|
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 July 01 2022 01:21 FeatherPlanes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
Just for my curiosity, is there any older reference to this bounty law in Texas? Did Texas just decide it was allowed to pay their citizens a bounty when they won a court case? And on what grounds are civilians allowed to sue other civilians without having suffered damages by them? Like, none of that makes any sense from a legal standpoint. SB8 deputizes the public, its not really that wildly different to the concept of citizen's arrest. If they win, they get $10,000 plus legal fees paid. They're essentially serving as agents of the state in this situation. Keep in mind, the defendant isn't the person suspected of getting an abortion but suspected of assisting in an abortion. The actual implications obviously are horrifying considering the plaintiff doesn't have to pay the defendant's legal fees if they lose and "suspect" could be literally be anyone from an actual doctor to some random Doordash worker who delivered pizza to the person suspected of getting an abortion.
But again, how is that possible? If you are doing a civil case, it is you against someone else, that caused you damage in some way. You want this damage be repaired, you go to court, a decision is made whether damage needs to be repaired in a way or not and that's it. No going to jail, just a problem between two entities and the judicative is the, well judge.
If you have a criminal case, the executive is the plaintiff and someone else the defendant and the judicative decides whether the law was broken.
How can you simply but both into the same case? Which damage has the plaintiff gotten from the defendant? What happens when he wins, jail time for the defendent? Money paid from the defendant to the plaintiff?
And yes, it is wildly different from citizen's arrest, because in citizen's arrest the "deputy" is acting because the executive is not around and later, if he made a gross mistake, can be punished for that i suppose. YOu could compre them if citizen's arrest would mean the cops would find someone they want to be arrested, then would step aside and call on Karen to step forward and arrest them instead, while they are watching.
And what keeps the top 2 million democrats in the US with disposable income from "suspecting" the wives of all republican lawmakers in texas got an abortion, and filing 2 million lawsuits agaist the, 100 wives of republican texan lawmakers?
|
Biden won't take any steps to undo the hyper-partisan nature of the Supreme Court, or any of the damage they're doing. Maintaining decorum and their favorite slogan "when they go low, we go high" are more important than protecting liberty and democracy and even the country itself.
At some point you have to recognize that Democrats are the only ones playing by any rules at this point, and that their continued insistence on playing by those rules is a choice they make.
|
On July 01 2022 01:52 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 01:21 FeatherPlanes wrote:On July 01 2022 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
Just for my curiosity, is there any older reference to this bounty law in Texas? Did Texas just decide it was allowed to pay their citizens a bounty when they won a court case? And on what grounds are civilians allowed to sue other civilians without having suffered damages by them? Like, none of that makes any sense from a legal standpoint. SB8 deputizes the public, its not really that wildly different to the concept of citizen's arrest. If they win, they get $10,000 plus legal fees paid. They're essentially serving as agents of the state in this situation. Keep in mind, the defendant isn't the person suspected of getting an abortion but suspected of assisting in an abortion. The actual implications obviously are horrifying considering the plaintiff doesn't have to pay the defendant's legal fees if they lose and "suspect" could be literally be anyone from an actual doctor to some random Doordash worker who delivered pizza to the person suspected of getting an abortion. But again, how is that possible? If you are doing a civil case, it is you against someone else, that caused you damage in some way. You want this damage be repaired, you go to court, a decision is made whether damage needs to be repaired in a way or not and that's it. No going to jail, just a problem between two entities and the judicative is the, well judge. If you have a criminal case, the executive is the plaintiff and someone else the defendant and the judicative decides whether the law was broken. How can you simply but both into the same case? Which damage has the plaintiff gotten from the defendant? What happens when he wins, jail time for the defendent? Money paid from the defendant to the plaintiff? And what keeps the top 2 million democrats in the US with disposable income from "suspecting" the wives of all republican lawmakers in texas got an abortion, and filing 2 million lawsuits agaist the, 100 wives of republican texan lawmakers?
Well, the thing about Texas is, our government does not respect any sort of law or ruling that stops them from doing whatever they want. They know that the federal government won't do anything about it and the Supreme Court has given them carte blanche to never be legally held accountable.
|
So, this kind of deputisation has never happened before, that a civil person can sue someone in a criminal case and then gets paid if they win?
|
On July 01 2022 01:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden won't take any steps to undo the hyper-partisan nature of the Supreme Court, or any of the damage they're doing. Maintaining decorum and their favorite slogan "when they go low, we go high" are more important than protecting liberty and democracy and even the country itself.
