|
Harold Fjord posted:That Dem tweet is mphasizing for low info people that the supreme Court did not actually ban abortion in any state yet Yeah, they're basically just saying "if you have an appointment, keep it."
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Killer robot posted:And that part was only possible, even with blatantly biased results from conservative courts, because of a tiny Republican margin in the initial vote. A handful of votes in the other direction would have massively changed the game, even if it did no more than reverse the ratio of the initial count. As it was we got a situation where the initial count very narrowly favored Bush, immediately narrowing the Gore victory path to both "get a recount" and "hope that recount gives a different result." So now you're blaming the voters for letting it be close, but you're still fundamentally blaming the voters for what scotus did.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:We let something like hair covering slide because there is no "americans must cover their hair" lobby or groups of any consequence, there is no national conversation on hair covering, there is no harmful, regressive group of people of any scale or impact that is out there calling for covering hair, and there are not 50 years of recent history of women being forced to cover their hair on pain of death. They are not comparable. A more apt comparison might be Hasidic Jewish communities rather than modern Islam.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I understand why you're using hyperbole to stretch the point, but you're missing it. I'd say they are two separate things, though. Pelosi and Clyburn are showing with that action that they value incumbency and good relations among members more than the general concept of unity on the issue of abortion. Pelosi and Clyburn have both spoken extremely passionately about their personal beliefs regarding abortion and how Pelosi is directly impacted by it. Despite that, I would say that Kaine is not damaging the political cause of abortion in any real way by voting 100% pro-choice, endorsing pro-choice candidates and policies, and saying he will fight for abortion rights, but would personally never ask his wife to get one. Pelosi and Clyburn are causing actual potential political damage (even though it is relatively small in this instance, but it adds up) and not just optics with their actions. It also shows where their values lie on a priority list. Whereas Kaine has not done anything in federal office to cause potential political damage to the goal of the movement. I think it would be weird to say that Kaine is hurting the political movement (and not just hurting it, but "massively damaging" and "actually setting back bodily autonomy") relative to Pelosi and Clyburn in this situation.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I understand why you're using hyperbole to stretch the point, but you're missing it. You can think abortion is wrong or evil, but that the government shouldn't have the right to stop somebody from doing it. I think Nazism and Communism are evil, but I don't think the government should ban being a Nazi or a Communist. I think smoking is an evil, but I don't think the government should ban smoking.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:You can think abortion is wrong or evil, but that the government shouldn't have the right to stop somebody from doing it. I think Nazism and Communism are evil, but I don't think the government should ban being a Nazi or a Communist. I think smoking is an evil, but I don't think the government should ban smoking. Nazism and communism are things you believe. Abortion is a thing you do. They are not remotely comparable in the way you are framing them here. Baronash fucked around with this message at 17:34 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
small butter posted:anti-abortion is based on religious dogma, which is not so much the case with interracial marriage. Bad news about the kind dominionists we’re dealing with
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:You can think abortion is wrong or evil, but that the government shouldn't have the right to stop somebody from doing it. I think Nazism and Communism are evil, but I don't think the government should ban being a Nazi or a Communist. I think smoking is an evil, but I don't think the government should ban smoking. What I'm pointing out is that Dems' accepting framing that abortion is wrong or evil--but sometimes a necessary evil--doesn't effectively counter the message that "killing babies is wrong"; rather, it buys into the message, then attempts to justify it. As I and others have pointed out, this wouldn't be acceptable when talking about, say, gay marriage. No current Dem politician would say "I believe in my heart, because of my religion, that marriage is between a man and a woman"--as Obama said in 2008--because we realize now that framing bigotry as a personal or religious choice is stupid & wrong, and worthy of being publicly mocked, as happens when a GOP politician says it. It shouldn't be any different when it comes to abortion.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:22
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Bad news about the kind dominionists we’re dealing with Right! This is just ignorant of history: many of the arguments against interracial marriage were biblical in their sourcing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:31
