I actually think the news is worse for Republicans than that. I think the concentration of Democrats is largely not related to their politics. Educated millennials are overwhelmingly liberal, and yet they move wherever they have jobs and amenities. I think of the number of people I know from college that ended up in Atlanta, for example. Those people either started or are now heavily liberal. But that had nothing to do with why they ended up in Atlanta, a choice driven by some combination of job and amenities. I think as millennials are aging into their 30s (and a few are even hitting 40), you are seeing more micro-level moves, out to suburbs, but, again, those aren't driven by politics as much as changing needs and lifestyles (which is not being accompanied by a change in politics). I haven't seen any evidence to back this yet, but a lot of the talk from the right is certainly making it sound like boomer retirees are engaging in ideological sorting. That is not good news for Republicans at a national level if it is true, as they are purposefully concentrating their own voters.
There as a book about this The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded American is Tearing Us Apart https://a.co/d/aL9ZSqd It is as much about communities and neighborhoods as well as city and state.
Isn't this more or less what people have done throughout the history of this country? New York/Chicago circa 1940 was a series of well-sorted ethnic conclaves, Little Italy is probably less Italian than its ever been in 2023. The suburbs exist largely because people didn't want to send their kids to integrated schools. I would assume all along this had political ramifications. What is it that is different now other than it potentially realigning politics to some degree? I do think the possible realignments will have some bad ramifications for sure, but I think the behavior is largely nothing new.
-Excellent point. While poking around Georgia's statutes deciding what Carter should really be charged with for his highway racing, traffic crash situation, I came across a couple of their feticide statutes. Nothing that would apply to an abortion, in fact, that is specifically excluded, but at least the label makes more sense legally and medically than a murder, manslaughter, etc. type charge. I hasten to add I think it's horribly abusive to charge the woman with anything or expose her to any civil liability. The SC legislature's attempt to charge these women criminally with murder is going to blow in their faces both locally and nationally.
Funny you just made yourself arbitrator of who should be on Earth. Weren’t you also the poster a few months ago who said addicts deserved to overdose?
Nope. And my list of people who should not be on planet earth is by no means exhaustive but is wholly accurate otherwise.
I guess the democrats in states that want the ability to abort just before birth should be linked to all democrats as well. 49 senators wanted to pass a bill that had almost no restrictions on abortions. With that said, this SC rep is bonkers.
That's a fair point. However, it's my opinion that TODAY'S republican party has, by and large, a mindset similar to that of the Taliban. Note, that I have been careful not to paint all republicans in that light. It's especially dire in the House and in the Florida Legislature.
As usual, you seize upon something tangential in order to avoid addressing the fundamental question: should a woman be charged with murder for aborting a fetus?
As usual? That’s kind of humorous. I’ll have to think about that one. You consider accuracy in news reporting to be tangential. I consider it critical. Look at how many people in this thread responded based upon the content of the headline. I believe we cannot have intelligent discussions of issues until the reporting of those issues is done accurately. In another thread, I found this quote from you: I believe that about news reporting in general. I expect them not to lie or mislead.
No, and I never said any such thing, or even hinted at it. We need to be careful not to pick up on a couple key words someone writes, and then in our imagination spin the Rolodex of Prejudice© and pull out a label to put on that person.
They proposed a law that makes abortion murder, which may be penalized with the death penalty. Is that not right? Some of you are really contorting yourselves in your arguments here.
If you wanted to have an "intelligent discussion" you'd have focused on the crime rather than ragging those posters who focused on the penalty. The point is being charged with murder. So, do you believe aborting a fetus at any stage is murder? (BTW, in Florida, killing a fetus during the commission of a crime is deemed murder.)
I guess Representative Mace went for the "sensationalized" interpretation of the proposed legislation, too.
Very interesting politician. She can pander to the base with the best of them, but runs afoul by being compassionate towards women on abortion as a rape survivor herself, she is one of very few Republi-bans who supports full legalization of pot (and heavily taxing it) and she tries to find bills no matter how pedantic that have bi-partisan support, I guess to prove that it is still possible. However, she is very active in her district at home. Lots of meet-and-greets with her constituents and is outspoken about advocating for the Low Country (her district) first and foremost. Like most politicians she has her less ideal side, but if she ever makes a push into running for something I could vote on (like President) or we retire to her district soon, I would vote for her.
This bears watching. If true as reported then Oklahoma is criminalizing miscarriages and is an extremist policy. Manslaughter conviction of 21-year-old Oklahoma woman who suffered miscarriage sparks outcry
