(10-01-2015 11:53 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I think this glosses over the point that, while it ended up being a free vote, until Boehner's resignation there was a very real chance there would be a government shutdown.

But that glosses over the fact that regardless of what they may have said, you don't really know how they would have voted if it really meant a shut down. You don't know because it never happened, right? Governments threaten to do all sorts of things... it's part of how they get and keep power.

The best example to me was Clinton and Newt. Publicly, they were almost always at odds, but they compromised and worked together on lots of things.

Quote:Now, you could argue that that was more about getting rid of Boehner, and I wouldn't disagree, but a main complaint about him boiled down to his desire to avoid government shutdowns. And the argument that they needed the "free vote" to avoid getting primaried also highlights the problem I'm talking about. Again, I've heard Republicans make this argument and complaint about their base and the Tea Party. Cruz isn't wrong when he says the Republican establishment holds much of their base in contempt...

This is an entirely different discussion. Personally, I think the Democrats aren't in disarray, but that isn't necessarily a good thing. They are still just as 'controlling' and 'against individual liberty' as the Republican establishment... in other words, the disarray in the Republican party leads to something better (imo, smaller less intrusive government) while the 'establishment' of both the r's and d's represent different priorities within the same desire to control.

If you are an establishment democrat, then this is all good to you (the disarray in the R's).. but I don't know that many of those who think they are establishment democrats would really like what that would look like. Hillary represents the establishment and Bernie is WAY outside it, but very popular.

Quote:Back to the PP issue - no federal funds go to abortions there. I think the problem many Republicans have is that it is money going to fund women's health and family planning. Some because of more general opposition to social programs, but some because it specifically has to do with women's sexuality. And that's icky and naughty, and their husbands/dads should be in charge of that any way. Not saying that's the case for any one here, but for many Republicans, I think it clearly is.

(I also don't understand anti-abortion activists who oppose trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but that's a different story.)

Understood and agree. I think that's a far smaller group of people than some want to believe though... that men should be in charge of their women's sexuality. Dads ARE responsible for their daughters, but so are moms... those responsible dads I understand aren't the ones you're talking about and am not trying to paint you with that brush. I DO know those people and share your concerns about them. They're vocal because of where their beliefs come from, but they aren't especially numerous. It's difficult when your 'motivation' comes from God, but your specific beliefs are in a minority. The support for a Christian perspective is large... but the support for men controlling women's sexuality within Christianity isn't. They are easily co-mingled. A man being the hunter/head of the household and the woman being a primary caretaker predates religion... and believing in that as an ideal doesn't mean that other 'mixes' are somehow against God or unholy or whatever.

The line of 'no $$ for abortions' is a bit of semantics to lots of people... I think far more than those who find it 'icky' or want to control their wives... though often for the same religious reasons. If I give a bum money that he uses to buy food and then he uses money that otherwise would have gone to buy food to buy booze, I've not really bought him booze, but I made it so that he could buy it himself. I don't personally have a problem with PP so it doesn't really matter to me.... but I know lots of people that do.... and this argument (that federal monies don't go to it) ring hollow to them. I can see their point.