also don't tell you that their invasion is targeted against the only figure fighting against those criminal gangs: Jimmy 'Barbecue' Cherizier, leader of the G9 anti-crime federation.
Watch him speak to a huge crowd of supporters about how the ruling class exploits the poor masses.
Unlike Cherizier, US puppet Ariel Henry is reviled by the people. He can't appear in public, let alone draw a crowd of hundreds or thousands like Cherizier.
This is enemy number one of the U.S. empire in Haiti.
Anti-imperialists must resist war propaganda promoted through mass media and defend him, and Haitian sovereignty.
March 4, 2024
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/04/exxon-chief-public-climate-failures
Fury after Exxon chief says public to blame for climate failures
The world is off track to meet its climate goals and the public is to blame, Darren Woods, chief executive of oil giant ExxonMobil, has claimed – prompting a backlash from climate experts.
As the world’s largest investor-owned oil company, Exxon is among the top contributors to global planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions. But in an interview, published on Tuesday, Woods argued that big oil is not primarily responsible for the climate crisis.
The real issue, Woods said, is that the clean-energy transition may prove too expensive for consumers’ liking.
“The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,” he told Fortune last week. “The people who are generating those emissions need to be aware of and pay the price for generating those emissions. That is ultimately how you solve the problem.”
...
As the world’s largest investor-owned oil company, Exxon is among the top contributors to global planet-heating greenhouse gas emissions. But in an interview, published on Tuesday, Woods argued that big oil is not primarily responsible for the climate crisis.
The real issue, Woods said, is that the clean-energy transition may prove too expensive for consumers’ liking.
“The dirty secret nobody talks about is how much all this is going to cost and who’s willing to pay for it,” he told Fortune last week. “The people who are generating those emissions need to be aware of and pay the price for generating those emissions. That is ultimately how you solve the problem.”
...
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/04/exxon-chief-public-climate-failures
March 3, 2024
I'm so tired of religion being treated like a special set of beliefs
like a category of ideas that are given protected status, this giving its adherents an expectation that the ideas should be respected and not criticized too forcefully.
Religion may not be the only example of this but it's the biggest I think.
More and more studies show an inverse relationship between religion and intelligence. Throughout history we have seen leaders use religion to manipulate the masses for no other reason their own gains again and again and again - yet still so many cling to these ideas.
It's encouraging that the number of nonreligious people is increasing, I just wish it would happen faster.
March 3, 2024
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/opinion/christian-nationalism.html
See secular people? There's nothing to worry about at all! All our real problems lie within!
We can all relax now, comforted by the knowledge that this guy says that Christian Nationalists won't be as bad as all that.
Whew!
Four Ways of Looking at Christian Nationalism
This was horrible to read
Amid all the talk about the potential influence of Christian nationalism in a second Trump administration, and in the country as a whole, the phrase’s popularity has far outrun any coherent definition.
...
But the continuity does mean that today’s religious conservatives are mostly just normal American Christians doing normal American Christian politics, not foot soldiers of incipient theocracy. Likewise, what you get in today’s clashes over sex education and public school curricula is just a very normally American clash between different moral worldviews that are both informed by essentially spiritual ideas about the human person — if you can’t see the Protestant roots of wokeness, you aren’t paying attention — not a battle between medieval obscurantism on the one hand and The Science on the other.
...
Still, it’s not clear to me that secular liberals should really fear Christian nationalism more today than in 2000 or 1980. If more radical figures have gained some increased influence, that’s mostly because of chaos and disillusionment and decline within Christianity writ large. And in the larger picture, the foundation for Christian politics of any kind, radical or moderate, is just much weaker than when Obama was president, or for that matter Ronald Reagan.
...
This doesn’t mean religious conservatism wouldn’t influence a second Trump administration; of course it would. But it would be the influence of an important but weakening faction in a de-Christianizing country, not a movement poised to overthrow a secular liberalism whose real problems lie within.
...
But the continuity does mean that today’s religious conservatives are mostly just normal American Christians doing normal American Christian politics, not foot soldiers of incipient theocracy. Likewise, what you get in today’s clashes over sex education and public school curricula is just a very normally American clash between different moral worldviews that are both informed by essentially spiritual ideas about the human person — if you can’t see the Protestant roots of wokeness, you aren’t paying attention — not a battle between medieval obscurantism on the one hand and The Science on the other.
...
Still, it’s not clear to me that secular liberals should really fear Christian nationalism more today than in 2000 or 1980. If more radical figures have gained some increased influence, that’s mostly because of chaos and disillusionment and decline within Christianity writ large. And in the larger picture, the foundation for Christian politics of any kind, radical or moderate, is just much weaker than when Obama was president, or for that matter Ronald Reagan.
...
This doesn’t mean religious conservatism wouldn’t influence a second Trump administration; of course it would. But it would be the influence of an important but weakening faction in a de-Christianizing country, not a movement poised to overthrow a secular liberalism whose real problems lie within.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/opinion/christian-nationalism.html
See secular people? There's nothing to worry about at all! All our real problems lie within!
We can all relax now, comforted by the knowledge that this guy says that Christian Nationalists won't be as bad as all that.
Whew!
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Wed Oct 22, 2003, 11:58 AM
Number of posts: 115,103