Katie Hobbs vs Kari Lake

[Scottsdale.Sooner]

I keep reading that Katie Hobbs refuses to debate Kari Lake and that is hurting her campaign. And yet the polls show the race is neck and neck. So is it possibly a good tactic on her part to steer clear? If she debates and does badly (which most people seem to think would happen) she would almost certainly lose. So how is refusing to debate hurting her campsign?

I have been keeping up with this race pretty closely. Polls here have Lake ahead by 10 points. Hobbs is not very articulate and is simply not comfortable with a mic or in front of the cameras. Lake, on the other hand, has spent her working life in front of the camera. I watched her every morning n the local Fax station for years. She was very popular and she stunned Arizona when she announced that she was leaving broadcast TV.

I had the opportunity to speak with her casually at a gathering after a charity golf tournament before she entered the political arena. She is extremely pleasant, well spoken with a broad base of knowledge. Her position of the border is very popular. She has my vote.

 

[aix_xpert]

You keep making the point that the Republican position on abortion is strictly a religious one. While I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, on this one thing I want to point out that for many like myself, my stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the Constitution and Science. I could care less about the religious argument, other than those who use it have come to the same conclusion I have but through different means.

I think compromise on the issue can be found but you first have to have people on both sides willing to compromise. The biggest problem you will run into on the anti-abortion side is that when presented the fetus is a life, and not a clump of cells, which makes the taking of that life murder. Lee H. Oswald was murdered in cold blood. Everyone was happy about it, but it was still a murder. Once life if applied, then the maintaining of that life is the only reasonable standard to be obtained.

If you wanted a national codification, not of Roe (which is horrible case law) but of abortion then 15-20 is halfway through a pregnancy. If you leave it at those weeks, then:

You would be ok with aborting this baby then. FYI from what I understand that baby is still alive today.

I could be convinced of 4-10 for a national codification, but with the caveat that states can make that more restrictive as they see fit, but not past 10 weeks.

At 10 weeks you are pushing the limits of what I would consider barely tolerable, not reasonable, and I'm not talking about religion here.

I get it. Its close to the same argument I use when people ask why I'm against exceptions for Rape. The child didn't commit the crime and thus shouldn't be subject to the punishment. That said, while I get the baby's formation at 12 weeks, the life isn't really viable at that point. That's why I go with the 15-20 week standard myself. But a premature baby at 20 weeks has a pretty good expectation of survival today. So abortion past that point is murder to me.

 

[aix_xpert]

I don't follow your logic. Is it not the same human life at 4 weeks as 12? What is the moral justification for accepting ending the human's life at 4 weeks but not 12?

My moral justification is viability. But I also support euthanasia.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I get it. Its close to the same argument I use when people ask why I'm against exceptions for Rape. The child didn't commit the crime and thus shouldn't be subject to the punishment. That said, while I get the baby's formation at 12 weeks, the life isn't really viable at that point. That's why I go with the 15-20 week standard myself. But a premature baby at 20 weeks has a pretty good expectation of survival today. So abortion past that point is murder to me.

I put the 10 weeks out there because it usually takes a month for a pregnancy to be detected. That gives you another month and two more weeks to do something about it. The 10 weeks between 10 and 20 is a two-month period. I don't think it makes it any more or less likely that the pregnancy will be aborted in those 10 weeks, either they are going to do it, or they are not (basically shit or get off the pot). However, the opposite, which is having the baby, in those same ten weeks, gives the baby a much better chance every day of viability outside the womb.

I'm life at conception, not because of religion but because I have not and no one else has figured out the exact date to call the baby a life. In the absence of any real data, I would rather err on the side of caution. Like Dan I can't justify any abortion, but when presented with the option of limited abortions and no limits to abortions I will take the most restricted measures I can get.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

I have been keeping up with this race pretty closely. Polls here have Lake ahead by 10 points. Hobbs is not very articulate and is simply not comfortable with a mic or in front of the cameras. Lake, on the other hand, has spent her working life in front of the camera. I watched her every morning n the local Fax station for years. She was very popular and she stunned Arizona when she announced that she was leaving broadcast TV.

