« Mark to market | Main | Sunny days in Mexico »

May 11, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I've been hearing the scary stuff from the Sanders diehards, who basically imagine carpet-bombing of the entire Middle East starting on Inauguration Day.

I wonder if Clinton would attempt back door gun control via regulation and federal litigation (with a friendly Supreme Court) as opposed to legislation needing Congress. That would potentially get Republicans more angry than the Obamacare process did.

Matt, you need to tell the people on your Twitter feed or Facebook page that they are crazy, and since talking to crazy people is not good for anyone, you are going to shut them off unless they become sane.

Or you could quit all social media, which also works quite well.

Gun control by Executive Order would be tricky, and litigation that would be precedent setting would take up to three years to reach Scotus. It seems likely that it would not ranked high given actual act of stuff. However, if the liability case coming out of Newton climbs all the way up, that could be something that receives tacit support.

There's nothing in the PPACA that prohibits public funding for abortion on the health exchanges. President Obama signed executive order 13535 for that purpose to placate the 30-40 pro-life Democrats that existed in Congress in 2010.

Now there are 3 pro-life Democrats in Congress and practically no pro-life constituency in the Democratic Party. Presumably Clnton might rescind that order to earn goodwill with the pro-choice lobby.

I could see that sort of thing being a sticking point with a majority of Republicans.

I spoke to a Republican neighbor after this post. He give me a rationalization for why Trump won:
"Republicans had their last chance to elect a President in 2012 and lost. Since they know they have no chance of winning, they may as well nominate an entertainer that makes the election exciting and says things that they've wanted to say but avoided to be competitive."

Basically Trump is what you get when a plurality of the GOP considers the general election a lost cause and just wants to make a statement and be disruptive.

I'd assume that if she does, it won't do much; as 13535 effectively says that the President will observe the Hyde Amendment, I don't think there's much way forward there, and it would open the way to a lawsuit that would try to block anyone getting a subsidy from getting an abortion.

I wonder how many Republicans are actually, actively, anti-choice and restrictivist, and how many are just shibbolething without feeling it.

Public funding for elective abortion is something I doubt *any* elected Republican supports even privately. My sense is that 30-40% of Republicans are enthusiastically pro-life (for religious reasons) and another 30-40% are meh. They find the practice of elective abortion, particularly later ones, disturbing but would rather not have to think about it.

"Our initial list was fairly radical."

I'd like to see that list.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)