|
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 |
|
|
On May 03 2022 22:27 NrG.Bamboo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. You'll need to fix your statement here, because this is false. It's not that more people believe that abortion is not a basic human right; it's that the anti-abortion minority is currently in control of the Supreme Court, thanks to an anti-abortion minority of voters who elected Trump. If this were based on real majority/plurality, then Republicans/conservatives/anti-abortioners wouldn't have as much power as they do. It seems you have misread his post. Show nested quote +in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise.
I didn't. That's literally wrong. "Your side loses" is not the same as "more people thought otherwise". Popular vote is not the same as electoral vote, and in the context of Roe v. Wade, which is based on the Supreme Court, it is the electoral college that decides who the president is (the person who selects SCJs), not the majority of voters.
|
It's kind of like how gay marriage got legalized in Australia.
The government organised a quasi-referendum (they couldn't get enough support in Parliament for an official one) to decide the issue. Many on the right were fervently against the idea of gay marriage, but once the results were out and they had lost in a landslide, they accepted the result even though gay marriage was personally unacceptable for them.
|
On May 03 2022 22:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. The whole point of creating a set of basic human rights is so they cannot be voted away and is a pillar of a functioning democracy. If 60% of the people in the US do not think women should have the right to go to school, how about think slavery should be brought back and that went to vote and I lost should I just accept I had my say? https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/ Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. This is literally what just happened with the repealing of Roe v. Wade. The minority - anti-abortion conservatives - completely ignored what the majority of people wanted. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Here's one example: "The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned." https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html Furthermore, from that same link: "More broadly, 58% to 36% of Americans oppose states considering or passing laws that make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate there. Three out of four Americans say that the decision of whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor." The Republicans are the minority. The conservatives are the minority. The anti-abortioners are the minority. They happen to have more power now, because of Trump's SCJ picks, but that doesn't make their position any more popular.
You're right, and I did qualify my statement by "in a functional democracy".
Clearly the US has a ways to go in this respect.
|
On May 03 2022 22:33 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. The whole point of creating a set of basic human rights is so they cannot be voted away and is a pillar of a functioning democracy. If 60% of the people in the US do not think women should have the right to go to school, how about think slavery should be brought back and that went to vote and I lost should I just accept I had my say? https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/ Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. This is literally what just happened with the repealing of Roe v. Wade. The minority - anti-abortion conservatives - completely ignored what the majority of people wanted. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Here's one example: "The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned." https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html Furthermore, from that same link: "More broadly, 58% to 36% of Americans oppose states considering or passing laws that make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate there. Three out of four Americans say that the decision of whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor." The Republicans are the minority. The conservatives are the minority. The anti-abortioners are the minority. They happen to have more power now, because of Trump's SCJ picks, but that doesn't make their position any more popular. You're right, and I did qualify my statement by "in a functional democracy". Clearly the US has a ways to go in this respect.
A good start would be by considering the popular vote, rather than the electoral college, when deciding the leaders of our executive (and, by extension, judicial) branch so that the majority opinion really would be the major deciding factor.
|
On May 03 2022 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
What I can do, and I hope many many others will as well, is talk with my wallet. I will not spend a dime in any state that takes away this right. I will also be considering whether or not a company donates to the Republican party when making purchases. The latter one I won't be able to as bold with as I'm sure I will make some mistakes as it will be hard to know in every case, but I will be diligent in speaking with my wallet as it seems like the best language to speak to Republicans in.
I can see some companies considering head office moves, time will tell.
Between this and the removal of what little gun laws exists, I can see many tourists not wanting to travel to Red states.
Two questions: what removal of gun laws are you referencing, and how often do you spend money in red states?
|
On May 03 2022 22:33 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. The whole point of creating a set of basic human rights is so they cannot be voted away and is a pillar of a functioning democracy. If 60% of the people in the US do not think women should have the right to go to school, how about think slavery should be brought back and that went to vote and I lost should I just accept I had my say? https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/ Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. This is literally what just happened with the repealing of Roe v. Wade. The minority - anti-abortion conservatives - completely ignored what the majority of people wanted. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Here's one example: "The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned." https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html Furthermore, from that same link: "More broadly, 58% to 36% of Americans oppose states considering or passing laws that make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate there. Three out of four Americans say that the decision of whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor." The Republicans are the minority. The conservatives are the minority. The anti-abortioners are the minority. They happen to have more power now, because of Trump's SCJ picks, but that doesn't make their position any more popular. You're right, and I did qualify my statement by "in a functional democracy". Clearly the US has a ways to go in this respect.
careful, one might read this and understand that you think the republicans are wrong, and are also the minority wielding undo influence and subjecting the majority to their will, and actively destroying functional democracy in america.
|
United States43604 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise.
