|
Harold Fjord posted:Agreed. That's not really the issue. Abortion is going away, that's locked in. The issue is if the final decision, like the draft decision, completely destroys the right to privacy. Roberts has said he wants a more narrowly tailored decision that allows states to ban abortion while still saying that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. That would be bad, but it would still leave the right to privacy as a thing that theoretically exists. If the final decision is like the draft, then it's the most important and sweeping SCOTUS decision of our lifetimes. Historians will talk about "The Dobbs Era" the way we talk about the Lochner Era now.
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm pretty confused here. You're saying that the Democratic Party has immense power to singlehandedly create unfavorable news coverage for things, or even keep subjects out of the news entirely...and then you're asking why the Dems aren't using that ability right now? when the democrats genuinely wish to stop something from happening, they will use all the tools at their disposal to prevent it from happening. even if they ultimately fail. all the talk about sensible, pragmatic compromise goes out the window, in the name of accomplishing the party's goals. when he thought he needed primary voters in Wisconsin, Joe Biden went on national TV to tell people they were safe to vote in person. what price a few deaths, to hold off the unthinkable. you have read Joe Biden's statement about what he will do, with his trifecta, to protect abortion rights. that is a statement from a man who was willing to, and did, kill his supporters in order to win the Wisconsin primary. saying 'welp, real shame, sure hope someone else does something about it.' the democratic party is not refusing to defend abortion rights out of pragmatic compromise. it is refusing to defend abortion rights because that is not one of its goals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
Grooglon posted:There was an entire megathread in D&D during the run-up to the 2020 election dedicated to the idea that voting is useless and electoralism is dead. Look, I'm not the one who read the morning news and immediately rushed to relitigate the 2016 Democratic primary process. That's other people's hair-trigger reaction, to which I am only responding.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:05
|
|
|
Hi all, understandably there were a ton of posts and reports overnight including some stuff that's probably going to eat probations when we have a chance to process all the reports. This is just a reminder that D&D rules still apply and as Koos announced yesterday we'll be issuing longer probations itt for folks that have already earned multiple probations here this year.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
Eiba posted:If you think the democrats are poo poo, primary them. If you have the gall to talk about loving primaries in 2022, after all the party has done, you either have been paying zero attention or you're an op. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
And now let the fund raising begin!quote:Emergency donation needed: Rush $35 to help elect pro-choice Democrats to the House and Senate in November who will codify Roe v Wade into national law! All donations QUADRUPLE MATCHED! You didn’t do it when Obama could have. Biden promised this too but you didn’t end the filibuster.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Hi all, understandably there were a ton of posts and reports overnight including some stuff that's probably going to eat probations when we have a chance to process all the reports. you should probably give the last 24 hours a bit of a lighter hand due to the high emotions.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:11
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:If you have the gall to talk about loving primaries in 2022, after all the party has done, you either have been paying zero attention or you're an op. per previous statements, it's 'paying zero attention'. sensible, tbh, paying attention to this poo poo is only good for getting people angry. what was it, the Buffalo mayoral race, where the dems reaction to being primaried from the left was to put their full backing behind the republican candidate? and Pelosi currently, actively backing an anti-abortion rep in Texas against his pro-choice counterpart, on the grounds that the first is closer aligned with her than the second?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:And now let the fund raising begin! Yeah I thought I finally put an end to the endless fundraising emails/texts by constantly telling them no, but I guess this morning made all that effort amount to jack poo poo since I got flooded with a bunch.