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.
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?
I've seen people make the argument for Numbers 5:11-31. It's a pretty ambiguous verse imo.
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?
Out society requires a lot of young workers to pay for retiring old worker. Retirement is basically a ponzi scheme. It stops working if there is not enough new blood pumping enough money into the system to pay for previous generations.
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?
Out society requires a lot of young workers to pay for retiring old worker. Retirement is basically a ponzi scheme. It stops working if there is not enough new blood pumping enough money into the system to pay for previous generations.
That seems like a good reason for economic reform. Not for having lots of babies. Or is your solution to just keep the human population growing indefinitely?
On May 09 2022 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote: 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?
Does the senate override the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court says something democrats pass isn’t legal?
On May 09 2022 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote: 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?
Does the senate override the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court says something democrats pass isn’t legal?
Well, if the SC rules a law is unconstitutional, then the way congress has to pass it is by changing the constitution. whether that is what is required to make abortions legal nation-wide, I don't know. Insofar as I know there has never been such a law, although there have been a few proposals.
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?
Out society requires a lot of young workers to pay for retiring old worker. Retirement is basically a ponzi scheme. It stops working if there is not enough new blood pumping enough money into the system to pay for previous generations.
That seems like a good reason for economic reform. Not for having lots of babies. Or is your solution to just keep the human population growing indefinitely?
It shouldn't be an issue, each new generations is magnitudes more productive than the previous.
On May 07 2022 02:47 Doc.Rivers wrote: Not surprised that a random legislator proposed something extreme and got amplified by the media. They're not actually going to pass that law in Texas. There is also not going to be a "fascist theocracy" or fascism in Texas or the US. Just like how Bernie is not going to bring about socialism in the US.
Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote:
On May 07 2022 04:28 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's easy to make up silly exaggerations about the Republican party and then argue against those exaggerations. It doesn't make sense though to state hyperbole and then pretend that your hyperbole is actual fact.
It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
On May 07 2022 02:47 Doc.Rivers wrote: Not surprised that a random legislator proposed something extreme and got amplified by the media. They're not actually going to pass that law in Texas. There is also not going to be a "fascist theocracy" or fascism in Texas or the US. Just like how Bernie is not going to bring about socialism in the US.
Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote:
On May 07 2022 04:28 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's easy to make up silly exaggerations about the Republican party and then argue against those exaggerations. It doesn't make sense though to state hyperbole and then pretend that your hyperbole is actual fact.
It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople.
This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways.
One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system.
The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey.
Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions.
On May 09 2022 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote: 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?
Does the senate override the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court says something democrats pass isn’t legal?
There’s constitutional questions here I’m not completely clear on (I’d be interested if farv or someone might weigh in). To me the clearest point of comparison would be the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Basically, SCOTUS overturned their old doctrine on free exercise of religion to uphold a law outlawing peyote use even though it was used in Native American religious rituals. Previously the government was supposed to let you follow your religion unless they had a really good reason to say otherwise; now as long as the law was generally applicable (i.e. it didn’t seem explicitly designed to discriminate against your religion) the government could shut down your religious practices even without any particularly compelling reason.
People were mad, and Congress passed RFRA to reinstate the previous doctrine as a matter of statute. But SCOTUS struck down RFRA in 1997 too, and the logic is straightforward enough: either states are constitutionally allowed to regulate it, or they aren’t. If they aren’t SCOTUS should say so with or without RFRA; if they are, Congress has no power to stop them. Congress has no say in what the 1st amendment or 4th amendment or 14th amendment or any others mean or don’t mean.
So my suspicion is that ultimately they’ll decide Congress won’t have the authority to prevent states from banning abortion. Under that theory the only way to stop your state from banning abortion is to elect people that won’t ban abortion. That said, I think Democrats should do anything within their power to pass a federal protection anyway. If Congress passes something in 2023 and the court strikes it down in 2027 that’ll still be 4 more years of protections and that much more time to find a way to more sustained victory.
On May 07 2022 02:47 Doc.Rivers wrote: Not surprised that a random legislator proposed something extreme and got amplified by the media. They're not actually going to pass that law in Texas. There is also not going to be a "fascist theocracy" or fascism in Texas or the US. Just like how Bernie is not going to bring about socialism in the US.
Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote:
On May 07 2022 04:28 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's easy to make up silly exaggerations about the Republican party and then argue against those exaggerations. It doesn't make sense though to state hyperbole and then pretend that your hyperbole is actual fact.
It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, those poor Supreme Court justices are the true victims here. You tell 'em.
John Oliver's show has put forth a piece on the abortion ruling, for those interested in hearing more detail and perspective on it. As always I encourage giving it a watch.
On May 07 2022 02:47 Doc.Rivers wrote: Not surprised that a random legislator proposed something extreme and got amplified by the media. They're not actually going to pass that law in Texas. There is also not going to be a "fascist theocracy" or fascism in Texas or the US. Just like how Bernie is not going to bring about socialism in the US.
Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote:
On May 07 2022 04:28 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's easy to make up silly exaggerations about the Republican party and then argue against those exaggerations. It doesn't make sense though to state hyperbole and then pretend that your hyperbole is actual fact.
It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople.
This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways.
One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system.
The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey.
Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions.
It's important to protect the independence of the judiciary. Can't have people trying to influence judges outside of actual legal argument. Thus why congress has criminalized thus type of behavior:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
If we want SCOTUS to operate on legal, apolitical grounds, then maybe they shouldn't be appointed and operating on partisan and religious grounds. 6 people will be opening the door for religious extremists to force their deeply unpopular, oppressive beliefs on the entire country.
Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only.
On May 09 2022 14:26 GreenHorizons wrote: 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?
Does the senate override the Supreme Court? What if the Supreme Court says something democrats pass isn’t legal?
There’s constitutional questions here I’m not completely clear on (I’d be interested if farv or someone might weigh in). To me the clearest point of comparison would be the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Basically, SCOTUS overturned their old doctrine on free exercise of religion to uphold a law outlawing peyote use even though it was used in Native American religious rituals. Previously the government was supposed to let you follow your religion unless they had a really good reason to say otherwise; now as long as the law was generally applicable (i.e. it didn’t seem explicitly designed to discriminate against your religion) the government could shut down your religious practices even without any particularly compelling reason.
People were mad, and Congress passed RFRA to reinstate the previous doctrine as a matter of statute. But SCOTUS struck down RFRA in 1997 too, and the logic is straightforward enough: either states are constitutionally allowed to regulate it, or they aren’t. If they aren’t SCOTUS should say so with or without RFRA; if they are, Congress has no power to stop them. Congress has no say in what the 1st amendment or 4th amendment or 14th amendment or any others mean or don’t mean.
So my suspicion is that ultimately they’ll decide Congress won’t have the authority to prevent states from banning abortion. Under that theory the only way to stop your state from banning abortion is to elect people that won’t ban abortion. That said, I think Democrats should do anything within their power to pass a federal protection anyway. If Congress passes something in 2023 and the court strikes it down in 2027 that’ll still be 4 more years of protections and that much more time to find a way to more sustained victory.
This is a fairly accurate statement of the issue. If the leaked draft opinion is any indication of the grounds on which the majority will strike down Roe, those grounds will likely apply to Congress' power to protect reproductive rights just the same as they do to prior SCOTUS precedent. In other words, if the majority's holding is based on the logic that reproductive rights are creatures of state law, which seems likely, that forecloses the world of federal prohibitions.
That said, I also agree that, despite that cross-applicability, Congress should still try to do whatever it can to extend protections for as long as possible, even if that means passing a law that will be tossed out down the line.
On May 07 2022 02:47 Doc.Rivers wrote: Not surprised that a random legislator proposed something extreme and got amplified by the media. They're not actually going to pass that law in Texas. There is also not going to be a "fascist theocracy" or fascism in Texas or the US. Just like how Bernie is not going to bring about socialism in the US.
Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote:
On May 07 2022 04:28 Doc.Rivers wrote: It's easy to make up silly exaggerations about the Republican party and then argue against those exaggerations. It doesn't make sense though to state hyperbole and then pretend that your hyperbole is actual fact.
It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople.
This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways.
One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system.
The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey.
Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions.
This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy."
And in an added bit of ridiculousness, the law they would be upholding, according to polling that admittedly is even murkier than most issue polling, draws the line about where most Americans would like to see it drawn. 15ish weeks. Most people like Roe, but they don't even know what it does.
On May 07 2022 04:51 WombaT wrote: [quote] Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople.
This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways.
One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system.
The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey.
Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions.
This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy."
Yeah Roe itself is a political and atextual decision. By overturning Roe the Court is helping to restore the country to its proper constitutional order.
Nor did the Republican Senate do anything unconstitutional with respect to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. It merely withheld or granted its consent, as authorized by the constitution.
The only reason dems want to pack the court, treat the court as advisory only, or prevent the justices from living or going out in public in peace, is because they want outcomes from the court that align with their political opinions. That's really not how a judicial branch is supposed to work though.
On May 07 2022 04:51 WombaT wrote: [quote] Bernie isn’t going to bring about socialism to the USA because he’s not going to get the keys to the kingdom.
I have no particular doubt that he’d give it a go, given the requisite platform, or at least something considerably in that direction.
I don’t have any particular doubt that the fringes of the GOP as it stands, mean what they say. They may be fringes but the mainstream seems happy to tolerate them in the name of political pragmatism.
Indeed the mainstream act all aggrieved for this being pointed out and play the victim.
It’s like bringing your weird friend to my house, and when they start pissing on my floor say I’m being unfair for pointing out that you tolerate people who piss on other’s floors
Like Bernie, the rando from Texas is not going to get the keys to the kingdom. Even if Bernie got the keys to the kingdom I don't think it would be "socialism" or "communism" or "marxism" that he would try to bring about. My point there was that when people call Republicans fascist, it is equivalent to people on the right misusing the word socialist.
