PPP-IA: Braley +1

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

What is funny is Republicans running around screeching that this means nothing. It's not the breakthrough that the Dems seem to be saying, but it's still PPP and it does have to be taken seriously.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No no ... personhood.

One thing I'm immensely grateful for is that this issue has been largely put to bed here.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

Revisionist history. Saddam was under orders to destroy his WMD stockpile. He didn't. Let's not forget that.  He was actively deceiving the UN.

Of course elections ultimately decide who is a suitable representative for that jurisdiction. As long as you are eligible to run for office, you have a right to run. The voters determine if your views are suitable for them or not. It's not my place to put my personal opinions in place of said voters.

...I think we're not really going anywhere with this.