|
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 |
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 01 2024 11:40 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
It also perfectly highlights why I'm more afraid of tyranny from the left than tyranny from the right. The people on the right have been pushing the same ideology for their entire existence and they are losing miserably. However there is something very weird that exists on the left, and you can see it from a handful of posters on this forum: They will literally believe anything as long as you tell them it's the new PC and virtuous thing to believe and will twist into pretzels to convince themselves it is rational. e.g. "You can't be racist against white people" or "the unvaccinated are responsible for the pandemic." The people pushing the really fucked up ideas, like hauling people off to camps or gulags belong to the latter group. The same old Jesus-freaks pushing their usual shit don't scare me at all.
Well yes if one fixates on the more lunatic fringe utterances of the left side of the aisle and generously interpret that which stems from mainstream, powerful figures on the other I can see why the former would be more worrying.
|
On August 01 2024 11:47 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 11:40 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
You don't have to agree with the argument, but let's not pretend you in any way showed it was false here.
That’s ok cause OP hasn’t in any way shown it was true
|
On August 01 2024 10:56 Severedevil wrote:The thirteenth amendment outlaws forced pregnancy except as punishment for a crime. Show nested quote +Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions.
Get back to me when a single judge anywhere endorses this absurd framing. This is exactly the policy-via-judges that we were just hearing is so bad. Talk about reading backwards into a text what you want it to say...
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 01 2024 08:05 Introvert wrote:
Term limits is actually not a terrible idea, but A) it requires and amendment, and B) it needs to be prospective only. Most of the complaints are obviously disingenuous. The left was all in favor of the Court making policy when they liked it. In fact their whole judicial philosophy or lackthereof is based on it. Roe was a decision of policy totally unmoored from the constitution, and it's the same decision thst caused SCOTUS approval to tank among dems. But even granting that, having a set rotation isn't a horrible idea, but the right isn't going to go along with it when it's simply a ploy to remove justices they worked so hard to get onto the court. Any dem who can't allow (B) is not being serious about what is possible.
What do you mean by prospective in this context just for clarification?
Agreed on both the disingenuousness at times, I mean I understand public figures having to give lip service to the sacred Constitution, but us regular Joes and Janes could be a bit more honest on what we think America’s institutions should actually do and how they should be constructed in contemporary times.
I agree with the spirit of Roe, I’ve always felt it was rather a stretch in its justification as regards the Constitution (not that I’m an expert), although we haven’t snapped back from judicial activism that leans leftwards, back towards strict constitutionalism, but to activism just in a different direction.
|
On August 01 2024 13:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 08:05 Introvert wrote:
Term limits is actually not a terrible idea, but A) it requires and amendment, and B) it needs to be prospective only. Most of the complaints are obviously disingenuous. The left was all in favor of the Court making policy when they liked it. In fact their whole judicial philosophy or lackthereof is based on it. Roe was a decision of policy totally unmoored from the constitution, and it's the same decision thst caused SCOTUS approval to tank among dems. But even granting that, having a set rotation isn't a horrible idea, but the right isn't going to go along with it when it's simply a ploy to remove justices they worked so hard to get onto the court. Any dem who can't allow (B) is not being serious about what is possible. What do you mean by prospective in this context just for clarification? Agreed on both the disingenuousness at times, I mean I understand public figures having to give lip service to the sacred Constitution, but us regular Joes and Janes could be a bit more honest on what we think America’s institutions should actually do and how they should be constructed in contemporary times. I agree with the spirit of Roe, I’ve always felt it was rather a stretch in its justification as regards the Constitution (not that I’m an expert), although we haven’t snapped back from judicial activism that leans leftwards, back towards strict constitutionalism, but to activism just in a different direction.
I mean that it can't apply to any current justices, and properly can't kick in until some time after its enactment, so no one knows who will be in the WH. It still has issues, including what to do if the Senate stalls, but in theory it could be done.
|
On August 01 2024 11:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 10:56 Severedevil wrote:The thirteenth amendment outlaws forced pregnancy except as punishment for a crime. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions. What's your argument here? That not allowing women to get an abortion is akin to enslaving them?
It's okay to read the entire sentence.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Forced pregnancy is a form of involuntary servitude. It's the state mandating that you, within your own body, create a baby for them over the next several months. I don't know why Roe relied more on the right to privacy than on the right to your own fucking body. I also don't know why privacy and bodily sovereignty are so objectionable. Like, why would you even want a constitution that didn't protect your privacy or your right to your body?
