|
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 09 2022 04:56 Zambrah wrote:
Great strategy, it can apply to anything so you never actually have to state a belief in anything, keeps your personal beliefs under plausible deniability because you dont believe this awful thing, but by god do you believe so strongly in the states rights that that awful thing should be allowed!
I think it's fair to be a protector of states' rights when they make sense. It clearly makes sense to keep local decisions local, maybe within nationally prescribed boundaries. For instance, whether or not you're allowed to fill your swimming pool in the summer, but also speed limits, minimum wages, etc. that just depend heavily on local conditions and are thus more efficiently governed at a local level. But obviously a huge moral question such as whether or not abortion is legal should be decided nation-wide. Either that, or agree you're not really a nation at all because you can't even agree on what constitute basic human rights.
|
Sure, but more often than not its used by conservatives as a smokescreen to hide their morally vile true thoughts. Whatever theoretical values states rights have are just used to provide plausible deniability.
Theres a reason the stuff "states rights" is most often associated with is shit like slavery during the civil war, lol
Gotta vile opinion? No you don't, you have a love for the rights of states to make their own decisions about the vile opinion, but I certainly don't have the vile opinion, no sir, just a love and admiration for the rights of the states! Excellent way to do and defend vile things without having to profess your allegiance to the vile things, conservatism in the US has been into that argument for a long time.
The American education system's teaching of the civil war definitely legitimizes the smokescreen of legitimacy that argument is allowed to provide.
|
Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane.
I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else,
Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs,
https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014
Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs,
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.html
Arizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut,
https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/
Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last.
Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here.
|
|
|
On May 09 2022 10:12 Zambrah wrote:Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane. I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else, Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.htmlArizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut, https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last. Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here.
I mean, as a filthy leftist, I'd say the best way to curb impending population decline is to address our impending existential climate threat. But I digress.
No, the veil is coming fully off. They're not pro-life. There's so many other beliefs they wouldn't have if preserving life was actually what they cared about. No. What they are is pro-forced-birth, and banning contraceptives and abortion both is essentially only a pro-forced-birth stance. And they don't care if there's massive fallout in the moments where they ban basic healthcare options, because the damage they cause will be felt for literally a generation. It's worth it in their cost-benefit analysis for holding onto power.
|
On May 09 2022 11:08 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2022 10:12 Zambrah wrote:Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane. I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else, Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.htmlArizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut, https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last. Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here. I mean, as a filthy leftist, I'd say the best way to curb impending population decline is to address our impending existential climate threat. But I digress. No, the veil is coming fully off. They're not pro-life. There's so many other beliefs they wouldn't have if preserving life was actually what they cared about. No. What they are is pro-forced-birth, and banning contraceptives and abortion both is essentially only a pro-forced-birth stance. And they don't care if there's massive fallout in the moments where they ban basic healthcare options, because the damage they cause will be felt for literally a generation. It's worth it in their cost-benefit analysis for holding onto power.
I'm partial to solving economic inequality as the solution to a declining birthrate, but these are all good things to be done, so I'll be glad to have climate change and economic inequality addressed, lol.
And yeah, they're certainly pro-forced-birth, what Im curious about is what their cost-benefit analysis is, what benefits are they aiming for, the costs are clear, but what they're worth is what Im interested in.
|
As far as I see it, they just want to drive the wedge in further. People get more deeply entrenched on an issue nearly every other country on Earth has solved, and women as a group become more deeply impoverished and oppressed, and more time has to be spent simply undoing the damage they're causing to women's rights right now. This buys them all kinds of time and space to do basically whatever else they want. If you set the bank on fire, not many people are gonna notice you stealing all the money.
I heard conservatives at the time the justices were appointed. This was the win they cared about, everything else didn't matter. And we're seeing why. They've been calling it a culture war since the beginning. They're about to set off the nuke.
|
I get how Roe v Wade accomplishes that wedge-driving, but this anti-Griswold stuff is what confuses me, Griswold isn't nearly the case Roe v Wade is when it comes to public knowledge, and the right to birth control is way harder to disingenuously frame compared to abortion which you can just label as child murder.
|
What the right is doing is enforcing their Christian morality upon the nation by punishing people who get abortions, have sex outside of marriage, and use contraceptives. This is basically an extension of the culture war and the right is showing all their cards, or at least most of them. When all your base cares about is "not liberals" then you kind of have free reign to go mask off and be fucking villains.
|
I guess I have a hard time understanding the grifter/religion nutter balance that Republicans exist within. Who is a nutter, who is a grifter, they're both acting like nutters and its hard to figure out who is acting like a nut and who is actually nuts, lol.
|
On May 09 2022 11:41 StasisField wrote:
What the right is doing is enforcing their Christian morality upon the nation by punishing people who get abortions, have sex outside of marriage, and use contraceptives. This is basically an extension of the culture war and the right is showing all their cards, or at least most of them. When all your base cares about is "not liberals" then you kind of have free reign to go mask off and be fucking villains.
Meanwhile, the bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion and requires it in cases of infidelity.
|
On May 09 2022 10:12 Zambrah wrote:Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane. I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else, Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.htmlArizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut, https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last. Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here.
I don't know if you were paying attention to politics back when sex ed and health care covering contraceptives were hot issues, but the GOP arguments around those were very revealing. While there are other motivations at play, the underlying principle is that unplanned pregnancy is a necessary consequence for women who have sex for fun, not reproduction, and taking away that disincentive means more women have sex for fun.