I had the opportunity to speak with her casually at a gathering after a charity golf tournament before she entered the political arena. She is extremely pleasant, well spoken with a broad base of knowledge. Her position of the border is very popular. She has my vote.

Minus a few thousand donkeys, I think Lake is in.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I have been keeping up with this race pretty closely. Polls here have Lake ahead by 10 points. Hobbs is not very articulate and is simply not comfortable with a mic or in front of the cameras. Lake, on the other hand, has spent her working life in front of the camera. I watched her every morning n the local Fax station for years. She was very popular and she stunned Arizona when she announced that she was leaving broadcast TV.

I had the opportunity to speak with her casually at a gathering after a charity golf tournament before she entered the political arena. She is extremely pleasant, well spoken with a broad base of knowledge. Her position of the border is very popular. She has my vote.

I have the impression Hobbs wanted to be governor because she thought winning the election would be easy and she wouldn’t have to work for it. She must feel she was blindsided when Lake came out of nowhere and challenged her, a sucker punch she never anticipated. My impression is she doesn’t want the job badly enough to earn it, she just thought it would be handed to her. Lake has been truly impressive and may have garnered enough of a national spotlight to be on the 2024 ticket as VP. If that happens I bet whoever the Democrats put up against her will have ulcers at the thought of having to debate her.

 

[Scottsdale.Sooner]

I have the impression Hobbs wanted to be governor because she thought winning the election would be easy and she wouldn’t have to work for it. She must feel she was blindsided when Lake came out of nowhere and challenged her, a sucker punch she never anticipated. My impression is she doesn’t want the job badly enough to earn it, she just thought it would be handed to her. Lake has been truly impressive and may have garnered enough of a national spotlight to be on the 2024 ticket as VP. If that happens I bet whoever the Democrats put up against her will have ulcers at the thought of having to debate her.

Your opinion is the popular opinion here in Arizona. It seems Hobbs' team has thrown in the towel and keeping a low profile. Smart move because local polls show the more Hobbs challenges Lake on issues the more she loses. It is not about gaining points but rather stopping the loss of points. Lake will be a formidable foe on the national level but she has claimed that she has much to do in Arizona before entertaining other political aspirations. She knows how to choose her words.

 

[tlwwake]

@Ponca Dan new poll just came out

 

[tlwwake]

 

[aix_xpert]

Interesting thing on Lake.

View embedded media

I'm struggling with these polls for AZ. Has Kelly been such a good AZ Senator that 10-20% of those voting for the Republican Lake are going to vote for the Dem Senator? That's a very significant cross-ticket vote.

 

[osu_orangestreak]

Or DeSantis’ VP. A DeSantis (Florida)/Lake (Arizona) ticket would be quite formidable. Speaking of debates can you imagine DeSantis vs Biden? Or Lake vs Harris? That might be the biggest combined beatdown in history.

Yeah, umm nope.

Crazy Lake and her camera filter go down.

Just think what would have happened if she didn't tell the moderates and the independents to go away. Or her supporting a Nazi lover.

 

[blbronco]

You keep making the point that the Republican position on abortion is strictly a religious one. While I don't disagree with much of what you wrote, on this one thing I want to point out that for many like myself, my stance on abortion has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the Constitution and Science. I could care less about the religious argument, other than those who use it have come to the same conclusion I have but through different means.

I think compromise on the issue can be found but you first have to have people on both sides willing to compromise. The biggest problem you will run into on the anti-abortion side is that when presented the fetus is a life, and not a clump of cells, which makes the taking of that life murder. Lee H. Oswald was murdered in cold blood. Everyone was happy about it, but it was still a murder. Once life if applied, then the maintaining of that life is the only reasonable standard to be obtained.

If you wanted a national codification, not of Roe (which is horrible case law) but of abortion then 15-20 is halfway through a pregnancy. If you leave it at those weeks, then:

You would be ok with aborting this baby then. FYI from what I understand that baby is still alive today.