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Obviously not the only or "most" decisive factor, but it was so close that there were a ton of decisive factors. In a society that actually functioned the way it should, I’m 100% in agreement with you. To be clear here, I have voted in every election that I’ve been legally able to, and always blue. I didn’t like Clinton very much. Still voted for her with bells on. Biden was the bottom choice of that list. Still voted for him and was very happy that he won. We delivered. They failed us, but that doesn’t matter. I got that this was at stake. And I’m a dude. That being said, court isn’t legitimate. Hasn’t been for a long time, but this is a final nail in the old coffin. The other side has no intentions of following the rule of law unless it’s the rule of law that they create. There is no justice system that is affective here anymore. Beyond all of that, climate change is going to end civilization as we know it in the next 50 to 80 years. (I’m being generous here, it’s going to be closer to 20 but will get worse and worse with people pretending it’s fine). The fact that the Republicans did an act of huge violence by overturning row, is being met with infighting by people who generally agree here, and that the mods have made it very clear that you can only have certain kinds of conversations about this none of which are actually effective since we continue to insist on playing by the rules they created shows again that the entire system is stupid and needs to be pulled out because it’s a rotten tree. But people aren’t hungry yet, or at least not enough of them. There are solutions that are effective but people will pearl clutch here if they are brought up, even as hypotheticals, even though on any larger scale, those are the most moral actions people could can take at this point. Instead, it will pass, liberals will donate, assholes will be smug about living in the “good states” and the comfy computer touches in here will continue to more or less be the meme from Chernobyl. “Not great, not terrible” while disproportionately poor people will die at much higher rates because it will effectively be legal to rape them and then force them to have your child. Also to the mods, a lighter hand here in this thread because people are legitimately upset versus getting more heavy handed would be the better approach, if you knew anything about de-escalation tactics. A heavy hand is just very cop like behavior. LionArcher fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:The Democrats love the filibuster so much that they'll happily sacrifice the lives of millions of women forced to die in childbirth or have their rapists' kid for it. Yeah, this is loving bullshit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/filibuster-vote-count/ Only two democratic senators are on the record wanting to protect it, the rest want it changed or eliminated completely.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:There is nothing contradictory about it. Even if this is true (although this argument is very bad at proving it, it's just begging the question and you've dodged questions about things like gerrymandering so the whole thing is full of holes), why does democracy stop in 2016? Why can't the people change their mind in 2020? Is it impossible for the public will to change, and if not why can't the government carry it out if your axiom that "the government carries out the popular will" is true? Kinda sounds like you're starting with a conclusion and working back from that, if the government can't get X done then it was the popular will not to do it, regardless of what the public actually wants or voted for or thought they were voting for E: could you define "popular will" for me because it seems to change all over the place on your argument. In 2016 getting one justice appointed was "popular will" but in 2020 getting one justice appointed is apparently not "popular will", what is popular will and how do you determine it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yeah, this is loving bullshit. Where does the power lie to change those two senators, then? What’s your analysis of who supports them, or what power structure enables them to be the lone holdouts? In my mind it’s just capital, and were it not for these two, two more would step up. Because preserving minority rule is more important to capital than abortion rights. More than gay marriage rights. More than a lot of things, we’ll find out soon enough.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
selec posted:Where does the power lie to change those two senators, then? The states in which they reside and the voters that choose to do so. Right now West Virginia voters are determining national policy limits. Capital helps keep in power or out of power, but voters can hold more power if they choose.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yeah, this is loving bullshit. Then it's time for the other 48 to finally yank some leashes. TGLT fucked around with this message at 18:24 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:you should probably give the last 24 hours a bit of a lighter hand due to the high emotions. That's kind of what I was intending to communicate. Koos Group announced longer probations around the same time the Roe news came out, I don't think it's the intention for that to apply to the overnight discussion necessarily.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not that your aunt isn't dumb or anything, but man writing off Trump as a joke candidate was a really dumb strategy for a campaign with a nominee as unpopular as Hillary. BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:If you have the gall to talk about loving primaries in 2022, after all the party has done, you either have been paying zero attention or you're an op. It's still the only lovely option we have that doesn't make things actively worse. You seem to be mistaking that statement as somehow justifying the status quo- as if the existence of tools to change things mean people just didn't try hard enough oh well. Nothing could be further from the truth. Things are incredibly lovely, and the fact that slamming our head against the corrupt and unfair primary system is our best shot is a recognition of just how much things suck. The reason I bring it up as a (lovely) option, is to contrast it to "just don't give them your vote" which