pop_haines wrote:
The 2016 election will
be really interesting -- come on Qui-Gon Feingold or Bernie Sanders-Kenobi -- you're
our only hope.
Feingold should fill the meantime as governor of WI.
There is a progressive battleground in Wisconsin right now, The grassroots progressives have been tireless in their efforts -but most (like my family) are new and not savvy to the political game - as evident by the democrat gov candidate group up for the recall election.
Anyway, should Feingold leave Wisconsin to the Koch's and the right-wing corporatists - he will have lost the faith of many new progressives.
Leroy wrote:I guess as long as democrats keep preaching the 'war on women' (so glad that everyone took that language out of politics since that lady in Arizona got shot in the head) they will win.
It's just so much more succinct and catchy than "The dogmatic, unjustified, hypocritical systematic attempts at removing a woman's equal right to contraception, health and life by attacking her moral character in mean-spirited ways."
cards2468 wrote:Legalizing prostitution is a progressive cause?
Not in the pro life, health care sort of way, but I certainly think it's a cause the left is behind. I don't know. I don't speak for the left but I think it should be and we should tax the hell of it.
I suspect that this has more to do with prevailing religious values and regional history than anything else. Libertarians would support legalization. I would think progressives would vary, depending upon how much agency sex workers would have. If they believe that prostitution is often associated with human trafficking or coercion, they might not.
sighyoung wrote:If they believe that prostitution is often associated with human trafficking or coercion, they might not.
While progressives don't go for full legalization ala Libertarians, isn't one of the prevailing pro-pot arguments that it decreases the drug trade? I imagine a similar position would be taken in that legalizing prostitution would likely decrease the human trafficking.
sighyoung wrote:If they believe that prostitution is often associated with human trafficking or coercion, they might not.
While progressives don't go for full legalization ala Libertarians, isn't one of the prevailing pro-pot arguments that it decreases the drug trade? I imagine a similar position would be taken in that legalizing prostitution would likely decrease the human trafficking.
That's true, but I'm not sure how that works out in practice. I simply have no idea.
When I posted, I was thinking about this particular response to a discussion of legalized prostitution on Andrew Sullivan's blog at the Daily Beast. The post should link up to the broader discussion on the blog: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... e-day.html
sighyoung wrote:If they believe that prostitution is often associated with human trafficking or coercion, they might not.
While progressives don't go for full legalization ala Libertarians, isn't one of the prevailing pro-pot arguments that it decreases the drug trade? I imagine a similar position would be taken in that legalizing prostitution would likely decrease the human trafficking.
I don't see how you can compare prostitution to marijuana.
Smoking pot is a victimless crime. Prostitution is not.
AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:Smoking pot is a victimless crime. Prostitution is not.
Huh? Who's the victim when one consenting adult charges another consenting adult $1k/hour for a romp in the hay?
Legal, consenting prostitution is very much a victimless crime.
Fancy?
Seriously though, if a girl wants to sell her virginity for a million dollars? Fine. But, if a girl has to let a group of guys gang bang her in order to pay her heating bill, I think there is a problem.
Consenting adults? Fine. Turning girls into expensive (or not) sex dolls? No. Paying money to turn humans into inanimate objects is not just morally wrong, it has harmful consequences to those objectified as well. (not to say this is always the case, but when it is, it should be illegal)