At some point you have to recognize that Democrats are the only ones playing by any rules at this point, and that their continued insistence on playing by those rules is a choice they make.
And we can Hanlon's razor it into oblivion, but either way, the consequences are catastrophically untenable.
Simberto's suggestion made me wonder if NATO countries have a plan for if the US did split (with or without civil war)?
|
On July 01 2022 01:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Biden won't take any steps to undo the hyper-partisan nature of the Supreme Court, or any of the damage they're doing. Maintaining decorum and their favorite slogan "when they go low, we go high" are more important than protecting liberty and democracy and even the country itself.
At some point you have to recognize that Democrats are the only ones playing by any rules at this point, and that their continued insistence on playing by those rules is a choice they make.
"When they go low, we go high" ended up being incredibly fucking stupid when the other guy just says "lol idiot" and cranks it up even harder.
|
Democrats care a lot more about using Joe v. Wade and everything else to win political points than doing anything about it. That alone explains the fact that they’re all talk no action here.
|
Honestly the supreme court basically going on a deranged reform spree and a surprisingly reasonable approach to student loans could end up letting democrats squeeze by in 2022. The odds are against them, but republicans are being very greedy with their supreme court stuff right now.
|
On July 01 2022 02:30 Mohdoo wrote:
Honestly the supreme court basically going on a deranged reform spree and a surprisingly reasonable approach to student loans could end up letting democrats squeeze by in 2022. The odds are against them, but republicans are being very greedy with their supreme court stuff right now. Does it matter?
Republicans don't need Congress, they are ruling through the Judiciary branch right now.
And the Democrats are doing nothing, despite having Congress.
So why exactly should Republicans fear losing in 2022?
|
Yeah, its a fair point. I think the only real option at this point is packing the court. Nothing else will do anything. They have crystallized their strategy of ruling through the court. They essentially disabled the EPA and show no signs of slowing down.
|
On July 01 2022 02:30 Mohdoo wrote:
Honestly the supreme court basically going on a deranged reform spree and a surprisingly reasonable approach to student loans could end up letting democrats squeeze by in 2022. The odds are against them, but republicans are being very greedy with their supreme court stuff right now.
I expect that in the end, the economy will matter the most. In part because nine times out of ten that's how it always works, and in part because the people who most deeply care about this SC adventurism are already the least likely to vote Republican in the first place. Meanwhile gas prices are high and getting higher, we're likely already in a recession, and the signs point to some serious stagflationary pressures in the year to come. Brandon's approval rating is testing some record lows, and I would wager it's the economy.
People may not like Republicans, but damn if the electorate rewards the Democrats for a president that is presiding over a deteriorating economic situation.
|
On July 01 2022 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we are seeing the Supreme Court is basically just speed running republican dreams, in a perfect world, would be nice if Biden just packs the court to undo everything. Not holding my breath though
This is not normal, is it? I know they're back after the summer break, but they are banging out those decisions on longstanding highly consequential and decisive issues, like wtf? Feels Trumpian, you can't keep up with all the bullshit. Do they want chaos?
|
On July 01 2022 03:03 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we are seeing the Supreme Court is basically just speed running republican dreams, in a perfect world, would be nice if Biden just packs the court to undo everything. Not holding my breath though This is not normal, is it? I know they're back after the summer break, but they are banging out those decisions on longstanding highly consequential and decisive issues, like wtf? Feels Trumpian, you can't keep up with all the bullshit. Do they want chaos?
It’s not that they want chaos, it’s that they want to win. Democrats see our ideological disagreements as a family squabble. Republicans correctly realize this is more of a cold civil war and we are ideological enemies. They will do what it takes to win, meanwhile democrats pretend we are a fundamentally united country.
“When they go low, we go high”
Vs
“A win is a win”
|
Progressives within the party are a much more pressing threat to the Democrats than anything the Republican party does. And the Dems have been enormously successful at winning that particular power struggle because that's where they focus their best efforts. When they put their minds to it, they get results.
|
On July 01 2022 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 01 2022 03:03 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we are seeing the Supreme Court is basically just speed running republican dreams, in a perfect world, would be nice if Biden just packs the court to undo everything. Not holding my breath though This is not normal, is it? I know they're back after the summer break, but they are banging out those decisions on longstanding highly consequential and decisive issues, like wtf? Feels Trumpian, you can't keep up with all the bullshit. Do they want chaos? It’s not that they want chaos, it’s that they want to win. Democrats see our ideological disagreements as a family squabble. Republicans correctly realize this is more of a cold civil war and we are ideological enemies. They will do what it takes to win, meanwhile democrats pretend we are a fundamentally united country. “When they go low, we go high” Vs “A win is a win”
I'm following this for a decade at least and while i'm aware of that and agree it still amazes me. Just heard Biden say, the answer is to go vote and the message was aimed at democrats, he doesn't even try, what a joke.