This is all irrelevant since it's the Supreme Court, not the text of the Constitution, that decides what the Constitution says. Want a right? Get five justices who do too. Want a right eliminated? Get five justices. Want a better system that's not shackled to the whims of a council of nine rulers-for-life? Better find five justices who agree.
|
On August 01 2024 14:02 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 11:11 BlackJack wrote:On August 01 2024 10:56 Severedevil wrote:The thirteenth amendment outlaws forced pregnancy except as punishment for a crime. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions. What's your argument here? That not allowing women to get an abortion is akin to enslaving them? It's okay to read the entire sentence. Show nested quote +Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Forced pregnancy is a form of involuntary servitude. It's the state mandating that you, within your own body, create a baby for them over the next several months. I don't know why Roe relied more on the right to privacy than on the right to your own fucking body. I also don't know why privacy and bodily sovereignty are so objectionable. Like, why would you even want a constitution that didn't protect your privacy or your right to your body? This is all irrelevant since it's the Supreme Court, not the text of the Constitution, that decides what the Constitution says. Want a right? Get five justices who do too. Want a right eliminated? Get five justices. Want a better system that's not shackled to the whims of a council of nine rulers-for-life? Better find five justices who agree.
Perhaps we should consider that the justices that decided Roe didn’t use your argument because they weren’t clever enough to think of it on their own. Well done.
|
I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 01 2024 13:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 13:10 WombaT wrote:On August 01 2024 08:05 Introvert wrote:
Term limits is actually not a terrible idea, but A) it requires and amendment, and B) it needs to be prospective only. Most of the complaints are obviously disingenuous. The left was all in favor of the Court making policy when they liked it. In fact their whole judicial philosophy or lackthereof is based on it. Roe was a decision of policy totally unmoored from the constitution, and it's the same decision thst caused SCOTUS approval to tank among dems. But even granting that, having a set rotation isn't a horrible idea, but the right isn't going to go along with it when it's simply a ploy to remove justices they worked so hard to get onto the court. Any dem who can't allow (B) is not being serious about what is possible. What do you mean by prospective in this context just for clarification? Agreed on both the disingenuousness at times, I mean I understand public figures having to give lip service to the sacred Constitution, but us regular Joes and Janes could be a bit more honest on what we think America’s institutions should actually do and how they should be constructed in contemporary times. I agree with the spirit of Roe, I’ve always felt it was rather a stretch in its justification as regards the Constitution (not that I’m an expert), although we haven’t snapped back from judicial activism that leans leftwards, back towards strict constitutionalism, but to activism just in a different direction. I mean that it can't apply to any current justices, and properly can't kick in until some time after its enactment, so no one knows who will be in the WH. It still has issues, including what to do if the Senate stalls, but in theory it could be done.
Ah yes, aye that makes sense
|
United States43229 Posts
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote:
I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
It’s simply the violinist metaphor, a very common abortion argument. You cannot be compelled to give up your body for 9 months to save the life of another. We’re all agreed upon that. This isn’t a new argument, it’s a very old very common one and I’m not sure why people are pretending they haven’t heard of it.
Google violinist abortion.
|
On August 01 2024 14:33 Salazarz wrote:
I'm very left-leaning in general, and fully support women's right to abortions in just about every imaginable case, but the claim that carrying a pregnancy to term equals to slavery / involuntary servitude is just insane to me. It's in this sort of uncanny valley of logical reasonings where if I squint hard enough I can almost sort of see the connection, and that just makes the entire thing even more appalling and uncomfortable than if it simply was something dumb and unreasonable like it often is the case with, say, Trumpist lines of 'reasoning.'
Carrying a pregnancy to term isn't involuntary servitude. Planting tobacco and picking cotton aren't involuntary servitude either. They only become so when you're forced to do them against your will. Is your objection that forced pregnancy isn't forced servitude because pregnancy isn't service? Pregnancy certainly can be. Surrogates are commonly paid tens of thousands of dollars for their service, which is an amount comparable to a year's wages.
On August 01 2024 14:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 14:02 Severedevil wrote:On August 01 2024 11:11 BlackJack wrote:On August 01 2024 10:56 Severedevil wrote:The thirteenth amendment outlaws forced pregnancy except as punishment for a crime. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. However, the U.S. Constitution has no authority in the United States, since the Supreme Court has always 'interpreted' it to mean whatever they please. Turns out you shouldn't let a council of nine rule your country for life, even if they occasionally make sane decisions. What's your argument here? That not allowing women to get an abortion is akin to enslaving them? It's okay to read the entire sentence. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Forced pregnancy is a form of involuntary servitude. It's the state mandating that you, within your own body, create a baby for them over the next several months. I don't know why Roe relied more on the right to privacy than on the right to your own fucking body. I also don't know why privacy and bodily sovereignty are so objectionable. Like, why would you even want a constitution that didn't protect your privacy or your right to your body? This is all irrelevant since it's the Supreme Court, not the text of the Constitution, that decides what the Constitution says. Want a right? Get five justices who do too. Want a right eliminated? Get five justices. Want a better system that's not shackled to the whims of a council of nine rulers-for-life? Better find five justices who agree. Perhaps we should consider that the justices that decided Roe didn’t use your argument because they weren’t clever enough to think of it on their own. Well done.
