|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though.
|
On April 11 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:I thought this was a pretty interesting conversation between two leftists, one kind of Bernie or Bust and one who thinks you should vote for Biden. If you're a leftist this might challenge your ideas. I liked the whole thing but the election talk starts at 46:17. They could have gone a little deeper but still. + Show Spoiler + Sounds like sheepdogging to me.
I don't know what that means lol, I think I get the general idea but not sure
|
On April 11 2020 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:I thought this was a pretty interesting conversation between two leftists, one kind of Bernie or Bust and one who thinks you should vote for Biden. If you're a leftist this might challenge your ideas. I liked the whole thing but the election talk starts at 46:17. They could have gone a little deeper but still. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1gPUiCDMQo&t=121s Sounds like sheepdogging to me. I don't know what that means lol, I think I get the general idea but not sure
Pretty good write-up in BAR from 2016. Basically bringing people back into a party that consistently rejects the political changes they need to live.
The sheepdog's job is to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists a year, a year and a half out from a November election away from building an alternative to the Democratic party, and into his doomed effort. When the sheepdog inevitably folds in the late spring or early summer before a November election, there's no time remaining to win ballot access for alternative parties or candidates, no time to raise money or organize any effective challenge to the two capitalist parties.
At that point, with all the alternatives foreclosed, the narrative shifts to the familiar “lesser of two evils.
www.blackagendareport.com
|
On April 11 2020 06:00 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:I thought this was a pretty interesting conversation between two leftists, one kind of Bernie or Bust and one who thinks you should vote for Biden. If you're a leftist this might challenge your ideas. I liked the whole thing but the election talk starts at 46:17. They could have gone a little deeper but still. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1gPUiCDMQo&t=121s Sounds like sheepdogging to me. I don't know what that means lol, I think I get the general idea but not sure
In this context it means someone who is actively herding people back into the Democratic fold not out of mutual self interest, but to further the party's goals and strengthen the institution.
|
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much.
|
On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much.
I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended).
It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters.
|
On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters.
Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong.
|
On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong.
I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison 
On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though.
My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime?
Like a women you know/care about needs an abortion, you taking her to the police station or black market illegal clinic?
|
On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime?
They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc.
It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color).
|
On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color).
Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect:
Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women.
www.rollingstone.com
|
|
|
On April 11 2020 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color). Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect: Show nested quote +Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women. www.rollingstone.com
I feel like I posted on this topic at the time, but IIRC the head of the state's PP said that's not what the bill would do. Might have mixed it up though. Either way, vast majority of pro-lifers have wanted criminal prosecution against the doctor not the pregnant woman.
|
|
|
On April 11 2020 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color). Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect: Show nested quote +Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women. www.rollingstone.com
Right, there was always the OPTION to prosecute a woman, but generally it was a crime that not even the most rabid of pro life prosecuters were willing to try their hand at. Women who get abortions tend to have damn good reasons for getting them, and putting them up before a jury just makes the DA look like a monster.
(Speaking more from a historical perspective than what WILL happen, but I see no reason for this to play out differently, as it's one of the few things that shook Trump's support among GOP women).
|
On April 11 2020 07:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color). Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect: Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women. www.rollingstone.com I feel like I posted on this topic at the time, but IIRC the head of the state's PP said that's not what the bill would do. Might have mixed it up though. Either way, vast majority of pro-lifers have wanted criminal prosecution against the doctor not the pregnant woman.
It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm genuinely curious if there is polling on this?