is an apocalyptic option, given the nature of the Republicans and the structure of our government. Edit: I should add, as a slightly more optimistic note, that if lovely Dems are regularly primaried by serious challengers, even if those challengers don't win, it will "send a message," for whatever that's worth, that there are politically active people who aren't happy with the establishment. This will give the establishment incentive to course correct to the left. You may get more things like Kamala Harris trying (poorly) to court the left (briefly) after seeing Sanders relative success. I'm not saying that's a huge victory, but it's better than a 90s situation where Biden is proudly touting how hard on crime these supposed liberal democrats are. Eiba fucked around with this message at 18:30 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The states in which they reside and the voters that choose to do so. Right now West Virginia voters are determining national policy limits. Shouldn't the Democratic party be doing things to make sure their party isn't overwhelmingly controlled by voters from West Virginia since they're supposed to represent all of their voters?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
If there were 12 more dem senators, wouldn’t those 12 come from more conservative states? So wouldn’t it just be 12 more Joe Manchins? If so, what is the Democratic Party theory of changing this? How will getting more ‘moderate’ senators do anything? Is the idea that they’ll still appoint pro choice Supreme Court justices? Cause unless you pack the courts (unlikely with even more joe manchins in the senate), that’s a 40 year road, right?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Yeah, this is loving bullshit. If the party cannot or will not rein in two senators who are consistently obstructing the party's agenda, especially on extremely critical legislation that the majority of all Americans support, then the party deserves the blame. I'm sorry if you think that's unfair, but it is long past time to stop treating the Democratic Party like your favorite sports team.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Shouldn't the Democratic party be doing things to make sure their party isn't overwhelmingly controlled by voters from West Virginia since they're supposed to represent all of their voters? you'll need to provide detail about what that means before I can make an argument for or against it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:you'll need to provide detail about what that means before I can make an argument for or against it. I honestly don't know outside of the fact that if the voters of one party in one state can take this much outsized control and dictate national policy something is grossly wrong. If we accept that this is the voters fault things are grossly broken if so few voters can lead us to this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:29
|
|
|
selec posted:Interesting Twitter thread that explores the idea that it was a conservative who leaked the draft to shore up spines on the court. This explanation may be right, but it doesn't touch on Politico needing to take time to vet the story and protect their source. I forget who pointed it out, but someone mentioned that one of the reporters on this one, Alex Ward, is on their national security beat, and has previously reported on information sourced from classified briefings. Every other recent piece of his listed in his Politico bio is about Ukraine, but he was roped into working on this story, and experience with source protection is one explanation. Seems safe to assume that the reporters would've wanted to be very careful. I don't know that we can assume they were first contacted in April.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:If there were 12 more dem senators, wouldn’t those 12 come from more conservative states? So wouldn’t it just be 12 more Joe Manchins? Yeah this is something I've been asking for a while, how do we reconcile telling voters to elect 60 Democrats to the senate next time with also telling voters they have to accept pro-life Democratic nominees like Joe Manchin to get there Like I don't see any way that strategy could possibly end with protecting women's rights sooner than it will take for 2 Republican justices to die
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The states in which they reside and the voters that choose to do so. Right now West Virginia voters are determining national policy limits. You know voters don't literally control the actions of who they vote for, right? "If they choose" sounds like some vitctim blaming poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
The only way to force change before this decision is announced is probably to go as nuts as they did in Mexico on the Supreme Court during their abortion debate. These judges don’t fear for their jobs, nor do they fear public opinion, because decorum means we can’t camp out on ACB’s lawn for the next three months with torches. So what’s left? We pray we can elect enough Dems (a huge gamble) and then get them on board with a law (a further gamble) and until that happens we just consign women in red states to fleeing bounties for dealing with an ectopic pregnancy? So a good 8 years minimum of living with this new status quo (and increasingly worse in red states) seems to the be official Dem plan. Or you could look at what people in Mexico did. selec fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:That's not really the issue. Abortion is going away, that's locked in. The issue is if the final decision, like the draft decision, completely destroys the right to privacy. Expanding on this a bit, even if Roe is dead, there are other cases, most notably Griswold v. Connecticut, that spell out the existence of an implicit constitutional right to privacy. Alito's draft skirts any opinion on the right to privacy, explicitly shits on its relevance to things he does not like (abortion, consensual sexual acts, gay marriage), and then in one paragraph says "we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right." The argument is firmly originalist and the major problem is that regardless of what Alito says about implicit rights, the argument regarding how abortion is "fundamentally different" can be easily weaponized against anything that is criminalized.