|
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 14:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 01 2022 11:53 plasmidghost wrote:On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote:
I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move.
If those states use that power to oppress and disenfranchise minorities though then is it still in the spirit of democracy for the rest of the country to abandon them to their oppressors? Even as far back as our civil war, "states rights" has been a screen for disenfranchising and dehumanizing minorities. The federal government is the only way we have to reign in those abuses.
In today's world it's even more important when it comes to things like environmental regulation. Is it really democratic to allow states to pollute to their heart's content when the whole rest of the country, and even the world, has to suffer the consequences?
|
On July 02 2022 06:38 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2022 14:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 01 2022 11:53 plasmidghost wrote:On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote:
I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. If those states use that power to oppress and disenfranchise minorities though then is it still in the spirit of democracy for the rest of the country to abandon them to their oppressors? Even as far back as our civil war, "states rights" has been a screen for disenfranchising and dehumanizing minorities. The federal government is the only way we have to reign in those abuses. In today's world it's even more important when it comes to things like environmental regulation. Is it really democratic to allow states to pollute to their heart's content when the whole rest of the country, and even the world, has to suffer the consequences?
It seems a little bit wild to compare the abortion question to the civil war. Looking at pew there are in many deep red states popular majorities opposing abortion, including like half of the women. It's not like 10 Republican supervillians are running around there, large amounts of people oppose abortion. Whether that's enlightened or not is a different question, but it's hardly undemocratic.
Same with regulation, it's not even states rights. The federal government can equip agencies with more powers as I understand it, but that too should actually happen through the legislative. Sending every political issue to a court of nine people whose actual job is to decide constitutional questions doesn't seem right.
It's the government job on behalf of the people to give agencies powers and decide questions that concern how people want to live, not of the executive or the bureaucracy or the courts. Conservatives may advance that position because they're partisan hacks but they aren't wrong.
|
I wouldn't say being anti-abortion is the popular position by any stretch, though. Anecdotally, I haven't seen any polls on the issue since the ruling leaked that showed more than 40% disapproval for abortions. That percentage always drops when you ask if they're in favor of outright banning abortions, too. It's not a popular or democratic move. It's a theocratic, authoritarian rollback of a woman's right to bodily autonomy and healthcare. That's it.
|
On July 02 2022 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2022 06:38 Starlightsun wrote:On July 01 2022 14:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 01 2022 11:53 plasmidghost wrote:On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote:
I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. If those states use that power to oppress and disenfranchise minorities though then is it still in the spirit of democracy for the rest of the country to abandon them to their oppressors? Even as far back as our civil war, "states rights" has been a screen for disenfranchising and dehumanizing minorities. The federal government is the only way we have to reign in those abuses. In today's world it's even more important when it comes to things like environmental regulation. Is it really democratic to allow states to pollute to their heart's content when the whole rest of the country, and even the world, has to suffer the consequences? It seems a little bit wild to compare the abortion question to the civil war. Looking at pew there are in many deep red states popular majorities opposing abortion, including like half of the women. It's not like 10 Republican supervillians are running around there, large amounts of people oppose abortion. Whether that's enlightened or not is a different question, but it's hardly undemocratic.
I brought up the civil war just as a reminder that the history of civil rights abuses being protected in the name of state autonomy goes way back. In those deep red states, how much representation do impoverished women of color have? They are the ones who will be most impacted by the bans. For decades they have already been systematically excluded from equal access to healthcare, education, and political power. I think that is sham of democracy and that it goes against the will of the majority of Americans.
Same with regulation, it's not even states rights. The federal government can equip agencies with more powers as I understand it, but that too should actually happen through the legislative. Sending every political issue to a court of nine people whose actual job is to decide constitutional questions doesn't seem right.
It's the government job on behalf of the people to give agencies powers and decide questions that concern how people want to live, not of the executive or the bureaucracy or the courts. Conservatives may advance that position because they're partisan hacks but they aren't wrong.