Again, the content of the argument is window dressing in the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter whose argument has a firmer Constitutional foundation. What matters is who has the votes. Seven justices ruled that people have certain rights in Roe, because seven justices wanted that outcome. Fifty years later, six justices ruled that no people do not have those rights, because six justices wanted that outcome.
|
Norway28707 Posts
Yes, I am a huge supporter of abortion and even though not being allowed to terminate pregnancies constitutes a lack of bodily autonomy and lack of freedom, it is not slavery.
IF pregancies were forced, sure. Now, the idea that people should only have sex if they are willing to be parents is a very stupid idea to maintain in a world where prevention is accessible and where abortions can be had if one is unfortunate, but there is still a world of difference between forced pregnancy and making prevention hard to access/making abortion illegal.
|
On August 01 2024 15:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes, I am a huge supporter of abortion and even though not being allowed to terminate pregnancies constitutes a lack of bodily autonomy and lack of freedom, it is not slavery.
IF pregancies were forced, sure. Now, the idea that people should only have sex if they are willing to be parents is a very stupid idea to maintain in a world where prevention is accessible and where abortions can be had if one is unfortunate, but there is still a world of difference between forced pregnancy and making prevention hard to access/making abortion illegal.
Suppose you discover that you are pregnant, and you decide, two months into pregnancy, that you want to stop being pregnant. Now suppose your government prohibits you from ending your pregnancy, and forces you to carry to term. Those first two months weren't a forced pregnancy. The remaining seven months are.
|
On August 01 2024 12:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 11:40 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
It also perfectly highlights why I'm more afraid of tyranny from the left than tyranny from the right. The people on the right have been pushing the same ideology for their entire existence and they are losing miserably. However there is something very weird that exists on the left, and you can see it from a handful of posters on this forum: They will literally believe anything as long as you tell them it's the new PC and virtuous thing to believe and will twist into pretzels to convince themselves it is rational. e.g. "You can't be racist against white people" or "the unvaccinated are responsible for the pandemic." The people pushing the really fucked up ideas, like hauling people off to camps or gulags belong to the latter group. The same old Jesus-freaks pushing their usual shit don't scare me at all.
Well yes if one fixates on the more lunatic fringe utterances of the left side of the aisle and generously interpret that which stems from mainstream, powerful figures on the other I can see why the former would be more worrying.
I’ll concede that if I were a woman in Texas in need of an abortion my outlook on what I find threatening would be different than as a man living under batshit leftist policies in the SF Bay Area.
But I dispute the idea that only the lunatic fringe supports these ideas. Justin Trudeau said of the unvaccinated “we have to ask ourselves, should we tolerate these people?” Meriam-Webster dictionary decided to change their definition of racism in 2020 shortly after the George Floyd killing.
Or you can look at the hemming and hawing by the Ivy League Presidents who couldn’t answer whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the rules of student conduct on their campuses. I’m fairly certain they would have said calling for the genocide of trans people would have violated their student code of conduct. It’s just not as en vogue to defend Jews against hate speech as it is to defend trans people against hate speech, at least among a certain crowd. Thus they fell in line. This is the kind of creepy stuff that I find most unsettling.
|
On August 01 2024 15:34 Severedevil wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 15:27 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yes, I am a huge supporter of abortion and even though not being allowed to terminate pregnancies constitutes a lack of bodily autonomy and lack of freedom, it is not slavery.
IF pregancies were forced, sure. Now, the idea that people should only have sex if they are willing to be parents is a very stupid idea to maintain in a world where prevention is accessible and where abortions can be had if one is unfortunate, but there is still a world of difference between forced pregnancy and making prevention hard to access/making abortion illegal. Suppose you discover that you are pregnant, and you decide, two months into pregnancy, that you want to stop being pregnant. Now suppose your government prohibits you from ending your pregnancy, and forces you to carry to term. Those first two months weren't a forced pregnancy. The remaining seven months are.
Interesting… what are your thoughts on deadbeat fathers being forced to pay child support? The fruits of their labor being pried from their hands to give to a baby mama they want nothing to do with? Sounds like involuntary servitude to me.
Or what about taxes? The government taking half of my paycheck? Fuck that noise. What am I, a slave working for “the man”?
|
I think it is sad that abortion has become such a huge political topic in the first place. Abortion laws change in Europe too, but parties rarely make campaigns about it. A couple of weeks back and forth etc. is usually decided by medical reasons, not moral.
What puzzles me is how little Christian Conservatives in the US care about the unwanted babies once they are born. If if it really important to force poor teenage mothers to carry their child they got through a youth mistake, you need to pair it with a safety net for both her and they baby after birth. I have never seen that talked about. "Freakonomics" even pointed out a strong correlation between relaxed abortion laws and a drop in crime about 20 years later. "Life" only matters inside a womb.
|
Actions have consequences.
