EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3612
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42497 Posts
On May 04 2022 02:29 Acrofales wrote: 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. If they actually believed that they’d have the government requisitioning organs. People with diabetes would have their blood hooked up to people with healthy kidneys for filtration. The ethical implications of believing that when a life is at stake bodily autonomy isn’t absolute are huge. Take the thought experiment of the violinist. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you. If pro-life beliefs were in good faith they would insist that unplugging is murder. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21621 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7288 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 04 2022 02:56 Gorsameth wrote: Yes, the Republican belief of Pro-life always falls flat on its face when they care absolutely nothing about a life after it leaves the womb. Then its a dog eat dog, everyone for themselves. It's always odd how staunchly Republicans practice social darwinism, being in bed with the same people who don't acknowledge his theories of evolution. Leaving the weak to die off also conveniently negates any logical underpinning to their pro-life proclamations. We only seem to fight with this fervor to protect life that has a parasitic relationship to women. Anything else can go get fucked, apparently. Especially if it's on the wrong side of a white guy with a gun. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11458 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:12 NewSunshine wrote: It's always odd how staunchly Republicans practice social darwinism, being in bed with the same people who don't acknowledge his theories of evolution. Leaving the weak to die off also conveniently negates any logical underpinning to their pro-life proclamations. We only seem to fight with this fervor to protect life that has a parasitic relationship to women. Anything else can go get fucked, apparently. Especially if it's on the wrong side of a white guy with a gun. Yeah, i don't think it is sensible to look for a rational underpinning of the stuff republicans claim they want. I think most of it is based on hierarchy, tribalism, gut feelings and the situation where they actually want to say one thing, but that is socially completely unacceptable, so they say something else that "accidentally" leads to the same actions. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15613 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote: I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. I don't think liberals are to blame for Clinton's loss. The states she lost and the demographics she lost were the working folks in rural places that sometimes voted for democrats. Losing the midwest is not a liberal problem. Its all the dummies who were suddenly skeptical due to "her emails" that caused roe vs wade to be undone. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote: I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. If not actively in on the con, as it were. If there's a tacit agreement by the Dems to be the good cop who acts like he's trying while the bad cop (Republicans) does whatever he wants, they both get the same pension. That's a more cynical take, there are definitely people within the Democratic party who would do quite a lot to improve the lives of millions if they could, but overall, such a cynical take is bearing out in their stead. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:31 plasmidghost wrote: I love how a lot of mainstream Dems are blaming losing abortion rights on progressives and leftists. Like, 92% of Bernie 2016 supporters voted for Clinton while only 75% of Clinton 2008 voters votes for Obama. Plus, Tim Kaine was anti-abortion. Plus, despite the numerous times Dems controlled every branch of the government, they never once codified Roe v. Wade. The Democratic party is a bunch of spineless, incompetent scumbags. The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the federal executive and legislative branches was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. It is symbolic, nothing more. The only way to enshrine Roe was a constitutional amendment. Which was never within the Dems power. | ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices. Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. On May 04 2022 03:41 TheTenthDoc wrote: The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the executive and legislative was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. This is not necessarily true because the entire premise of the Alito opinion is that the decision should be made by Congress & the President rather than the SC. Congress might be able to codify Roe v. Wade via its commerce clause power. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices. Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. What about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, judges who, during their hearings, said they believed Roe was settled law and/or precedent on precedent, but are now overturning it? Surely we can agree they operated in bad faith. If they were going to overturn it, the good faith thing to do would have been to, you know, say that in their hearings instead of waffling enough to give Collins and Murkowski cover. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:41 TheTenthDoc wrote: The Dems are real spineless and incompetent, but the bolded part is a real bad take. Codifying Roe v Wade through the executive and legislative was and will forever be pointless because any SCOTUS that overturns it will find the federal law unconstitutional as an overreach by the federal government. This is exactly what will happen if a federal law is passed now. The only way to enshrine Roe was a constitutional amendment. Which was never within the Dems power. That's fair. It's absolutely depressing. But it honestly doesn't dissipate my disdain of the Dems because they could do major actions that a large majority of Americans support and thus win elections, but they don't and elections get handed to the GOP | ||
|
farvacola
United States18822 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:49 farvacola wrote: There is a not too remote chance that the leak came from Thomas or Alito's chambers upon their learning that at least one of the other three justices mentioned in the opinion would refuse to join it given that it completely overruled settled law. I am sure the conservatives will be just as up in arms over punishing them if this comes out. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18822 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:50 TheTenthDoc wrote: I am sure the conservatives will be just as up in arms over punishing them if this comes out. Indeed, if that's what happened, riling up folks who thought they had their Roe-overturning majority would be the point. It is funny to consider what the talking heads calling for FBI investigations and the like will say though. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24968 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. That being said I would not be terribly surprised if Politico is exaggerating the significance of their leak, and it's really just Alito's own opinion as opposed to an Alito opinion that has been joined by four other justices. Roberts has ordered an investigation of the leak which is kind of bad news for the leaker because the SC is not exactly a large organization. Can't have SC deliberations becoming subject to politically motivated leaks. This is not necessarily true because the entire premise of the Alito opinion is that the decision should be made by Congress & the President rather than the SC. Congress might be able to codify Roe v. Wade via its commerce clause power. If they didn’t continually behave in manners that can only be described as bad faith, then perhaps they wouldn’t have that reputation. Presuming the leaks are accurate, which as you say may not entirely the case, I’m unsure how else to characterise Justices saying Roe is settled in confirmation hearings only to supposedly join this Alito opinion. This doesn’t extend to every Republican, I don’t even have a particular issue with either a pro-life or preference for devolution of laws to the state level, if these positions are held with any semblance of consistency to base principles. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11458 Posts
On May 04 2022 03:42 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's not realistic or productive (or in good faith?) to just resort to "Republicans are evil fascists who operate in bad faith." That's a failure to be willing to understand the other side's political viewpoint. Roe was wrongly decided, it was legislation from the bench, political activism from the bench. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. It's not part of constitutional law. Alito's draft opinion makes the perfectly good-faith point that the rule of law is best served by overturning SC decisions, like Roe, that exceeded the judicial power of article III. Yes, republicans always make "good-faith arguments" that just accidentally do the evil thing they want to do. And they never make good-faith arguments which would lead to something like workers getting more rights, rich people paying taxes, women or gay people having rights, or any other thing. Anyone who claims that this is about some constituational principle is naive or making a bad-faith argument. This is about outlawing abortion, because evangelicals love that shit. Republicans always argue that stuff is about some bigger principle, but they have shown that they have no problem turning those principles 180° if that would give them something they want. | ||
| ||
