|
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 23:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote: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. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched.
Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas.
Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3
|
|
|
Its shocking that discussion of a referendum on people's rights is even being discussed. That sounds like a horrific society for any minority.
|
|
|
On May 04 2022 00:27 Sadist wrote:
Its shocking that discussion of a referendum on people's rights is even being discussed. That sounds like a horrific society for any minority.
To be fair, currently in the US a referendum with actual majorities would be better than the system they do have, where a bigoted minority can take away the rights.
|
What are all the Republicans in Congress going to do when they force their mistresses to get back-alley abortions? Oh yeah, let them die, I guess. Because prohibition worked so well.
We can't exactly act surprised. This is why we have 2 justices hand-picked by the Federalist Society, why they were shoved through all during Trump's term, and why Trump won out in election despite getting less votes in the first place. The powers that be wanted this, and have been willing to force it down everyone's throats to make it happen. It's not popular, it won't improve society, and it won't accomplish it's stated goals. It will, however, accomplish its true goal of setting back women and minorities, and continuing to divide us further as important social progress is undone.
You can't disagree peacefully with conservatives anymore. When they are happy to throw us back decades just to do what amounts to checking a box, and react with glee at dismantling women's rights, there is no middle ground there.
|
On May 04 2022 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:
What are all the Republicans in Congress going to do when they force their mistresses to get back-alley abortions? Oh yeah, let them die, I guess. Because prohibition worked so well.
We can't exactly act surprised. This is why we have 2 justices hand-picked by the Federalist Society, why they were shoved through all during Trump's term, and why Trump won out in election despite getting less votes in the first place. The powers that be wanted this, and have been willing to force it down everyone's throats to make it happen.
Oh ho ho, come now we both know any Republicans adjacent friends and family will be getting safe abortions from trusted doctors in secret.
Rules for thee but not for me is US politician 101!
|
On May 04 2022 00:52 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:
What are all the Republicans in Congress going to do when they force their mistresses to get back-alley abortions? Oh yeah, let them die, I guess. Because prohibition worked so well.
We can't exactly act surprised. This is why we have 2 justices hand-picked by the Federalist Society, why they were shoved through all during Trump's term, and why Trump won out in election despite getting less votes in the first place. The powers that be wanted this, and have been willing to force it down everyone's throats to make it happen. Oh ho ho, come now we both know any Republicans adjacent friends and family will be getting safe abortions from trusted doctors in secret. Rules for thee but not for me is US politician 101!
Just kill the doctors that provide public abortions, and put the ones they like in Witness Protection. Thumbs up, A+.
|
On May 04 2022 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On May 04 2022 00:46 NewSunshine wrote:
What are all the Republicans in Congress going to do when they force their mistresses to get back-alley abortions? Oh yeah, let them die, I guess. Because prohibition worked so well.
We can't exactly act surprised. This is why we have 2 justices hand-picked by the Federalist Society, why they were shoved through all during Trump's term, and why Trump won out in election despite getting less votes in the first place. The powers that be wanted this, and have been willing to force it down everyone's throats to make it happen. Oh ho ho, come now we both know any Republicans adjacent friends and family will be getting safe abortions from trusted doctors in secret. Rules for thee but not for me is US politician 101! Just kill the doctors that provide public abortions, and put the ones they like in Witness Protection. Thumbs up, A+.
It does double duty because now the doctors you’re using can accuse anyone who displeases you of doing something abortion adjacent and get them sent to jail!
|
|
|
It always gets dressed up as "let the states decide", when the correct decision was already made for everyone involved. Women's healthcare should be enshrined as a right, not up to the whims of a state court. No one actually cares that these issues are decided by states versus federal, what they want is for their state to be able to contravene what should be decided, and overturn protections for women and minorities.
That's all this does. There's no reason to provide more avenues to dispute a decision unless you plan to dispute that decision. This is as basic as it gets. They just ripped the states rights page out of their old pro-slavery playbook, and hoped we wouldn't notice.
|
On May 04 2022 00:27 Sadist wrote:
Its shocking that discussion of a referendum on people's rights is even being discussed. That sounds like a horrific society for any minority.