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Then it's time for the other 48 to finally snap some leashes. the leashes, sadly, are not designed to discipline the party's right. only its left. there are a host of tools for bringing recalcitrant lefties into compliance, whether it's Pelosi joining Trump in kicking off a tidal wave of racist abuse against the Squad for not unconditionally funding concentration camps, Biden leaning as hard as he can on the progressive caucus to get them to abandon all leverage for Build Back Better, or aparatchiks at Time's Up burying sexual assault allegations against the party's higher ups. but while theoretically nothing prevents the party from wielding similar instruments against its right, it is ideologically incapable of doing so. because if the democratic party ever disciplined its right, it might impede the free flow of capital, and that thought is far more existentially terrifying to the party and its backers than any number of back-alley abortions could ever be. and so, as a direct result, everyone capable of giving birth now joins everyone who doesn't pass the paper bag test when the ICE guy comes by, in the knowledge that the democrats consider them an acceptable sacrifice to preserve what REALLY matters. kind of Alito to leave us a teaser about who, as far as he's concerned, is next on the list.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I honestly don't know outside of the fact that if the voters of one party in one state can take this much outsized control and dictate national policy something is grossly wrong. If we accept that this is the voters fault things are grossly broken if so few voters can lead us to this. me neither  The Sean posted:You know voters don't literally control the actions of who they vote for, right? I said that can have more power than capital if they choose to, which I feel can be demonstrated by historical precedent. 'we're all victims of capital, and I'm blaming myself and you for it' is not the take I was going for. VitalSigns posted:Yeah this is something I've been asking for a while, how do we reconcile telling voters to elect 60 Democrats to the senate next time with also telling voters they have to accept pro-life Democratic nominees like Joe Manchin to get there
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Cimber posted:FWIW, the reason why Obamacare is still around is because of the filibuster. Nope. The reason it's still around is because they've already removed the parts they didn't like and it's basically just funnel of money into private business, which is their goal. They avoid the legislative blowback of killing it while still getting their voters what they wanted. If they had an upside to a full kill they would have demolished to do it. Willa or Leon posted an article the other day about how the GOP is pretty cool with the current state of the ACA, behind closed doors.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
selec posted:The only way to effect change before this decision is announced is probably to go as nuts as they did in Mexico on the Supreme Court during their abortion debate. First, you leak the decision, and people get mad, but say "oh, well, it's not the final decision, we should wait and see." Then you make the official decision, and there's already been six weeks of cooling off of the initial outrage. It's... kind of like... I dunno, I think this analogy sucks for a lot of reasons but it's kind of like Barr saying "Mueller report fully exonerates Trump!" blunting the impact of Mueller's report coming out a month later with a clear conclusion of "Trump did mad crimes, yo." I think at the very least we are going to see a huge (women's march-sized) demonstration and a lot of renewed enthusiasm for the midterms. But yeah, even with that, it'll take years to undo the damage of this decision, because we need to replace two bad judges with two good ones, and even our ability to do that, should Thomas or Alito kick off, is basically a matter of dumb luck in terms of who the president happens to be and how the senate happens to be composed... The best case is that this causes a huge backlash, enough for the Democrats to hold the house and get 52+ Senators, and they have enough will to break the filibuster to fix it immediately. But even that level of electoral success is hard to imagine, let alone Democrats wielding it effectively.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
This thread is going round and round but the reality is this more like this. https://twitter.com/vtradescant2/status/1521456974025613314?s=20&t=V-wT1u4kq95TLJ_yss-g9g
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:This thread is going round and round but the reality is this more like this. yeah, I'm on a conference call and I just want to scream at everyone "why arent you angry!"