I'm not sure I understand your meaning here, and I may be out of my depth even entering this discussion in this first place. I agree that ideally the legislature should reflect of the will of the people and write laws accordingly. But it doesn't seem capable of doing that anymore. If the result of correcting the imbalance you speak of is a massive loss of civil rights and federal regulations that keep us safe then it seems like quite an empty victory.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26742 Posts
On July 02 2022 06:52 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2022 06:38 Starlightsun wrote:On July 01 2022 14:39 Nyxisto wrote:On July 01 2022 12:56 NewSunshine wrote:On July 01 2022 11:53 plasmidghost wrote:On July 01 2022 10:53 Gahlo wrote:
I'm with... I think it was Plasmid? I don't see democracy going past 2025 on our current trajectory. Shit at this point I don't think it'll survive past next summer if the SC rules that the state legislatures can do whatever they want for elections. Moore v Harper is going to be the case that will sunset America I think such a ruling having that effect would require there to be no crisis of faith in the Supreme Court as a good faith actor at all, when it's looking kind of inevitable from where I'm sitting. Having an unpopular and undemocratic judicial body rattling off one deeply unpopular ruling after another and sinking freedoms left and right to enact the agenda of a radical minority is eroding people's trust in it as an institution. And the court only has as much legitimacy as people give it. On policy I think most of these developments are shitty but I honestly find the argument confused that the court is acting undemocratically. Most of these recent decisions seem to follow the logic of returning powers back to state legislatives and that is if anything a democratic move. If those states use that power to oppress and disenfranchise minorities though then is it still in the spirit of democracy for the rest of the country to abandon them to their oppressors? Even as far back as our civil war, "states rights" has been a screen for disenfranchising and dehumanizing minorities. The federal government is the only way we have to reign in those abuses. In today's world it's even more important when it comes to things like environmental regulation. Is it really democratic to allow states to pollute to their heart's content when the whole rest of the country, and even the world, has to suffer the consequences? It seems a little bit wild to compare the abortion question to the civil war. Looking at pew there are in many deep red states popular majorities opposing abortion, including like half of the women. It's not like 10 Republican supervillians are running around there, large amounts of people oppose abortion. Whether that's enlightened or not is a different question, but it's hardly undemocratic. Same with regulation, it's not even states rights. The federal government can equip agencies with more powers as I understand it, but that too should actually happen through the legislative. Sending every political issue to a court of nine people whose actual job is to decide constitutional questions doesn't seem right. It's the government job on behalf of the people to give agencies powers and decide questions that concern how people want to live, not of the executive or the bureaucracy or the courts. Conservatives may advance that position because they're partisan hacks but they aren't wrong.
Sure as long as the federal legislative branch isn’t basically completely hamstrung and non-functioning.
Which leaves you cramming things through the executive branch via executive orders or legislating via the Supreme Court.
The checks and balances in the system were built in for inter-state disagreement, to prevent Constitutional rights being infringed no matter how popular etc.
They weren’t built in for intransigence’s sake. The filibuster for example had a good reason to exist, but was wielded in extremis as opposed to well, all the time.
|
@Newsunshine "That percentage always drops when you ask if they're in favor of outright banning abortions, too." This is true, It so also true that if you ask people do they prefer some restriction on abortion vs unlimited till just before birth, the vast majority do favor some restriction. Usually at least in most countries the line is some specific amount of week's that has been argued over.
So just to say, you are correct if you ask the question that way, its true, most people don't favor zero abortion laws.
|
@husyelt just replying to your post from the last page with the Liz Cheney video. That is pretty funny not gonna lie those poor people seem a little(to say the least) out of their element. From what I've heard she is pretty much a lame duck at this point but watching that is a bit of a yikes haha maybe her goose isn't cooked.
|
On July 02 2022 10:49 Taelshin wrote:
@Newsunshine "That percentage always drops when you ask if they're in favor of outright banning abortions, too." This is true, It so also true that if you ask people do they prefer some restriction on abortion vs unlimited till just before birth, the vast majority do favor some restriction. Usually at least in most countries the line is some specific amount of week's that has been argued over.
So just to say, you are correct if you ask the question that way, its true, most people don't favor zero abortion laws.
Absolutely, there is a line that can be drawn as to where you limit abortion, and that question will divide folks a lot more for various reasons, since it enters a bit more of a subjective realm. However, if you boil it down to a yes or no question, you start to see a much broader agreement that it is a necessary, desired right to have. Basically, everyone who comes back and says 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 18 weeks or 24 weeks is ultimately in favor of the right to abortion, whereas the folks who think it should be outlawed completely are in a minority.
Unfortunately, many states pulled trigger laws that were set to take effect if Roe were ever to be overturned, creating near-total bans on abortion. Many don't even leave exceptions for rape, incest, or medical emergency. And even for the states that do have those exceptions, that still isn't nearly good enough. If someone's body is a necessary requirement for another life to be created or saved or what have you, the person making the sacrifice should have absolute say in whether their consent is being provided. In the states with trigger laws currently in effect, their consent has been stricken from the equation.
|
|
|
On July 01 2022 22:40 Introvert wrote:
But these are Democrats, they spent so many decades used to thr courts slowly going their way that now that it's tilted the other way it's illegitimate.
The Republican Party have controlled the Supreme Court since Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall thirty years ago.
