Rural Left vs Urban Right

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Then it seems Progress is winning.

No, it is losing.

Progress is whatever the winners say it is.

[Beet]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Then it seems Progress is winning.

No, it is losing.

Progress is whatever the winners say it is.

Then your "Progress is winning" comment is meaningless, except to say "winners are winning." But women's rights are losing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

[Beet]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Is there really evidence of this?  Sure, (at least on the surface) it seems there used to be more pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, but I'm not sure there was ever a time where there was a national consensus that abortion should be legal ... I might be wrong, I guess.

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

There were certainly pro-choice and pro-life elements within both parties, but immediately after Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon was pro-choice, and at the 1976 convention, there was initially a pro-choice majority. Ironically, Republican women bargained away the pro-choice stance hoping to save the ERA. In 1980, there were protests when the Republican platform rejected the ERA.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Is there really evidence of this?  Sure, (at least on the surface) it seems there used to be more pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, but I'm not sure there was ever a time where there was a national consensus that abortion should be legal ... I might be wrong, I guess.

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

There were certainly pro-choice and pro-life elements within both parties, but immediately after Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon was pro-choice, and at the 1976 convention, there was initially a pro-choice majority. Ironically, Republican women bargained away the pro-choice stance hoping to save the ERA. In 1980, there were protests when the Republican platform rejected the ERA.

I assumed you were referring to the period immediately before Roe rather than immediately after it, sorry. And yeah, I knew that solid majorities both parties used to support the ERA--the history there is depressing in all sorts of ways.

[Beet]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Is there really evidence of this?  Sure, (at least on the surface) it seems there used to be more pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, but I'm not sure there was ever a time where there was a national consensus that abortion should be legal ... I might be wrong, I guess.

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

There were certainly pro-choice and pro-life elements within both parties, but immediately after Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon was pro-choice, and at the 1976 convention, there was initially a pro-choice majority. Ironically, Republican women bargained away the pro-choice stance hoping to save the ERA. In 1980, there were protests when the Republican platform rejected the ERA.

I assumed you were referring to the period immediately before Roe rather than immediately after it, sorry. And yeah, I knew that solid majorities both parties used to support the ERA--the history there is depressing in all sorts of ways.

Pro-life Republicans claim they don't oppose women's rights yet won't support the ERA.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Is there really evidence of this?  Sure, (at least on the surface) it seems there used to be more pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, but I'm not sure there was ever a time where there was a national consensus that abortion should be legal ... I might be wrong, I guess.

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

There were certainly pro-choice and pro-life elements within both parties, but immediately after Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon was pro-choice, and at the 1976 convention, there was initially a pro-choice majority. Ironically, Republican women bargained away the pro-choice stance hoping to save the ERA. In 1980, there were protests when the Republican platform rejected the ERA.

I assumed you were referring to the period immediately before Roe rather than immediately after it, sorry. And yeah, I knew that solid majorities both parties used to support the ERA--the history there is depressing in all sorts of ways.

Pro-life Republicans claim they don't oppose women's rights yet won't support the ERA.

Isn't there a semi-cogent argument that the ERA would render specific protections for women such as VAWA and parts of Title IX unconstitutional? I don't buy it, and I strongly doubt it's the reasoning of most Republicans, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people were convinced by that.

[Beet]

The one that doesn't try to gloss over its anti-poor, anti-masses agenda with liberal stances on the same kinds of social issues that IRL, have somehow become critically important litmus tests for 21st century Democrats.

In the 20th century, both parties used to be pro-choice and support the Equal Rights Amendment.

Is there really evidence of this?  Sure, (at least on the surface) it seems there used to be more pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, but I'm not sure there was ever a time where there was a national consensus that abortion should be legal ... I might be wrong, I guess.

"Both parties used to be pro-choice" strikes me as bizarrely reductive, considering that Catholics used to bloc vote for the Democrats and that as late as the early-to-mid 1960s public support for legalizing abortion hovered around 15%. My understanding is that neither party felt the need to "sort" on this issue until around the time of Roe.

There were certainly pro-choice and pro-life elements within both parties, but immediately after Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon was pro-choice, and at the 1976 convention, there was initially a pro-choice majority. Ironically, Republican women bargained away the pro-choice stance hoping to save the ERA. In 1980, there were protests when the Republican platform rejected the ERA.

I assumed you were referring to the period immediately before Roe rather than immediately after it, sorry. And yeah, I knew that solid majorities both parties used to support the ERA--the history there is depressing in all sorts of ways.

Pro-life Republicans claim they don't oppose women's rights yet won't support the ERA.

Isn't there a semi-cogent argument that the ERA would render specific protections for women such as VAWA and parts of Title IX unconstitutional? I don't buy it, and I strongly doubt it's the reasoning of most Republicans, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least some people were convinced by that.

Then those laws should be rewritten as to be gender neutral. It's not as if men don't face domestic violence, or men's sports should be underfunded.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Totally would vote for Democrats.

[DavidB.]

Totally would vote for Democrats.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I wouldn't vote.