YOU are behind enemy lines now VA...now what do we do?

[Wiley]

I preface this by saying that this discussion represents only my opinion and I do not wish to offend anyone or start a fight.
I am also convinced that the Republicans will never win a national election with a platform established by the religious Christian right. We Republicans believe in self reliance and minimal interference in our lives from the government. For the government to intrude in our personal lives and tell us who we can love and marry or whether to abort a pregnancy is not something we should accept. Those decisions are to be made by free people consistent with their individual beliefs and in the presence of their god. The more we push our moral beliefs into the political environment, the more likely it is that the government will intrude more heavily into our lives and make us all less free. There are many other issues worth a political fight over such as health care, fiscal responsibility, political accountability, honesty in government, protection of constitutional rights, drugs, immigration and a raft of other issues that will distinguish our two parties stands that I am certain will enable the Republicans to be elected because the people can agree their positions on these issues are in tune with what they want in their government. To lose elections and the woman's vote over issues involving government involvement in matters of personal freedom including gay rights and abortion seems IMO to be counter to what I believe in the Republican's best interests.
Just my opinion!

 

[Long1MD]

...Exponentially

AKA...Change or follow the path of the dinosaur...stories in a book.

 

[jrwhitt]

I preface this by saying that this discussion represents only my opinion and I do not wish to offend anyone or start a fight.
I am also convinced that the Republicans will never win a national election with a platform established by the religious Christian right. We Republicans believe in self reliance and minimal interference in our lives from the government. For the government to intrude in our personal lives and tell us who we can love and marry or whether to abort a pregnancy is not something we should accept. Those decisions are to be made by free people consistent with their individual beliefs and in the presence of their god. The more we push our moral beliefs into the political environment, the more likely it is that the government will intrude more heavily into our lives and make us all less free. There are many other issues worth a political fight over such as health care, fiscal responsibility, political accountability, honesty in government, protection of constitutional rights, drugs, immigration and a raft of other issues that will distinguish our two parties stands that I am certain will enable the Republicans to be elected because the people can agree their positions on these issues are in tune with what they want in their government. To lose elections and the woman's vote over issues involving government involvement in matters of personal freedom including gay rights and abortion seems IMO to be counter to what I believe in the Republican's best interests.
Just my opinion!

Hear Hear

Totally agree

 

[mudskipper]

13'er

Careful. Some of them get upset when you bring that up. Then you wind up with infractions for "insulting other members".

Give them a wide berth. Trust me on this. I'm about one point from getting banned courtesy of things I'd say to old-time knuckleheads like you without even thinking about, or you getting mad.

 

[mudskipper]

Useless advice. I know of no Democrat voters who, if the Republican said "abortions for free any time you want one" and "superior rights for gays", would change their vote to Republican. None.

.

Exactly right. Given the choice between a Republican who voted 100% like a liberal democrat, and an actual democrat, they will ALWAYS vote for the actual democrat. Period.

All the GOP is doing by running democrat clones is ensuring that I won't vote for them, and thus hastening their own irrelevancy as a party.

The GOP has ONE way to ensure viability, and it is NOT to make itself into a clone of the democrat party.

 

[TxAggie]

Because being raped does not permit the woman to choose whether to get pregnant?

Or have sex in the first place.

 

[TxAggie]

I preface this by saying that this discussion represents only my opinion and I do not wish to offend anyone or start a fight.
I am also convinced that the Republicans will never win a national election with a platform established by the religious Christian right. We Republicans believe in self reliance and minimal interference in our lives from the government. For the government to intrude in our personal lives and tell us who we can love and marry or whether to abort a pregnancy is not something we should accept. Those decisions are to be made by free people consistent with their individual beliefs and in the presence of their god. The more we push our moral beliefs into the political environment, the more likely it is that the government will intrude more heavily into our lives and make us all less free. There are many other issues worth a political fight over such as health care, fiscal responsibility, political accountability, honesty in government, protection of constitutional rights, drugs, immigration and a raft of other issues that will distinguish our two parties stands that I am certain will enable the Republicans to be elected because the people can agree their positions on these issues are in tune with what they want in their government. To lose elections and the woman's vote over issues involving government involvement in matters of personal freedom including gay rights and abortion seems IMO to be counter to what I believe in the Republican's best interests.
Just my opinion!

You do understand the difference between personal beliefs and legislative action, right? That's the trap the media puts on Republicans. Just because someone has a strong moral conviction doesn't mean they will use legislation to force those morals on others. In fact, if you look at history it is the progressive Liberals using the force of law to promote their own morals. Just look at what counts as "education" in our schools.

I completely disagree with your assessment, you are effectively saying that freedom of expression is no longer valid. Why should we cast off someone who is openly Christian while at the same time promote acceptance of an openly gay lesbian in the Governor's race.

I am personally not an overly religious person, but I respect those who are open about their faith as long as they are sincere about it. Plus it lets me know where their own values lie.