On July 02 2022 10:16 WombaT wrote:
They weren’t built in for intransigence’s sake. The filibuster for example had a good reason to exist, but was wielded in extremis as opposed to well, all the time.
The filibuster isn't built into the Constitution. The Senate gets to decide its own procedural rules, and can repeal the sixty-vote requirement for cloture with a simple majority.
|
On July 02 2022 11:19 plasmidghost wrote:
I will add my thoughts to the following tweets:
Doctors in any state now are abandoning their patients by refusing to prescribe abortifacents for other life-threatening reasons.
...
The biggest reason I went from being ready and willing to fight to the death one week ago to recognizing and accepting that I need to get the fuck out of the US as soon as possible is because of this. People in positions of power in blue states could fight for their residents, patients, etc., but are instead immediately falling in line with the most extreme fascist rulings without any additional pressure whatsoever. They've complied in advance and the United States will fall to fascism. There is no hope for the future of this country.
...
I will note that apparently Methotrexate and other similar drugs are being banned, but only when it's a woman. A man apparently still has no obstacles obtaining those exact same medications that can maybe, potentially cause an abortion. Because they can't possibly use it to short the domestic supply of infants, I'm sure. The chilling effect we could see coming a mile off is making it way sticker than just "BUT THE STATES WILL DECIDE".
The Supreme Court set a tone, and a current that's tugging on the entire nation. We are waging an open war on women. There is no trust or respect given to them, and like a child, anything they could conceivably use to get an abortion has to be outlawed, regardless of all the collateral damage that will inevitably come of it. They have no privacy anymore, no autonomy, and even people who are not pregnant will be killed.
I suspect the collateral damage is exactly the point. I really don't want to hear anyone describe themselves as "pro-life" anymore. Their actions are bringing nothing but sickness, pain, destitution, oppression, and death. My fuckin' ass.
|
Y'all are having a goddamn hallucination. Getting high off the fantasy of protecting life, no matter the cost. It especially doesn't matter if a bunch of living, breathing women have to suffer and die for your delusions of righteousness.
But Republicans were really offended that people saw through their shit and called them anti-woman, so that's the real problem here. Their feelings got hurt. Not the fact that they're killing and oppressing women with policies that have been demonstrated for decades to have no net benefit to society whatsoever. Fuck. That kick y'all get when you put an entire segment of the population over a fucking barrel must feel better than a hundred orgasms.
|
On July 02 2022 14:04 NewSunshine wrote:
Y'all are having a goddamn hallucination. Getting high off the fantasy of protecting life, no matter the cost. It especially doesn't matter if a bunch of living, breathing women have to suffer and die for your delusions of righteousness.
But Republicans were really offended that people saw through their shit and called them anti-woman, so that's the real problem here. Their feelings got hurt. Not the fact that they're killing and oppressing women with policies that have been demonstrated for decades to have no net benefit to society whatsoever. Fuck. That kick y'all get when you put an entire segment of the population over a fucking barrel must feel better than a hundred orgasms.
I hear that but have you considered ignoring all the horrific ramifications of the USA slipping into third world rights situation and being controlled by a theocratic court that wants to control and punish women, instead gas prices are slightly higher so vote Republican?
|
Northern Ireland26742 Posts
On July 02 2022 11:19 plasmidghost wrote:
I will add my thoughts to the following tweets:
Doctors in any state now are abandoning their patients by refusing to prescribe abortifacents for other life-threatening reasons.
The biggest reason I went from being ready and willing to fight to the death one week ago to recognizing and accepting that I need to get the fuck out of the US as soon as possible is because of this. People in positions of power in blue states could fight for their residents, patients, etc., but are instead immediately falling in line with the most extreme fascist rulings without any additional pressure whatsoever. They've complied in advance and the United States will fall to fascism. There is no hope for the future of this country.
This just smacks of a lack of balls and common sense. Basically anything is an abortifacient if you try hard enough. Gasoline, guns, beer…
It’s less their resistance is lacking as they’re acquiescing before any pressure is applied.
|
On July 02 2022 21:31 WombaT wrote:
Gasoline, guns, beer…
I mean, those are basically the three pillars of Texas' existence.
|
|
|
Stress can cause an abortion. Better be nice to those pregnant ladies, or Texas is coming for you!
What about contraception being on the table? They said there will be a ruling during the next terms. Who in their right mind wants to live in a world where contraceptives are forbidden?
|
On July 02 2022 23:12 r00ty wrote:
Stress can cause an abortion. Better be nice to those pregnant ladies, or Texas is coming for you!
What about contraception being on the table? They said there will be a ruling during the next terms. Who in their right mind wants to live in a world where contraceptives are forbidden?
Somebody whose social/monetary status is high enough to protect them from rules and laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