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What I'm pointing out is that Dems' accepting framing that abortion is wrong or evil--but sometimes a necessary evil--doesn't effectively counter the message that "killing babies is wrong"; rather, it buys into the message, then attempts to justify it. You're setting up an impossible situation here, though, for pro-choice Democrats who think abortion is wrong. Because they're a thing. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and both my parents were pro-choice Democrats who didn't believe in abortion What should they do, then? Leave the party? Abandon their beliefs? Stay in there, but just don't run for office, of if they do, lie about what they believe?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:You're setting up an impossible situation here, though, for pro-choice Democrats who think abortion is wrong. Because they're a thing. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and both my parents were pro-choice Democrats who didn't believe in abortion What should they do, then? Leave the party? Abandon their beliefs? Stay in there, but just don't run for office, of if they do, lie about what they believe? Yeah, it’s quite possible to be a Dem but not be the right fit to run for office, what’s controversial about that to you?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
In Obama's own words, protecting body autonomy just was not a legislative priority. That's a natural consequence of a party whose leadership are filled with people whose position on abortion "evolved" as a matter of political necessity. This contrasts directly with the GOPs apostasy on the issue. Its no surprise that the political party that was willing to enforce a standard on the issue has accomplished its political goals.Epicurius posted:You're setting up an impossible situation here, though, for pro-choice Democrats who think abortion is wrong. Because they're a thing. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and both my parents were pro-choice Democrats who didn't believe in abortion What should they do, then? Leave the party? Abandon their beliefs? Stay in there, but just don't run for office, of if they do, lie about what they believe? Those Democrats should not run for office, they should not be the leaders of the party, they should not be the people who are entrusted to defend the right of women's body autonomy. Why is that so unreasonable? Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 17:37 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:You're setting up an impossible situation here, though, for pro-choice Democrats who think abortion is wrong. Because they're a thing. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and both my parents were pro-choice Democrats who didn't believe in abortion What should they do, then? Leave the party? Abandon their beliefs? Stay in there, but just don't run for office, of if they do, lie about what they believe? Your parents should not choose or be chosen to represent the political party that touts its ostensible support for bodily autonomy, just as someone who states a personal animus to gay marriage would be (rightfully) drummed out of the party today. Your parents are otherwise free to believe, and practice their beliefs, in any ways that don't impede other people's rights.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Those Democrats should not run for office, they should not be the leaders of the party, they should not be the people who are entrusted to defend the right of women's body autonomy. Why is that so unreasonable? So, it would have been better for the pro-choice movement if Ted Kennedy (who had a 100% record of advocating for pro-choice policies and causes, but said he personally opposed it because he was a Catholic), lost to Mitt Romney who passionately told a story about how he was pro-choice because of a family member's dilemma and he helped her get treatment, so he knew in his heart that abortion was a right? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:You're setting up an impossible situation here, though, for pro-choice Democrats who think abortion is wrong. Because they're a thing. Trust me, I was raised Catholic, and both my parents were pro-choice Democrats who didn't believe in abortion What should they do, then? Leave the party? Abandon their beliefs? Stay in there, but just don't run for office, of if they do, lie about what they believe? Actually yes, I would suggest that they abandon their belief, and not hide behind "Catholic teachings" they were already fundamentally at odds with.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
The old classic "actually the only two possibilities ever are a bad democrat or a worse republican, better outcomes just aren't possible"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:So now you're blaming the voters for letting it be close, but you're still fundamentally blaming the voters for what scotus did. This just in: biased systems and institutional power make elections to one degree or another unfair! That sucks. We should change them. And yet those biases and manipulations, legal and not, are seldom decisive and frequently are overwhelmed by numbers. Regardless of what literal or metaphorical crime SCOTUS committed, relatively apathetic voters in a statistical tie were an absolute prerequisite to them pulling it off, as shown by the many upset elections that aren't decided in the courts. Like that's incredibly simple stuff, and I find it hard to justify a discussion of election results that wholly dismisses, like, actual votes and how close they are unless "give up, go home" is the argument being made.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
selec posted:Yeah, it’s quite possible to be a Dem but not be the right fit to run for office, what’s controversial about that to you? Because I think there's a reasonably large segment of the Democratic party who thinks that abortion is wrong but should stay legal, and I think that the elected leadership's positions should reflect the positions of the party as a whole.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:The old classic "actually the only two possibilities ever are a bad democrat or a worse republican, better outcomes just aren't possible" In what ways did Ted Kennedy achieve the goals of the pro-life political agenda or hamper the political goals of the pro-choice agenda so much that he qualifies as "a bad Democrat" on the issue?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:44