More people voted for Hillary than Trump. An appeal to democracy isn’t going to help you here.
Also if you don’t believe the government has the right to use your organs to save a stranger then you’re a hypocrite.
|
On May 03 2022 22:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. An appeal to democracy isn’t going to help you here. Also if you don’t believe the government has the right to use your organs to save a stranger then you’re a hypocrite.
I'm not referring to abortion in particular with this statement.
I am aware that abortion enjoys popular support in the US overall, and has been so for a long time.
My point is aimed more at those who reject abortion rights - there should be a vote so they can have their say, and then accept that they have tried and lost the argument.
You might have missed my post.
|
People haven't missed or misread your post.
|
I think people may be overinterpreting gobbledygooks statements here.
Their statement was that in a functional democracy, stuff should generally be decided by votes, and the losing side should accept that they lost if they lost.
A lot of people seem to read this as "what is going on in the US right now with regards to abortion is totally okay", and argue against points that gobbledygook didn't really make, at least to my understanding.
So the discussion is a bit disjunct, which isn't really ideal.
|
United States43604 Posts
On May 03 2022 22:51 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:48 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. An appeal to democracy isn’t going to help you here. Also if you don’t believe the government has the right to use your organs to save a stranger then you’re a hypocrite. Show nested quote +I'm not referring to abortion in particular with this statement.
I am aware that abortion enjoys popular support in the US overall, and has been so for a long time.
My point is aimed more at those who reject abortion rights - there should be a vote so they can have their say, and then accept that they have tried and lost the argument. You might have missed my post.
Yeah, I read the topic chronologically.
The point remains that this was put to a vote and the Democrats got more votes. Also few rights could be more fundamental or self evident than the right to not have someone else hijack your organs for their own gain.
|
|
|
On May 03 2022 23:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:51 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:48 KwarK wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. More people voted for Hillary than Trump. An appeal to democracy isn’t going to help you here. Also if you don’t believe the government has the right to use your organs to save a stranger then you’re a hypocrite. I'm not referring to abortion in particular with this statement.
I am aware that abortion enjoys popular support in the US overall, and has been so for a long time.
My point is aimed more at those who reject abortion rights - there should be a vote so they can have their say, and then accept that they have tried and lost the argument. You might have missed my post. Yeah, I read the topic chronologically. The point remains that this was put to a vote and the Democrats got more votes. Also few rights could be more fundamental or self evident than the right to not have someone else hijack your organs for their own gain.
No, it was not put to a vote.
The Democratic candidate Joe Biden supports abortion rights, and he won the last election, but this does not mean that the election was about abortion rights. Probably most people weren't considering abortion rights as the main issue when choosing who to vote for.
You would need a special vote specifically on that one issue, for it to be authoritative and decisive.
|
On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:40 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 22:29 JimmiC wrote:
What I can do, and I hope many many others will as well, is talk with my wallet. I will not spend a dime in any state that takes away this right. I will also be considering whether or not a company donates to the Republican party when making purchases. The latter one I won't be able to as bold with as I'm sure I will make some mistakes as it will be hard to know in every case, but I will be diligent in speaking with my wallet as it seems like the best language to speak to Republicans in.
I can see some companies considering head office moves, time will tell.
Between this and the removal of what little gun laws exists, I can see many tourists not wanting to travel to Red states. Two questions: what removal of gun laws are you referencing, and how often do you spend money in red states? I'm talking about Florida pushing for no permits as well as Texas. Pre pandemic 2 weeks a year vacation. Often Sandpoint/whitefish. We have been to Disneyland as the larger family and were talking about Disneyworld, now that is off the table.
Ah, fair enough. For whatever reason I always forget about Disney (although they are already running into issues recently with the FL "don't say gay" bill and losing independent district status). Thanks for clarification.
|
On May 03 2022 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 22:33 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2022 22:24 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 22:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 22:11 gobbledydook wrote:On May 03 2022 21:49 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 17:47 gobbledydook wrote:
It’s honestly shitty for a court to decide these things.
