Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

It'd be a neat trick. Maybe last day of presidency or somethin'? Just for the lulz?

[RedKing]

And then we'd have no choice but to...whatever the hell it is that Birthers think they do in Kenya. Hunt lions?

Reminds me of The Onion headline in Our Dumb Century where the US surrendered to North Vietnam and reluctantly welcomed our new Vietnamese overlords.

[GreatJustice]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear. However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. If the advantage for the "pro-life" position persists in future Gallup updates on abortion, these would seem to be important factors to look at to help explain the shift in labeling.

A shift in people self-assigned labels, but no shift in how people view the legal status of abortions:

- Less people call abortion "morally wrong" than 10 years ago (2012 vs 2002)
- The exact same number call it "morally acceptable"  (2012 vs 2002)
- 20% in 2012 say abortion should be 100% illegal, in 2002 it was 22%
- 25% in both 2002 and 2012, said abortion should be legal in "any" situation
- 51% in 2002 and 52% in 2012, said abortion should be legal in "certain" situations

So, even with the "upswing" in the last set of polls related to which of the 2 "labels" people use, there has been no concurrent shift in the underlying policy values of those same respondents. If anything, going by the practical aspects, respect for legal abortions is higher if anything.

"Certain" situations varies a lot, though. It could be anywhere from "banned always except in cases of rape or incest" to "up to the third trimester", which would quite handily explain the difference in identification.

Also, note that in 2001 those respective numbers WERE considerably more pro-choice than they are today (eg. illegal under all circumstances being only 15% compared to 22% today) AND the longer graph charting views back to ~'96 shows an even stronger pro-choice lean.

This also doesn't address what exactly gives the Federal government authority over abortion in the first place, seeing as how the 10th is pretty clear about the separation between state and federal powers.

[Reelya]

Well, a 10 year gap should be enough to show any strong "trend". What the figures show is that 10 years ago, the numbers weren't statistically significantly any different AT ALL.

If there hasn't been a statistically significant 10 year shift, i dispute that you can show any "trend"

What you have demonstrated is that the gap from 2001-2002 is bigger than the 2002-2012 gap, and the gap from 2011-2012 is also bigger than the 10 year gap.

Do those year-to-year variances REALLY tell us a "trend"? More likely they're statistical noise.

===

For instance in 2006 there's a big jump in people who said abortion should be legal under "any situation", but no change in "certain situations", and a big drop in "illegal in all situations". within a couple of years, this jump had supposedly reversed itself like it never happened.

If you believe the statistic (22% anti-abortion in 2005, 17% anti-abortion in 2006), that means 1 in 3 hardcore pro-life people decided it should be legal between 2005 and 2006, and that they ALL changed their minds again within 3 years. I don't believe this for a second, these are long-seated views that take years to switch around in individuals. Clearly there are methodology problems with the whole set of surveys.

[Moghjubar]

Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...

If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College

[darkrider2]

Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...

If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College

Is that one of those joke news sites? I can never tell anymore.

[Sirus]

Kansas is debating removing Obama from ballot, pending more information on birth location:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/sep/13/state-panel-wants-more-information-ruling-obamas-b/
...

If this were to actually pass, I'd say the government should withhold all Federal funding until Kansas can prove it's a US state. I mean, REALLY prove it. After all, isn't it a little too convenient that the people that were supposedly present at its admission to the Union are all dead now? What are they covering up?? And it's a well-known fact that Kansas was previously part of France.

Oh look, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/14/1131926/-The-White-House-Tells-Kansas-Prove-U-S-Membership-or-Risk-Removal-from-Electoral-College

Is that one of those joke news sites? I can never tell anymore.

I think it is. Only other result on Google is a Democrat Underground thread linking to that page.

[Moghjubar]

Yep, its snark: tags on bottom    birther stuff    Fiction    Kansas    Recommended    Satire    Snark

Sigh, only if.  Still, if only for the second you believe its true, its hilarious.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/mitt-romney-does-not-think-middle-class-starts-181052583.html

Yes, he does. . This is him putting spin on it. Regardless. Most people aren't making a fraction of that right now, but he just doesn't give a shit.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Court rules that a school cannot compel its students to give them access to their Facebook accounts.

[darkrider2]

Damn I could barely dream of making that much money.

And 200k to 250k seems like a precariously narrow area for the middle class to exist in (it doesn't).

[Montague]

Mitt either had another 'gaff' or misspoke, or the source is bullshit.

Nobody anywhere thinks 200k/yr is "middle class". Most doctors, lawyers, engineers, airline pilots or upper management in business make far less money then that. 200k/yr means you have a source of income outside of a normal job and a professional salaried position is upper-middle class at most.

Middle class(s) is generally seen as income between ~36k/year to ~150k/ year. Higher then that, you are solidly capitalist class. Salaried employees don't get paid much more then that. Now, there are a independent, business savvy and highly talented doctors, engineers and lawyers and such people that actually work hard that might pull in 1 million a year or more, but that's still beyond what people describe to be in the scope of the middle class.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

My father works in what is effectively the second-highest position (it's a partnership, not a corporation) of a not-insignificant auditing company, and he only makes 120k/yr. The median US household income is something like 54k/yr. Romney is crazy.

[Scelly9]

As if we needed any more proof of that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wisconsin anti-union laws struck down.

EDIT: 289 workers at a garment factory in Karachi, Pakistan have burned to death due to the factory doors being barred to prevent them skipping work.

But of course, many of us have heard this story before.