Why? It's not as if this is a minority rights issue. A referendum on this seems quite acceptable. Why are women the minority to be protected here and not fetuses? I, personally, think it's quite clear that fetuses do not have an unalienable right to live if that life is entirely dependent on a woman giving up her bodily autonomy, but other people think differently, so put it to a popular vote.
It is in no way the same as putting it to a popular vote whether gay people have a right to have sex (marriage is a slightly different kettle of fish that might merit a referendum). People have a right to have consensual sex, and gay people are people. It thus seems quite clear that gay people have a right to have consensual sex, and that is not something that should be submitted to a referendum.
In many ways, minority rights need to be protected because otherwise the majority group stops giving them rights that they themselves enjoy. However, "special treatment" for minorities can only exist if there is support for it, and that is measured by a referendum. There is no inalienable right to wear a headdress in public and any country could pass a law banning any form of headdress in public. However, banning the hijab and not other forms of headdress like baseball caps, cowboy hats, keppels, turbans and nuns' habits would be discriminatory. I'm sure "clever" phrasing could get you a non-discriminatory sounding way to ban the hijab and not baseball caps, but then the application of that law would still be clearly discriminatory. That said, I am not automatically opposed to schools banning hijabs, given that baseball caps are already banned. I am also not automatically opposed to humane treatment of animals laws that disallow kosher and halal butchers. These aren't the removal of rights from minorities, but rather the removal of special treatment they enjoyed. I am personally opposed to their removal, but I don't think it's clear at all that these minorities are being abused by the tyranny of the majority.
|
On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote: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. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism.
Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something.
|
Another discussion to have is to be pissed that all these judges lied during their confirmation hearings about roe being "settled law" and then overturning it at the time of first asking. That two of these judges only got their seats due to blatant abuse of the good faith that the entire system is built on. Now we know that they can lie during their hearings and face no punishment.
|
On May 04 2022 02:15 Sermokala wrote:
Another discussion to have is to be pissed that all these judges lied during their confirmation hearings about roe being "settled law" and then overturning it at the time of first asking. That two of these judges only got their seats due to blatant abuse of the good faith that the entire system is built on. Now we know that they can lie during their hearings and face no punishment.
The sooner the country comes to grips with the reality that Republicans ONLY operate in bad faith the better. All of these people need to go from every level of government.
|
On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote: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. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something.
Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes.
|
On May 04 2022 02:24 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2022 01:41 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2022 01:03 JimmiC wrote:On May 04 2022 00:26 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:46 JimmiC wrote:On May 03 2022 23:17 NrG.Bamboo wrote:On May 03 2022 23:05 JimmiC wrote: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. DeSantis is trying to take that away, but if he does he will have to pay off their billions in Bonds based on the law, he is going like Trump was with the wall saying "Disney will pay", but I'm sure that will work as well as Mexico paying. The Reps are just full social conservative/Baptist culture war party now. They want massive government intervention into peoples private lives, into businesses, and so on. Also the whole "states rights" thing is the stupidest argument, what about city and towns rights? I know I'm not alone in the speaking with my wallet, it will not be everyone of course but a lot of these places are going to feel the pinch when they already just got pinched. Yeah as I understand it, it's not a smart financial move, and that's before taking into account the repercussions of losing patrons that disagree with their stances. I wonder, though, if conservatives would have been able to keep up by simply ignoring the culture war and keeping their sights on other matters. I think there is a certain point in which representatives should be expected to speak up for their constituents, however loony their views might seem. It's not like they haven't already held their beliefs, but that the "certain point" has arrived and the remaining question is whether pushing back is worth the economic backlash. I'm sure you're not the only person who will withdraw vacation stays based on this, and am personally curious to see how much of an impact it has on these areas. Cities and counties can pass their own laws though, I don't know what you're trying to get at. Does state law contradict federal law? If not then go ahead. Does city law contradict state law? If not then go ahead. This court challenge simply moves the decision to a more local level. Of course there are more intricacies but that's the gist. If you're trying to say that it's absurd that a small community cannot make their own choices on what should occur in its borders, yes I agree with you :3 Your logic flows, it is just not the logic of the current Republicans. They want "state rights" so they can have their rules but then when city makes rules that are contrary to the state, they make rules outlawing the rule in the city. Also, these confirmation hearings on SCJ are shown again to be complete BS. This decision requires the last 3 to have voted against what they said they would. Sadly there is no recal mechanism. Well, states cannot make laws that go against national law, just as cities cannot make laws that go against state law. If a state passes a law that outlaws abortion, that cannot be overruled at a city level. It could be overruled at a national level, but that would require congress to actually do something. Is a fetus really life, though? Most of these abortions happen way before the fetus have any chance of surviving, no matter the artificial help it gets. Only 100 years ago even newborn babies were barely considered human beings as the child mortality was so high. That fetuses are suddenly so important to protect seems like a stance stenched with secondary motives, the main motivation is that women should not have sex unless they want to be pregnant. It goes hand in hand with how religious institutions fail deal with reality when facing undesired sexual relations. This is church policy, Jesus himself embraced prostitutes.