Otherwise the point is more about whether people would break the law to accommodate making sure women had access to abortion or report people that do (whether the person getting the abortion is included or not) to the authorities for legal consequences.
|
On April 11 2020 08:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:47 Introvert wrote:On April 11 2020 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color). Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect: Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women. www.rollingstone.com I feel like I posted on this topic at the time, but IIRC the head of the state's PP said that's not what the bill would do. Might have mixed it up though. Either way, vast majority of pro-lifers have wanted criminal prosecution against the doctor not the pregnant woman. Cause that is so much better? Did you guys prosecute all the slave owners when those rules changed? Because there was no good reason to be a slave owner? How about prosecute the gun owner if his gun gets used in a crime? There is a bunch of other examples but wanting to just prosecute the doctor and not the pregnant mother does not make the position palatable. It is disturbing that there is still this type of bullshit considered somewhat normal in 2020 in the developed world. It is one of the most embarrassing things about the culture of the right in the USA and scary. This is why the dems winning is so important, to some how think that prosecuting doctors for preforming a legal operation at the request of the mother should be punishable. And in states that also have the archaic death penalty I'm sure. Wanting Trump win is bonkers, it is scary to be next door but I'm glad I'm not there. I really can't imagine being on the left and thinking there is no difference or wanting Trump to win. That is the type of warped logic that people who think the second tower was a "controlled explosion" or that in some ways the North Koreans have it better than the Americans. It is frustrating that people can hold these positions. I'd clearly rather have Bernie than Biden, hell there are thousands of people who I'd rather have than Biden. But you think either is the same? Some of you think it is a reasonable cost to make what ever political stand you are trying to make at the cost of not only outlawing abortion, but also prosecuting the doctors and perhaps killing them? Really?
Since you can't repsond atm I'll just note for the record that I don't think those comparisons are at all valid. The gun one is particularly complicated too. if certain lefties get their way.
On April 11 2020 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2020 07:47 Introvert wrote:On April 11 2020 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 07:05 Nevuk wrote:On April 11 2020 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2020 06:44 Nebuchad wrote:On April 11 2020 06:36 Logo wrote:On April 11 2020 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I see, thanks. That's not what's going on, but I guess it's only clear to me because I watch a lot of Vaush.
Imo they present arguments for both positions rather well. Some arguments are weaker and get pushback, on both sides, but others are pretty strong and don't get as much pushback, again on both sides.
I think it was on Twitter not on TL, but someone made the argument that you shouldn't be on one side of this argument yet. If you say you're definitely going to vote for Biden, then he doesn't have to do anything to earn your vote and that's weak strategically. If you say you will definitely not vote for him, then he has no incentive to offer you anything. Right now the left should be unsure of what it's going to do, wait and see if it's worth it. That makes sense to me. You can of course lean in one direction, if you're skeptical that they'll offer enough because lol they're libs, or if you think the harm reduction argument for Biden is sufficiently important that you're ready to settle for not much. I'd disagree that using strong language like "I will not vote for Biden" is bad if you are strategically going this route, anything less and I think they will just take your vote for granted (which they honestly will anyways judging by the olive branch extended). It's also appropriate, given who is on the Biden staff, because anything less does not match the extreme hole Biden is starting from in appealing to left voters. Yeah, you're right. The rhetoric should be pretty strong. I'm here to make them look reachable by comparison On April 11 2020 05:57 Nevuk wrote:
Actually overturning roe v wade would be the largest political loss for the GOP in decades. A good 1/3 of their voters would stop voting. I can see the current crop on the supreme court being dumb enough to do it, though. My question is more about the time after they overturn it and before there's an election. Just call the cops on women you find out have abortions, or become accomplices in what in many states could be treated as a crime? They'd prosecute the doctors who perform them rather than the women who get them. Remember that whole brief scandal where Trump told Chris Matthews that he wanted to punish women who broke the law to get an abortion? That briefly hurt his numbers with republican women in 2015/16, iirc. It'd also be super easy to get them if you're wealthy enough to afford a bus ticket to mexico or canada, if history stays the same (ie they're basically only going to make it illegal for poor people and people of color). Fair points. Particularly the one about disparity in access (and safety) based on wealth.Georgia did try the LIFE act and the people voting on it (it passed, was signed and then failed a legal challenge) didn't even agree on what people could expect: Republican state Sen. Renee Unterman, who sponsored the legislation, said it “does not allow for the prosecution of women,” while her colleague in the House, Republican state Rep. Ed Setzler, who also supported the measure, says it allows for women to be criminally prosecuted for a lesser crime punishable by 10 years in prison, but not for murder. Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan, who voted against the bill, has said it is clearly written to accommodate the criminal prosecutions of women. www.rollingstone.com I feel like I posted on this topic at the time, but IIRC the head of the state's PP said that's not what the bill would do. Might have mixed it up though. Either way, vast majority of pro-lifers have wanted criminal prosecution against the doctor not the pregnant woman. It's not that I don't believe you, but I'm genuinely curious if there is polling on this? Otherwise the point is more about whether people would break the law to accommodate making sure women had access to abortion or report people that do (whether the person getting the abortion is included or not) to the authorities for legal consequences.