I could be convinced of 4-10 for a national codification, but with the caveat that states can make that more restrictive as they see fit, but not past 10 weeks.

At 10 weeks you are pushing the limits of what I would consider barely tolerable, not reasonable, and I'm not talking about religion here.

I have been all over the map on this topic, but have finally settled my view (I think). We define “death” medically at the point where brain function ceases. You can have a heartbeat, but with no brain function, you are not coming back. Flipping that, defining life as when the brain begins at a functional level, that is approximately 20-22 weeks. In my opinion, that is the point where abortion after needs to have medical indication (that can be another subject, I suppose), to remain as an option. Anything between 15-20 weeks can be debated more reasonably than all or none.

 

[my_2cents]

View embedded media

+11?

Talk about a major fail.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I have been all over the map on this topic, but have finally settled my view (I think). We define “death” medically at the point where brain function ceases. You can have a heartbeat, but with no brain function, you are not coming back. Flipping that, defining life as when the brain begins at a functional level, that is approximately 20-22 weeks. In my opinion, that is the point where abortion after needs to have medical indication (that can be another subject, I suppose), to remain as an option. Anything between 15-20 weeks can be debated more reasonably than all or none.

Define brain function. Doctors have been finding and moving the needle on when the brain is functioning in the womb. If the fetus reacts to stimulus would that not be brain function? The fetus reacts to sound as early as 16 weeks. You don't react to sound without some sort of brain function. I can understand no brain function as a means to determine your line, but what about any brain function? Seems like you would be placing some subjectivity on some or any.

 

[blbronco]

Define brain function. Doctors have been finding and moving the needle on when the brain is functioning in the womb. If the fetus reacts to stimulus would that not be brain function? The fetus reacts to sound as early as 16 weeks. You don't react to sound without some sort of brain function. I can understand no brain function as a means to determine your line, but what about any brain function? Seems like you would be placing some subjectivity on some or any.

I think that is a fair question. Movement is not an indicator of function, or at least controlled function. The brain doesn't form until week 7 or so, and then it is just the basic separation of brain parts. At about week 20-22, function to trigger breathing movements and movements that are more than just reflex (anything before week 16 can be attributed to reflex or non-intentional for a lack of a better word). I think about weeks 16-18 or so is when suckling and swallowing can be seen.

There have been a fair number of studies looking at the brain during various stages of fetal development. Based on what I have read (no, I have not read it all), weeks 20-22 seemingly fit that identification of a "functional brain" that I am using as my baseline. I still contend anything from weeks 16-22 is a reasonable place to start the conversation.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I think that is a fair question. Movement is not an indicator of function, or at least controlled function. The brain doesn't form until week 7 or so, and then it is just the basic separation of brain parts. At about week 20-22, function to trigger breathing movements and movements that are more than just reflex (anything before week 16 can be attributed to reflex or non-intentional for a lack of a better word). I think about weeks 16-18 or so is when suckling and swallowing can be seen.

There have been a fair number of studies looking at the brain during various stages of fetal development. Based on what I have read (no, I have not read it all), weeks 20-22 seemingly fit that identification of a "functional brain" that I am using as my baseline. I still contend anything from weeks 16-22 is a reasonable place to start the conversation.

16 weeks would be an unacceptable number to me let alone 20-22. Remember from my starting point, which is none, 16 weeks is a very long time to make a decision. What would be a range that would make you uncomfortable, but acceptable, and bellow 16 weeks. Could you accept 8-12?

 

[blbronco]

16 weeks would be an unacceptable number to me let alone 20-22. Remember from my starting point, which is none, 16 weeks is a very long time to make a decision. What would be a range that would make you uncomfortable, but acceptable, and bellow 16 weeks. Could you accept 8-12?

I gave you my range. 16-22 weeks, with the above-states rationale. Given all or none, I give that as a fair range to debate. Women may not know they are pregnant for 6-8 weeks, 8-12 weeks is not that much time to make a well thought out decision and not a panic decision. Could I “accept” 8-12 weeks? Sure, if that is what the voters vote for. I can “accept” just about anything as I don’t have stake in it.