On May 07 2022 04:56 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] It ain't an exaggeration just because you don't want to hear it, my dude. Your party is poised to throw back women's rights 50 fucking years, and it's only encouraged them to call for more activism from the bench: they hope to see cases overturned that would bring the return of segregation and remove protections on the press. So I'm sorry if you don't like how it sounds when people play the sounding board for you, and show you where this train is taking us. There's nothing silly about what's happening.
So in the course of arguing that you're not exaggerating, you just said the Republican party is poised to bring back segregation. As I was saying, these are straw man arguments.
I don’t think anybody is claiming some singular legislator from Texas is getting those keys.
Merely, that some of them want to do this, and at a time where Roe v Wade is purportedly back in play for re-litigation, well the thing outright preventing x local legislator from doing this is potentially removed.
It’s a pretty logical sequence from people wanting to do x, but being stopped by y, if y no longer exists then they can do x.
I can only speak for my own position, I imagine it’s reasonably well-shared here, but hey I might be wrong.
The issue isn’t that the entire Republican Party, or conservatives in general are fascists, but there are significant fringes that are, and are under the tent.
And rather than expunge them, or get them to toe the line or leave the tent, they’ve been actively courted with the provably wrong assumption that they can be controlled. At best, with your establishment types. At worst Trump was happy to tap in to that vein without giving a fuck what happened.
And then we’re subjected to ‘but there are good conservatives stop being mean’ ad nausea, which to me is irreconcilable with continuous deflection away from those unsavoury elements.
If moderate conservatives are happy to cede their party and direction to these mental people, I mean go ahead, it’s not my party and it’s not my position. Asking people to dig their heads in the sand and pretend this isn’t what is happening currently, and has been happening for quite some time is an unreasonable imposition and borderline insulting to one’s intelligence.
The ideas of individual politicians are not that significant unless they have a chance of becoming law. Here we have an idea from an individual legislator from texas and it's just not going to become law. The reason it won't become law is because there are not enough other Republicans who support the idea. So that's what makes it not a very big deal.
Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea?
It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it.
It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it.
To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature.
On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them.
Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court?
You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges?
I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that!
I mean I guess harassment is one strategy to change the conservative justices' minds. But something tells me the strategy was never going to work and the real goal is simply to harass for revenge purposes.
Yeah, i guess the majority of people just needs to sit down and let their rights be taken away by a minority of asshole crazypeople.
This is one of the things that happens when there is no democratic way of influencing a situation. People choose undemocratic ways.
One of the huge advantages of democracy is that when people can remedy their grievances within the system, they don't try to do it outside of the system, or by overthrowing the system.
The US system has shown time and time again that there is no way to really influence it from within. You get two parties, and one of them is crazy. The minority still wins elections because the system is absurd and gamey.
Maybe abusing that system to get hugely unpopular insanities passed, against the majority of people who thinks of them as abhorrent, leads to some repercussions.
This post and statements like it elsewhere show just how hollow dem messaging for the past few years has been. Were Alito's opinion to be the majority, it would be restoring "democracy" by returning a contentious issue back directly to voters. This isn't even the song and dance they do with accusing Republicans of reinstating Jim Crow, where at least facially "democracy" itself is affected. To this version of lefty, "democracy" means "outcomes I like." This is true with other issues, but most of them are not as obvious. With this action the court would be removing power from itself and returning it to "democracy."
And in an added bit of ridiculousness, the law they would be upholding is, according to polling that admittedly is even murkier than most issue polling, draws the line about where most Americans would like to see it drawn. 15ish weeks.
It’s about as straightforward a “tyranny of the majority” issue as you could find. When “then they came for the…” starts happening, “but it was enacted democratically!” isn’t much comfort. That’s how rights are supposed to work.
I obviously disagree 100% with that, but the point is most people objecting to this potential ruling are dishonest or just too blindly partisan. "Democracy" is not under threat by a repeal of Roe and Casey. Get a new buzzword.
On May 10 2022 03:33 micronesia wrote: Yeah I have to say, when McConnell used scorched earth tactics (e.g., letting which party holds what determine whether or not there will even be a vote on a candidate) to favorably seat multiple conservative justices, the "free from political intervention" argument (and need for independence) kind of went out the window for the Supreme Court. I don't think the court will ever truly recover. If they push too far, the Democrats might just decide to write off that branch as dead and/or advisory only.
I think the right solution here is to essentially invalidate the Supreme Court by adding 4 justices. Once the Supreme Court just ends up being theatrics, it will lose a lot of its perceived power. Every time the pendulum swings and another president takes office, some more justices get added, so it’s just kinda not a thing anymore.
As it currently stands, the Supreme Court is operating as an unelected ultimate power. The right solution is to invalidate it as an institution by packing the court
112
EPT