There was a lot of "Why does insurance need to pay for women to have sex?" and "They don't need the pill, they can just abstain," on the contraceptive debate. The former was especially egregious as viagra type medications are usually covered by insurance.
|
|
|
People were like "plasmidghost, isn't it a bit extreme to leave the country" and now look lolllll
|
Do people think the Democrats have 10+ years to regain pregnant people's bodily autonomy rights?
I don't get the impression they have a more immediate plan and even 10 years seems optimistic, but I wonder if the breaking point of society (consent of the governed) comes before that?
|
Canada11607 Posts
On May 09 2022 12:00 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2022 11:41 StasisField wrote:
What the right is doing is enforcing their Christian morality upon the nation by punishing people who get abortions, have sex outside of marriage, and use contraceptives. This is basically an extension of the culture war and the right is showing all their cards, or at least most of them. When all your base cares about is "not liberals" then you kind of have free reign to go mask off and be fucking villains. Meanwhile, the bible gives instructions on how to perform an abortion and requires it in cases of infidelity.
Where? Or are you conflating the death penalty for adulterers with abortion?
|
|
|
On May 09 2022 11:17 NewSunshine wrote:
As far as I see it, they just want to drive the wedge in further. People get more deeply entrenched on an issue nearly every other country on Earth has solved, and women as a group become more deeply impoverished and oppressed, and more time has to be spent simply undoing the damage they're causing to women's rights right now. This buys them all kinds of time and space to do basically whatever else they want. If you set the bank on fire, not many people are gonna notice you stealing all the money.
I heard conservatives at the time the justices were appointed. This was the win they cared about, everything else didn't matter. And we're seeing why. They've been calling it a culture war since the beginning. They're about to set off the nuke.
As I’ve said before, conservatives are the only one who acknowledge the war is real and the only ones fighting like it’s real. They’ll keep winning so long as that is true
|
On May 09 2022 11:14 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2022 11:08 NewSunshine wrote:On May 09 2022 10:12 Zambrah wrote:Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane. I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else, Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.htmlArizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut, https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last. Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here. I mean, as a filthy leftist, I'd say the best way to curb impending population decline is to address our impending existential climate threat. But I digress. No, the veil is coming fully off. They're not pro-life. There's so many other beliefs they wouldn't have if preserving life was actually what they cared about. No. What they are is pro-forced-birth, and banning contraceptives and abortion both is essentially only a pro-forced-birth stance. And they don't care if there's massive fallout in the moments where they ban basic healthcare options, because the damage they cause will be felt for literally a generation. It's worth it in their cost-benefit analysis for holding onto power. I'm partial to solving economic inequality as the solution to a declining birthrate, but these are all good things to be done, so I'll be glad to have climate change and economic inequality addressed, lol. And yeah, they're certainly pro-forced-birth, what Im curious about is what their cost-benefit analysis is, what benefits are they aiming for, the costs are clear, but what they're worth is what Im interested in.
I'm more in favor of reducing the environmental load on the planet by there being fewer humans. If instead of 7b humans there were, right now, around 2b, it'd be trivial to reach all our environmental goals. The problem is getting from over > 7b to 2b in a humane and sensible way. Voluntarily having fewer children is so far the only way we figured out.
Why is population growth a goal for you?
|
On May 09 2022 15:26 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2022 11:14 Zambrah wrote:On May 09 2022 11:08 NewSunshine wrote:On May 09 2022 10:12 Zambrah wrote:Roe v Wade's impending demise is unleashing a floodgate of idiocy, its insane. I mentioned TN and Marsha Blackburn earlier heres who else, Missouri, planning to go the Louisiana route by banning IUDs, https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/iuds-plan-b-likely-illegal-in-missouri-post-roe-37654014Idaho also considering restricting contraceptives like IUDs, https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.htmlArizona GOP candidate also wants to go after Griswold v Connecticut, https://www.politicsvideochannel.com/arizona-gop-senate-candidate-wants-to-ban-condoms-in-all-states/Probably not as much of a threat in Arizona, but Louisiana, Tennessee, and Idaho? Totally possible. I wonder how long Griswold v Connecticut is going to last. Also, I think at this point its clear this isnt about abortion, so what is the point, is it some sick evil way to prevent impending population decline to save capitalism or something? Seems like theres some reason they're so keen on maintaining/increasing the "domestic supply of infants." God, what a gross society we've let cultivate here. I mean, as a filthy leftist, I'd say the best way to curb impending population decline is to address our impending existential climate threat. But I digress. No, the veil is coming fully off. They're not pro-life. There's so many other beliefs they wouldn't have if preserving life was actually what they cared about. No. What they are is pro-forced-birth, and banning contraceptives and abortion both is essentially only a pro-forced-birth stance. And they don't care if there's massive fallout in the moments where they ban basic healthcare options, because the damage they cause will be felt for literally a generation. It's worth it in their cost-benefit analysis for holding onto power. I'm partial to solving economic inequality as the solution to a declining birthrate, but these are all good things to be done, so I'll be glad to have climate change and economic inequality addressed, lol. And yeah, they're certainly pro-forced-birth, what Im curious about is what their cost-benefit analysis is, what benefits are they aiming for, the costs are clear, but what they're worth is what Im interested in. I'm more in favor of reducing the environmental load on the planet by there being fewer humans. If instead of 7b humans there were, right now, around 2b, it'd be trivial to reach all our environmental goals. The problem is getting from over > 7b to 2b in a humane and sensible way. Voluntarily having fewer children is so far the only way we figured out. Why is population growth a goal for you?
Its not, but if it were, my way to solve it would be through economic equality so that people felt financially secure having kids if they were so inclined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