Not on hand. Polling on this issue is weird, as well.
Google found me this poll from about a year ago, where the issue of penalizing doctors is only at 55% even among pro-lifers, and they didn't even ask about the question of going after the mother. That might be an indicator by itself. Or maybe just cause they were asking about laws that were actually being proposed
|
what's with the 'filmyourhospital' crap coming out of US?. people randomly filming empty hospitals and testing points ...
|
On April 11 2020 14:36 xM(Z wrote:
what's with the 'filmyourhospital' crap coming out of US?. people randomly filming empty hospitals and testing points ...
I'd think it's YouTubers on the fringe attempting to "prove" that the stories of hospitals filled to the brim with COVID-19 patients are all a hoax and this is all a conspiracy by [fill in with commonly blamed figures in conspiracies] to [fill in with any alleged objective by conspiracy figures]. Though there are other explanations as put here and here.
|
Just read the NYT chat on the consequences of the COVID to the economy and the human cost of the crisis. It's chilling.
So, anyway, outside the 12d chess of some of our friends are doing (if Biden lose, then in 5 years, maybe our guy has better chances of winning because [insert logic]), the question one has to ask himself, and I think the only one that is truly relevant right now is: who, between Trump and Biden, and which administration, do you want to navigate the country out of the COVID crisis.
What is abundantly clear is that the reconstruction of the economy will shape the country for decades. We've got only two choices.
If the liberals win, they will have to govern with the progressives, that are a force to reckon with in both chambers. If the Republicans win, it will give Trump and his goons a once in a century opportunity to remold America the way they want it to be.
I think it's going to be one of the most important elections of our lifetime. We are going to live with the consequences all our lives.
|
On April 11 2020 17:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Just read the NYT chat on the consequences of the COVID to the economy and the human cost of the crisis. It's chilling.
So, anyway, outside the 12d chess of some of our friends are doing (if Biden lose, then in 5 years, maybe our guy has better chances of winning in 5 years because [insert logic]), the question one has to ask himself, and I think the only one that is truly relevant right now is: who, between Trump and Biden, and which administration, do you want to navigate the country out of the COVID crisis.
What is abundantly clear is that the reconstruction of the economy will shape the country for decades. We've got only two choices.
If the liberals win, they will have to govern with the progressives, that are a force to reckon with in both chambers. If the Republican win, it will give Trump and his goons a once in a century opportunity to remold America the way they want it to be.
I think it's going to be one of the most important elections of our lifetime. We are going to live with the consequences all our lives.
This is a pretty good point. Here in Spain the government is already talking about new Pactos de Moncloa. That was the cross-party "pact" that parliament, state leaders, the courts, worker unions and most other influential political bodies reached in 1977 to make the country function again after Franco's death and the transition to democracy. The economy was dead and the government apparatus in shambles, so a pretty huge number of measures needed to be taken to make Spain functional again. These were agreed upon in the Pactos de Moncloa. It shaped the government's actions and social system for decades.
There being serious talk about recreating such a pact is a clear sign that this is a pretty unique moment in Spain's political history. I think it might be mostly rhetoric to refer back to the Pactos de Moncloa, as this crisis still doesn't seem to compare to the end of the dictatorship. But it's clear large-scale political action is needed, and I don't see why other countries would not need to consider similarly impactful political action.
Whole sectors of the economy will be gone for between 2 months and a year or more. Our healthcare system was demonstrably incapable of dealing with this, and aspects of society and daily life that we took for granted were swept out from under us from one day to the next. And it's not clear things can ever return to that previous normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