A referendum should really be held for these kinds of moral questions. Why would you have referendums on basic human rights? This is also likely another major blow to the global popularity of Christianity. Edit: also hilarious if it comes out he leaked it himself, can not wait for the people who called for the leaker to get disbarred to completely flip flop. Because many people believe that abortion is not a basic human right. As much as you believe it is, others do not, which is why in a functional democracy, these things are put to a vote, such that if your side loses, you accept that you have had your say but more people thought otherwise. The whole point of creating a set of basic human rights is so they cannot be voted away and is a pillar of a functioning democracy. If 60% of the people in the US do not think women should have the right to go to school, how about think slavery should be brought back and that went to vote and I lost should I just accept I had my say? https://reproductiverights.org/un-human-rights-committee-asserts-that-access-to-abortion-and-prevention-of-maternal-mortality-are-human-rights/ Yes, I think that if one day that were to be the majority opinion then it would have to be respected, because human rights are ultimately a societal construct to codify how we treat each other. If you don't agree with the majority, it doesn't mean you get to ignore them. It means you have to work to change their minds. This is literally what just happened with the repealing of Roe v. Wade. The minority - anti-abortion conservatives - completely ignored what the majority of people wanted. Poll after poll show that the majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade. Here's one example: "The poll finds that 60% percent of Americans say Roe v. Wade should be upheld, while 27% say it should be overturned." https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/16/politics/americans-abortion-roe-v-wade-poll/index.html Furthermore, from that same link: "More broadly, 58% to 36% of Americans oppose states considering or passing laws that make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate there. Three out of four Americans say that the decision of whether or not a woman can have an abortion should be left to the woman and her doctor." The Republicans are the minority. The conservatives are the minority. The anti-abortioners are the minority. They happen to have more power now, because of Trump's SCJ picks, but that doesn't make their position any more popular. You're right, and I did qualify my statement by "in a functional democracy". Clearly the US has a ways to go in this respect. A good start would be by considering the popular vote, rather than the electoral college, when deciding the leaders of our executive (and, by extension, judicial) branch so that the majority opinion really would be the major deciding factor.
You don't even need to switch entirely to popular vote, all you need is fractional or proportional allocation of state delegates instead of an winner-take-all (an improved version of Dem primaries, with actual fractions instead of rounding). But we just can't handle fractional delegates for...some reason.
Also, re: gay marriage: given that virtually all the anti-sodomy laws were struck down via right to privacy the SCOTUS majority is sure doesn't exist, they don't need to reverse the gay marriage ruling. Just arrest gay people for having "improper sex" while pretending the laws are in place to stop abuse of minors and limit sex work, like they did for 100+ years...they're already 3/4 of the way there with their current rhetoric and sitting Congresspeople on the "okay groomer" train.
|
|
|
One thing I've noticed among the queer communities I'm in is that many of us voted straight Democratic in 2020 in the hopes of having our rights protected, but now the general mindset is that voting again is a waste of time because despite the Dem control of Congress and the presidency, we're losing our rights anyway. We can argue about how not voting paves way for the GOP, but there's a general sense of despair and defeat. I'm at least thankful that we're doing community organizing to help one another out, which is more than the federal government is doing
|
My only meaningful contribution to this viper's pit of a touchy topic is to see it as the fruits of a very patient GOP and Christian right, and an example of how persistence in politics pays off. This was what, 50 years of campaigning, building networks of allies, and protesting? They didn't let setbacks deter them from their tenacity to overturn Roe and always voted with abortion in mind locally, state-wide, and federally. This put pressure on the GOP to nominate the judges to end Roe, which we will likely see in a few months.
I've been seeing a lot of left-leaning Americans recently whine about how politics never works for them and the Democrats didn't stop this, so voting doesn't matter, especially with this impending SCOTUS decision. Well, voting and patience sure paid off for the anti-abortion conservatives. Politics is also a marathon of endurance and focus, and one that American conservatives are quite good at.
|
United States43604 Posts
On May 04 2022 00:14 PhoenixVoid wrote:
My only meaningful contribution to this viper's pit of a touchy topic is to see it as the fruits of a very patient GOP and Christian right, and an example of how persistence in politics pays off. This was what, 50 years of campaigning, building networks of allies, and protesting? They didn't let setbacks deter them from their tenacity to overturn Roe and always voted with abortion in mind locally, state-wide, and federally. This put pressure on the GOP to nominate the judges to end Roe, which we will likely see in a few months.
I've been seeing a lot of left-leaning Americans recently whine about how politics never works for them and the Democrats didn't stop this, so voting doesn't matter, especially with this impending SCOTUS decision. Well, voting and patience sure paid off for the anti-abortion conservatives. Politics is also a marathon of endurance and focus, and one that American conservatives are quite good at.
Voting, patience, and cheating. Gerrymandering, unenrolling large blocs of voters, making voting inaccessible in areas expected to vote Democratic, barring citizens from voting, and, of course, stealing Supreme Court seats.
It’s important to remember that conservatives haven’t had popular support in quite a while, they rely upon a system that subsidizes their bankrupt political philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