 

[Wiley]

I totally understand the difference and appreciate strong personal morals and high levels of personal integrity. My point was that the more we legislate on matters that are or should be in essence individual choice, the more intrusive into our lives the government becomes. I am saying that I should be allowed to mind my own business and not allowed, through legislation, to intrude into yours.

 

[mudskipper]

You just need to decide the type of intrusion you're willing to put up with then. Because they're both going to do it.

The dems are going to intrude on your wallet and your gunsafe. The republicans are going to intrude on your womb or your bedroom.

Pick one.

 

[kcbrown]

Because being raped does not permit the woman to choose whether to get pregnant?

But the justification for forbidding abortion is protection of life. Why should protection of life suddenly become less important just because the woman in question didn't have a choice about becoming pregnant? Is the life she bears suddenly less valuable as a result of her having had no choice in the matter?

Either the justification is protection of life, or it's not. Which is it?

 

[RightNYer]

Exactly right. Given the choice between a Republican who voted 100% like a liberal democrat, and an actual democrat, they will ALWAYS vote for the actual democrat. Period.

All the GOP is doing by running democrat clones is ensuring that I won't vote for them, and thus hastening their own irrelevancy as a party.

The GOP has ONE way to ensure viability, and it is NOT to make itself into a clone of the democrat party.

Exactly. The people for whom abortion is the most important issue will also whine about "health care" and "tax cuts for the rich." There is no way to get those people.

 

[natsb]

<snip> To lose elections and the woman's vote over issues involving government involvement in matters of personal freedom including gay rights and abortion seems IMO to be counter to what I believe in the Republican's best interests.
Just my opinion!

Personal freedom is certainly not the deciding factor in these issues. We have one party trying to control a persons health care decisions, how to raise their children, what their acceptable religious beliefs are, if they are allowed to defend themselves, what they should be allowed to eat, and (for crying out loud) how big a serving of soda you are allowed to drink. The other party basically just wants people to be left alone. It requires a suspension of reality to believe that the first party I mentioned carries the banner of personal freedom.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that some other quiddity is at play. Mayhap this is more about power than freedom. After all, who's best interest is served steers the who is gaining freedom question. Is it in the woman's best interest to treat the baby like he or she is not a person? Is it the baby's best interest to be treated like a person? I guess the argument gets settled by who gets to vote.

So what are the Republican's best interest? It was in their best interest to end slavery, giving a voice to those in servitude. It was in their best interest to pass women's suffrage, giving a voice to half the population. So is it in their best interest to give a voice to those who cannot speak for themselves? I think the track record speaks for itself.

As for marriage... I believe the Government should stay out of the marriage business. Let the churches decide who marries who, and let the Government decide on domestic contracts between people.

 

[Jim Sr]

A 2014 U.S. Senate Run for Ken Cuccinelli?​

​

 

[Long1MD]

So, now that Dems won a key position in VA again, what might change? I'm glad Republicans won throughout the nation and I voted for Hogan and basically Republican across the board. I was planning to move to VA or retire there, but not so sure now.

 

[swinokur]

IMO, not much. The VA legislature is still held by Repubs. McAwful can try to introduce anti 2A legislation, but I doubt it would pass. So a stalemate is as good as a win IMO.

Senate 21-18
H of D 68-32

 

[Long1MD]

I'd like to retire in southern VA, but I have about 8 years or so before I really start to look into it. I don't think that will be the plan if northern VA keeps controlling the vote and Dems keep creeping in further.

 

[MdPrep]

Yes because a DEM governor can just make and pass laws and skirt the super majority in the legislative house of VA.[/

Executive Orders

The authority for governors to issue executive orders is found in state constitutions and statutes as well as case law, or is implied by the powers assigned to state chief executives. Governors use executive orders—certain of which are subject to legislative review in some states—for a variety of purposes, among them to:

trigger emergency powers during natural disasters, energy crises, and other situations requiring immediate attention;
create advisory, coordinating, study, or investigative committees or commissions; and
address management and administrative issues such as regulatory reform, environmental impact, hiring freezes, discrimination, and intergovernmental coordination.

For state by state information on the power of governors to issue executive orders, see "Gubernatorial Executive Orders: Authorization, Provisions, Procedures" (Table 4.5, The Book of the States 2012, source: The Council of State Governments).

 

[swinokur]

What 2A issue could be construed as a legitimate reason for an EO?

 

[HauptsAriba]

IMO, not much. The VA legislature is still held by Repubs. McAwful can try to introduce anti 2A legislation, but I doubt it would pass. So a stalemate is as good as a win IMO.

Senate 21-18
H of D 68-32

With that number of Republican Delegates, no gun control bill will ever leave the house, and won't make it to the Senate. Aside from that, not all VA Dems are anti gun, so not all of the ( D ) Delegates would support a bill even further reducing any chance of a bill getting out of the house of Delegates.

The key to any and all legislation, pro or anti is in the House of Delegates.

Unless they can start a bill in the Senate, and bi pass the house, and even so, The ( R ) still hold the Senate and their will be pro 2 A Dems that will vote against any anti bill.

 

[adit]

What 2A issue could be construed as a legitimate reason for an EO?

I think everyone here in MD is asking the same question.