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

I gave you my range. 16-22 weeks, with the above-states rationale. Given all or none, I give that as a fair range to debate. Women may not know they are pregnant for 6-8 weeks, 8-12 weeks is not that much time to make a well thought out decision and not a panic decision. Could I “accept” 8-12 weeks? Sure, if that is what the voters vote for. I can “accept” just about anything as I don’t have stake in it.

I don't think many on the prolife side would agree with your rational. At the same time, I think you put a lot of thought and research into it. The issue I would point to at sticking to just 16-22 is that it may not resonate as compromise with the prolife side. Good to see that you would accept a lower threshold which is more of what I was asking about.

"As I don’t have stake in it" I will disagree with vehemently, but it's the only part of your statement I would have a huge problem with. It's not related to what we are talking about but adds context as to why we take the sides we do.

 

[blbronco]

I don't think many on the prolife side would agree with your rational. At the same time, I think you put a lot of thought and research into it. The issue I would point to at sticking to just 16-22 is that it may not resonate as compromise with the prolife side. Good to see that you would accept a lower threshold which is more of what I was asking about.

"As I don’t have stake in it" I will disagree with vehemently, but it's the only part of your statement I would have a huge problem with. It's not related to what we are talking about but adds context as to why we take the sides we do.

Part of the “no stakes” comment goes to the definition I choose to accept as “life,” so I tend to think that is where we diverge the most. Sure, I think women’s perspective on it has more value than mine, but do agree that men’s perspective does matter.

But, even though you disagree with my 16-22 range of being a good point to begin compromise, you still prove my point that it is a starting point. You want less, but are willing to discuss it. That would not be the case if I started at “up to birth.”

 

[Tulsaaggieson]

Part of the “no stakes” comment goes to the definition I choose to accept as “life,” so I tend to think that is where we diverge the most. Sure, I think women’s perspective on it has more value than mine, but do agree that men’s perspective does matter.

But, even though you disagree with my 16-22 range of being a good point to begin compromise, you still prove my point that it is a starting point. You want less, but are willing to discuss it. That would not be the case if I started at “up to birth.”

The same could be said if I started at none at all. I think more people need to try to find where their middle ground is, but that's also the beauty of the SCOTUS decision is allows for more diversity in thought. I would not be for any federal codification of ROE, and I'm willing to allow California and NY to have abortion on demand if they leave the state of OK and other prolife states alone as well.

 

[blbronco]

The same could be said if I started at none at all. I think more people need to try to find where their middle ground is, but that's also the beauty of the SCOTUS decision is allows for more diversity in thought. I would not be for any federal codification of ROE, and I'm willing to allow California and NY to have abortion on demand if they leave the state of OK and other prolife states alone as well.

No disagreement at all.

 

[davidallen]

I have the impression Hobbs wanted to be governor because she thought winning the election would be easy and she wouldn’t have to work for it. She must feel she was blindsided when Lake came out of nowhere and challenged her, a sucker punch she never anticipated. My impression is she doesn’t want the job badly enough to earn it, she just thought it would be handed to her. Lake has been truly impressive and may have garnered enough of a national spotlight to be on the 2024 ticket as VP. If that happens I bet whoever the Democrats put up against her will have ulcers at the thought of having to debate her.

Hobbs sworn in. As was the new Dem Sec of State. As was the new Dem AG. Thank you DJT.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Hobbs sworn in. As was the new Dem Sec of State. As was the new Dem AG. Thank you DJT.

First post I've seen you git right Francis. It's Monday though. Was it the meatloaf?

 

[HighStickHarry]

Hell yea, more democrats.

Portland homeless woman says that living rough is 'piece of cake'

Wendy, a homeless woman, was candid about the benefits of living on the streets in Portland, including the free meals and ability to use drugs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[davidallen]

Hell yea, more democrats.

Portland homeless woman says that living rough is 'piece of cake'

Wendy, a homeless woman, was candid about the benefits of living on the streets in Portland, including the free meals and ability to use drugs.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Thanks Trump.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Thanks Trump.

He's the gift that keeps on giving!