I think that is a bad faith argument. I am sure there are some people who don't give a shit about fetuses or their lives and use this as a stick to keep the uppety womenfolk in the kitchen. But I also believe someone like Introvert (or, for that matter, xDaunt) truly believe fetuses have the right to live, and that that right to live trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy. There is no need to argue that they don't actually believe that when there are plenty of solid arguments to make against what they claim they do believe.
|
The "burn it all down so that people will suddenly become socialists" folks have major egg on their face right now.
Trump was essentially the quintessential anti-democrat villain, inflamed tensions as much as humanly possible within the 2 sides of the US political spectrum, appointed 3 supreme court justices. After Biden's win, progressives in lots of local elections got their salad tossed (https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2021-11-03/election-losses-by-progressive-democrats-reveal-limits-of-their-influence)
Now we are in a situation where the supreme court is openly operating in a targeted, partisan way, rather than trying to maintain at least some kind of illusion of integrity.
This part of the ruling spoke to me the most:
We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion
I choose to read this as:
“Let me come right out and say this ruling has no relation to any underlying ethics or reason. We are saying this only applies to this one situation but we will not specify why this situation is unique or justify why other logic does not apply”
I have always been a fan of what I call "ethical nuance", where people should not rely on far-reaching, underlying ethical axioms to conduct a dialectic. But this isn't making an argument and providing nuance, this is trying to carve out an exception while also protecting the argument from applying to anything else.
"but her emails"
|
On May 04 2022 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:The "burn it all down so that people will suddenly become socialists" folks have major egg on their face right now. Trump was essentially the quintessential anti-democrat villain, inflamed tensions as much as humanly possible within the 2 sides of the US political spectrum, appointed 3 supreme court justices. After Biden's win, progressives in lots of local elections got their salad tossed (https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2021-11-03/election-losses-by-progressive-democrats-reveal-limits-of-their-influence) Now we are in a situation where the supreme court is openly operating in a targeted, partisan way, rather than trying to maintain at least some kind of illusion of integrity. This part of the ruling spoke to me the most: Show nested quote +We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion I choose to read this as: “Let me come right out and say this ruling has no relation to any underlying ethics or reason. We are saying this only applies to this one situation but we will not specify why this situation is unique or justify why other logic does not apply” I have always been a fan of what I call "ethical nuance", where people should not rely on far-reaching, underlying ethical axioms to conduct a dialectic. But this isn't making an argument and providing nuance, this is trying to carve out an exception while also protecting the argument from applying to anything else. "but her emails"
I can only truly disagree with your assumption that having one's salad tossed is a bad thing.
|
On May 04 2022 02:15 Sermokala wrote:
Another discussion to have is to be pissed that all these judges lied during their confirmation hearings about roe being "settled law" and then overturning it at the time of first asking. That two of these judges only got their seats due to blatant abuse of the good faith that the entire system is built on. Now we know that they can lie during their hearings and face no punishment.
One of the core naive perspectives of democrats is the idea that conservatives have sought coexistence after the rev war. It has never been true. They want the country to stick together, run in accordance with the belief system of conservatives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
