just another thought...and i think it requires it's own post.

you point out in the video that you have to give conservatives credits for sticking to their guns and pushing their points without compromise. but, you're glossing over a larger strategic realty, which is that we've seen a role reversal. this is summed up in the term "radical right".

the language here gets messy, because we think of conservatives as representing the status quo and liberals (or socialists) fighting against it. but, that hasn't been true in a long time - since roosevelt, really. socialism is still outside the status quo, but liberalism has been the norm for a long time. the conservative movement has made a lot of progress in undoing the liberal status quo since the 1980s, but the process continues. well, it's weird because they adopted some liberal ideas (like free trade) and warped them for their own purposes. but it's still an ongoing process of reforming conservatives in battle against status quo liberals. you can see that in this debate - you are on the defensive, and standing up for the existing system. that puts you at a strategic disadvantage that you're confusing for a lack of strength in resolve.

in the process, liberals have conceded any impetus for reform to the right. liberals today rarely fight for anything to change; they fight for things to stay the same. it's conservatives that are fighting for change.

it's suggested here that the strategic shift should be to put your heels in and stand up for the status quo. that's not going to work. it's never worked. it just exposes the flaws in the status quo. again: you're confusing a strategic disadvantage for a lack of resolve.

rather, the strategic shift that liberals need to embrace is to get back to fighting for their own initiatives. human organ trafficking is a serious issue that liberalism has a lot to say about. but, instead of pushing reforms on our own terms, we're sucked into this position of standing up for the status quo. on issue after issue, there is always a strategy that can convert the debate out of defending an attack and into an attack of our own, but we tend not to take that option. we should.

yeah, but how many people pick him as second choice? calm down. a quarter of a half is an eighth, and that's roughly what you'd expect his rhetoric - which is populist, he doesn't really mean it - to actually appeal to.

if a study were published tomorrow that said that a little more than 10% of americans are xenophobic, white supremacist, racist doofuses, you'd argue the numbers are too low.

supporters of the religious right won't vote for him. he's bad enough that moderates and independents might actually vote democrat. that's likely a plateau...

however, it says a lot about the economic situation in the united states, which needs to be seriously addressed. trump is profiting from it in the short term. it's what he does. a wake up call, but we're not there, yet.

yeah. you addressed that second point. good analysis.

well, what does that say about the process of granting tax-exemption status?

the videos are incriminating. denying it is the wrong approach. but, the issue is not the legality or morality of abortion or the legality or morality of tissue donation - these ought to be beyond question, and you shouldn't be buying into that narrative. rather, the issue is that a big, corrupt corporation is acting like a big, corrupt corporation. this is an argument to get profit-generating market mechanisms out of health care; the left should actually be taking advantage of it to push for serious health care reform.

if the right gets their way on this, it's going to amount to a privatization, and that's going to open up a market for body parts. their proposed solution is going to create what they claim they're arguing against. now, history suggests there might be something to the idea that this is what they might actually be angling for, but it's a conspiracy theory, and it's sort of inconsequential whether it's actually true - no matter how strongly you support abortion rights or medical research, there are obviously extreme ethical problems attached to the creation of a market in human organs. and, that's the greater issue that needs to be grappled with: that defunding this group is going to exacerbate this problem. as mentioned, the only logical way to approach this is as a catalyst to set off serious health care reform.

i mean, i know you just went through that, but it wasn't serious health care reform, it was just a handout to the insurance companies.

again: when you have a health care system designed around the generation of profit, you have to expect this kind of behaviour. you can make all the laws in the world, and enforce them as bluntly as you'd like - it's not effective. so long as the practice is a business, the market will drive corrupt behaviour. the root cause here is the nature of  the american health care system.

it's clear that there's a problem here, but defunding the group is not an answer. that functionally amounts to fully privatizing the business, which is likely to lead to worse abuses. this is deeper, systemic and requires a different approach.

i am a strong proponent of abortion rights and medical research. however, i do believe that the potential sale of human body parts is an issue that is serious enough for congressional investigation. some proposed solutions that are better than defunding:

1) pass legislation that forces a public auditing of tissue donation costs. in fact, make it a regular thing. make the figures accountable. ensure that exact costs are precisely delineated. this is broader than planned parenthood - it should be applied to any situation where the possible profiting of selling human tissue is an issue. this is reasonable accountability, and should really exist anyways.

2) you could install the state as an intermediate in tissue donation, and have the recipients refund the state rather than the private party.

it's not wise to underestimate the intelligence of your opponents. analysts have been predicting a rise in white supremacism as a consequence of the failure of neo-liberal economic policies for many years. mobs of angry, desperate people attract demagogues. you're better off working to reverse the root causes than smugly insulting them from a distance.

it's very delicate. quebec has already made the choice for the rest of canada: the serious option is the ndp, by lieu of their dominance there. if the country goes along with this, the ndp will likely sweep. but, if it doesn't go along with this then the vote splits and harper sweeps. for all the talk of a close election, the three-way dynamic is actually putting down two dramatic majorities as the only really likely outcomes. the way these models are distributing votes is really not likely to translate into reality; you're really not likely to see any sort of minority government come out of this election.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-trudeau-approval-ratings-point-to-potential-for-growth-1.3161855

Tired taxpayer
@Jessica Murray .........................Sorry dear but quebec does not make the choice for Canada, that was proven last election. Not trying to be nasty but id rather have putin run Canada than a PM from quebec, especially those two clowns.

Jessica Murray
@Tired taxpayer well, putin and harper are ideologically very similar, so you might get your wish.