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:If there were 12 more dem senators, wouldn’t those 12 come from more conservative states? So wouldn’t it just be 12 more Joe Manchins? If abortion is overwhelmingly popular nationally, then surely even conservative states would be able to nominate pro-choice senators (regardless of party!). Those conservative senators might break with the party on other issues, but that just goes back to the 20th-century view of senators being individual human beings with their own personal issue positions which align with the party on some issues but not all. This necessarily assumes a high level of voter support, though, which may not necessarily be the case. Gumball Gumption posted:I honestly don't know outside of the fact that if the voters of one party in one state can take this much outsized control and dictate national policy something is grossly wrong. If we accept that this is the voters fault things are grossly broken if so few voters can lead us to this. That's what democracy is. You get the policies that you can get a sufficient number of people to agree on, and no more. In reality, it's not like Manchin is personally dictating the limits of national policy. Collins or Murkowski or any other GOP senator could go vote with the Dems if they wanted to. The voters of Maine and Alaska are just as culpable as the voters of West Virginia. Not to mention the voters of Texas, Kentucky, Georgia, and so on.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm pretty confused here. You're saying that the Democratic Party has immense power to singlehandedly create unfavorable news coverage for things, or even keep subjects out of the news entirely...and then you're asking why the Dems aren't using that ability right now? Here's a good example of "not using that ability" by pointing out how some Republicans are the good ones, not like that baddie Trump, rather than promoting the idea of a strong opposition party to the Republicans: https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/1521327238993657857
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:yeah, I'm on a conference call and I just want to scream at everyone "why arent you angry!" Just do it. It's more important than whatever your work call is. Honestly, and this is to everyone in the thread, if you're not willing to chide your coworkers and talk politics to them the way you do here then your priorities are backwards and you should be doing more in the real world and less posting. Edit: especially if you're one of those people always asking for general strikes. A real general strike is everyone going "Jesus Christ I can't work while this is going on" and then trying to fix things. You're not going to get given permission to go on that general strike. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 3, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:42
|
|
|
Quorum posted:To bring it back to the current Court's incredibly dangerous course, the other way Congress has divested itself of policymaking responsibility has been by delegating to executive agencies, leaving them with the job of figuring out details. Along with the Supreme Court taking over as the arbiter of big political questions, the executive agencies taking a larger role as policymakers has helped to patch the decay of our political system. The Court's right wing has taken aim at, and appears likely to damage or eliminate, the principle of Chevron deference which makes that possible. The result in theory would be a Congress forced to take a more active role in policymaking, issuing much more specific instructions to agencies and updating them in response to changing circumstances. The result in practice (as the death cultists know) would be two totally gutted branches of government. Speaking of executive actions, now would be a great time to release an unedited version of the advisory memo to Biden on expanding scotus. eta: That is, if the administration wants to express a more robust desire than to sign legislation that comes to Biden's desk.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:43
|
|
|
At least Twitter is starting to realize that their saviors... aren't.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:47 |
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:And now let the fund raising begin! This is something I didn't think about when they were saying that donations will be matched, but now that they are offering x4 as much I have to ask, who is doing the "matching" here? I'm sure this is some sort of campaign finance dodge here but it's getting absolutely absurd.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2022 18:44
|
|