As a german I like to have more sex and more bureaucracy.. there should be a form to fill out.
Hetero intercourse Form 0815
Date:
Time:
Location:
Multiple Intercourse
Start Date - End Date.
A possible pregnancy
Should be carried out []
Should get terminated within the limits of current law []
Custody of the child will go
To the mother []
To the father []
Both parents equally []
Child will be available for adoption []
In case of seperation Child support will be paid
By the father [] add electronic Tax identification number (eTIN):_______________________
By the mother [] add electronic Tax identification number (eTIN):_______________________
If you don't have a eTIN, your parents need to sign this form.
.......
...
...
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 01 2024 15:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2024 12:48 WombaT wrote:On August 01 2024 11:40 BlackJack wrote:
The problem with that argument is that we already know what slavery is and it's not that. It's just a really bizarre argument.
It also perfectly highlights why I'm more afraid of tyranny from the left than tyranny from the right. The people on the right have been pushing the same ideology for their entire existence and they are losing miserably. However there is something very weird that exists on the left, and you can see it from a handful of posters on this forum: They will literally believe anything as long as you tell them it's the new PC and virtuous thing to believe and will twist into pretzels to convince themselves it is rational. e.g. "You can't be racist against white people" or "the unvaccinated are responsible for the pandemic." The people pushing the really fucked up ideas, like hauling people off to camps or gulags belong to the latter group. The same old Jesus-freaks pushing their usual shit don't scare me at all.
Well yes if one fixates on the more lunatic fringe utterances of the left side of the aisle and generously interpret that which stems from mainstream, powerful figures on the other I can see why the former would be more worrying. I’ll concede that if I were a woman in Texas in need of an abortion my outlook on what I find threatening would be different than as a man living under batshit leftist policies in the SF Bay Area. But I dispute the idea that only the lunatic fringe supports these ideas. Justin Trudeau said of the unvaccinated “we have to ask ourselves, should we tolerate these people?” Meriam-Webster dictionary decided to change their definition of racism in 2020 shortly after the George Floyd killing. Or you can look at the hemming and hawing by the Ivy League Presidents who couldn’t answer whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the rules of student conduct on their campuses. I’m fairly certain they would have said calling for the genocide of trans people would have violated their student code of conduct. It’s just not as en vogue to defend Jews against hate speech as it is to defend trans people against hate speech, at least among a certain crowd. Thus they fell in line. This is the kind of creepy stuff that I find most unsettling.
Apparently Merriam-Webster did not do that, granted I didn’t do much digging beyond checking their currently listed definition and a brief Google around it.
I think Trudeau’s question is a reasonable question, albeit not one I really think has any particularly easy answer. It’s not one of my favourite topics, indeed one of my all-time least favourite ones, due to most largely dodging the difficult central questions, changing circumstances and knowledge and lining up into rather myopic camps. Of which in my limited exposure to his utterances and policy it does appear Trudeau definitely fits into one of those tribes, so yeah point taken in that respect.
Can’t really argue against the Ivy League example either, but in a wider sense a rather large proportion of stories about crazy lefties are intentional ragebait designed to induce that feeling of threat, often extremely disingenuously presented. Versus people proposing actual impactful legislation, introducing it and sometimes succeeding.
And yeah we do have our own personal existences and locales, as well as connections to wider contexts. I was talking more of the wider society, US-wide, or indeed increasingly Europe-wide increasing prevalence of certain forms of right wing populism (which I personally distinguish from your more ‘classic’ conservatism incidentally).
Fair enough that will vary a lot between a worry for one’s own station or personal value set, or concerns for wider society and whether it’s couched in a locale like San Francisco versus elsewhere, or the county at larger
|
|
|
On August 01 2024 16:32 Slydie wrote:
I think it is sad that abortion has become such a huge political topic in the first place. Abortion laws change in Europe too, but parties rarely make campaigns about it. A couple of weeks back and forth etc. is usually decided by medical reasons, not moral.
What puzzles me is how little Christian Conservatives in the US care about the unwanted babies once they are born. If if it really important to force poor teenage mothers to carry their child they got through a youth mistake, you need to pair it with a safety net for both her and they baby after birth. I have never seen that talked about. "Freakonomics" even pointed out a strong correlation between relaxed abortion laws and a drop in crime about 20 years later. "Life" only matters inside a womb. This has always been my issue with the 'pro-life' movement in the US.
I can understand being pro life. but surely if life is so important to you then you should support further protecting that life once they are born. In my eyes a pro life person should be heavily in favour of social safety nets and support to ensure that the oh so important life can flourish.
The fact that apparently a lot of the US pro life crowd stops giving two shits about the child the second it leaves the womb makes me question why they care so much about babies being forced into the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
