Lets try this. Name 2 things that the other side does that you wish your side would adopt.

To your point of the thread being derailed I would have to agree and yes I contributed to that as have others.

That noted what did you really expect to happen other than opening a can of worms after people gave their answers to your question which I did answer BTW.

 

But they do have to sneak in because Trump judges won't let Biden end Title 42. If "control[ling] the border" means not having people cross illegally, the answer is no, we will never "control" our border. And that's especially true if our focus is on border security, rather than addressing the root causes of migration.

 

1. Policy vision to fix the country's problems (Republicans too often point to flaws in policy without coming up with their own solutions, which is a losing strategy for issues like healthcare. Part of good governance is getting out of the way of prosperity, but the government still has a role in all sorts of issues, and playing the contrarian only goes so far in so many things).

2. Nuanced arguments recognizing that too much or too little of almost anything is generally a bad thing (See Taxes, "Capitalist" Democrats who believe in bigger social safety nets, but I think this is more of a moderate and academic Democratic strength, you don't see this nearly as much in the Socialist wing of the party, and when you do it's generally to obfuscate, not make an intelligent point).

 

...and all I'm saying, is that your take on what constitutes wisdom....

...is not very compelling.

 

1. Ban Assault Weapons. Tighten gun laws up. Longer waiting periods.

2. Universal Healthcare for all US citizens.

 

And I believe you also said you are pro-choice. Are you sure you're on the right side?

 

I am pro choice up until a point. Don't agree with someone aborting a baby past a certain amount of time. I'm in favor of the 15-20 week time frame. I want teachers to be paid more as well.

 

I agree with the idea about root causes but no one votes based on Central American policy.

 

Run an organized/effective state wide campaign in FLA
Better job of branding and communicating successes
Stack the courts

 

And that's why I'm cynical about the "border security" rhetoric working for us.

 

I have no problem with significantly raising the bar for abortions after a certain period provided there is an exception for medical necessity including situations in which the pregnancy would endanger the health or life of the mother and/or there the fetus has a very serious medical condition which could result in death in utero or shortly after birth. I also feel that the mother should have absolute immunity from prosecution she should miscarry or if that she terminates a pregnancy on the advice her physician. Similarly, there should be a presumption in favor the physician that if a pregnancy is terminated based on medical necessity the decision was propoer with the burden on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no valid defense of medical necessity.

I would also add the reality is that almost no abortions beyond the 20th week are truly elective i.e. as birth control of last. According to data compiled by the CDC back in 2014 only 1.4% of abortions in the US are performed after the 20th week considering abortion at the point in a pregnancy is a serious surgical procedure almost all are based on medical necessity.