He may want a clearer electoral win in the midterms to have some substance behind any major decision, but c'mon those times are over, the other team is not playing the same game here.
|
On July 01 2022 03:50 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 03:14 Mohdoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 01 2022 03:03 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 01:41 Mohdoo wrote:
Now that we are seeing the Supreme Court is basically just speed running republican dreams, in a perfect world, would be nice if Biden just packs the court to undo everything. Not holding my breath though This is not normal, is it? I know they're back after the summer break, but they are banging out those decisions on longstanding highly consequential and decisive issues, like wtf? Feels Trumpian, you can't keep up with all the bullshit. Do they want chaos? It’s not that they want chaos, it’s that they want to win. Democrats see our ideological disagreements as a family squabble. Republicans correctly realize this is more of a cold civil war and we are ideological enemies. They will do what it takes to win, meanwhile democrats pretend we are a fundamentally united country. “When they go low, we go high” Vs “A win is a win” I'm following this for a decade at least and while i'm aware of that and agree it still amazes me. Just heard Biden say, the answer is to go vote and the message was aimed at democrats, he doesn't even try, what a joke. He may want a clearer electoral win in the midterms to have some substance behind any major decision, but c'mon those times are over, the other team is not playing the same game here.
He’s plain and simply not up to the task ahead of him. He’s playing the wrong game and he’s making us all lose
|
I wonder if the anti-abortion movement will keep its cohesion even after they have to live with the realities of the ban? It's one thing to oppose abortion in principle, but I would think a lot of people are going to wish they still had the option when it comes down to it. We know the rich will circumvent the bans easily, but many others will find it difficult to muster up thousands of dollars and job leave to sneak out of state for an abortion.
|
On July 01 2022 04:13 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder if the anti-abortion movement will keep its cohesion even after they have to live with the realities of the ban? It's one thing to oppose abortion in principle, but I would think a lot of people are going to wish they still had the option when it comes down to it. We know the rich will circumvent the bans easily, but many others will find it difficult to muster up thousands of dollars and job leave to sneak out of state for an abortion.
They will deal with it completely nationally to them. As you know the only moral abortion is my own. Anti abortion women get abortions the same as pro choice women they just justify that it's okay for them to get one.
As always the ones that can get it safely will and the ones who cant will die. It was never about life it was always about controlling and punishing women.
|
On July 01 2022 04:13 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder if the anti-abortion movement will keep its cohesion even after they have to live with the realities of the ban? It's one thing to oppose abortion in principle, but I would think a lot of people are going to wish they still had the option when it comes down to it. We know the rich will circumvent the bans easily, but many others will find it difficult to muster up thousands of dollars and job leave to sneak out of state for an abortion.
i don’t think everyone has yet to perceive the realities of the ban. mothers having to go to some other state to get their abortion before starting their chemo is brutal. worse stories are going to be popping up.
it’s one thing to say ‘no exceptions for health or rape,’ it’s another thing to actually have to confront the news that their actions are actually devastating families. as predictable as it was.
|
On July 01 2022 04:35 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 04:13 Starlightsun wrote:
I wonder if the anti-abortion movement will keep its cohesion even after they have to live with the realities of the ban? It's one thing to oppose abortion in principle, but I would think a lot of people are going to wish they still had the option when it comes down to it. We know the rich will circumvent the bans easily, but many others will find it difficult to muster up thousands of dollars and job leave to sneak out of state for an abortion. i don’t think everyone has yet to perceive the realities of the ban. mothers having to go to some other state to get their abortion before starting their chemo is brutal. worse stories are going to be popping up. it’s one thing to say ‘no exceptions for health or rape,’ it’s another thing to actually have to confront the news that their actions are actually devastating families. as predictable as it was.
Those mothers won't even be able to leave their states. Texas is already working to rule that if you're pregnant, you can't leave the state, and with SB8 already in effect, it's only a matter of time
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