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Because I think there's a reasonably large segment of the Democratic party who thinks that abortion is wrong but should stay legal, and I think that the elected leadership's positions should reflect the positions of the party as a whole. Perhaps those people could be persuaded out of their hypocritical reasoning if the party leaders weren't repeating the same tripe.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:So, it would have been better for the pro-choice movement if Ted Kennedy (who had a 100% record of advocating for pro-choice policies and causes, but said he personally opposed it because he was a Catholic), lost to Mitt Romney who passionately told a story about how he was pro-choice because of a family member's dilemma and he helped her get treatment, so he knew in his heart that abortion was a right? Clearly yes. The policies someone supports is clearly less important than what they actually believe. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
small butter posted:So, why are we letting this slide? Why are we letting men and women be segregated into those with exposed hair and those with covered hair, which is completely based on patriarchy? The answer is because we have to respect religion, even if you're like me who thinks that all religion is garbage. Having personal beliefs about abortion falls into this category. As long as Omar is not calling for laws that force women to cover their hair, and Kaine is not calling for laws that ban abortion, this is within the bounds of what we should see as acceptable for politicians. (And we do, because religion.) Kaine literally pushed for and signed laws to restrict women from getting abortions though so I don't get why you're treating these two people as the same when they are not, unless Omar has been up to something I'm not aware of feels kinda Islamophobic to keep harping on her when she hasn't done anything E: and yeah for the record if Governor Omar had instituted 24-hour waiting periods for women drives or whatever I'd also be agreeing that she'd have no business on a presidential ticket for a party supposedly running on women's rights VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:03 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In what ways did Ted Kennedy achieve the goals of the pro-life political agenda or hamper the political goals of the pro-choice agenda so much that he qualifies as "a bad Democrat" on the issue? quote:In Obama's own words, protecting body autonomy just was not a legislative priority. That's a natural consequence of a party whose leadership are filled with people whose position on abortion "evolved" as a matter of political necessity. This contrasts directly with the GOPs apostasy on the issue. Its no surprise that the political party that was willing to enforce a standard on the issue has accomplished its political goals. The results of a party full of people who wouldn't vote against abortion, but are not invested enough to actively defended are that you lose to the party that is consistently driven by the issue. If only there was a recent event that could bring that reality into sharp contrast... Epicurius posted:Clearly yes. The policies someone supports is clearly less important than what they actually believe. Beliefs beat policies every time. For example, look at how for all the good policies the democrats support, the GOP still smashed women's autonomy to pieces, because its not just their policy, they believe in it. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 17:50 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Hey, a day or two after we hear that the Supreme Court doesn’t believe in a right to privacy, and that soon enough cops will be arresting women and doctors for the crime of bodily autonomy, I know what message my democratic base will want to hear: more surveillance, and more cops! https://twitter.com/repspanberger/status/1521888263916695553?s=21&t=9VwWcRW6IzaaA01aMbkFzQ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Because I think there's a reasonably large segment of the Democratic party who thinks that abortion is wrong but should stay legal Cool, but these people should have to own those beliefs and get their feet held to the fire by activists. They should be put in the position of justifying those beliefs logically instead of hiding behind tripe like "well my daddy raised me catholic."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:The results of a party full of people who wouldn't vote against abortion, but are not invested enough to actively defended are that you lose to the party that is consistently driven by the issue. In what ways did that apply to Ted Kennedy - who every single abortion rights group says was their biggest champion in congress for decades and that they have not found someone who was able to move pro-choice legislation like he could since his death? NARAL even named their main office after him.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:The only reason that incoherent mess of a ruling was possible was because the initial count was a paper-thin margin of a few hundred votes in one of the largest states, and also that it favored the Republican. 0.009%. At 0.5% or something a recount is a formality, but that close? It turned the count into a coin toss and a recount into double-or-nothing. Maybe best of three seeing as there were multiple recount methods being pushed that were themselves trending toward different results. I think letting a precedent stand that narrow Democratic victories go to Republicans was a lot more momentous than whatever random voters did. Voters voted for Gore, Republicans and Democrats decided to ignore the will of the voters. You're trying to elide this by shifting from "voters let Bush win" to "okay voters didn't let Bush win but they didn't make him lose by enough and that's on them", so where's the line. What percentage of the vote does a Democrat need from voters to win the election and why that? I guess judging from the rest of your post it's "a percent or two" or whatever effectiveness voting suppression has. The Supreme Court carried out a coup. Elected Democrats sat back and let it happen. And you're blaming voters. Is your political ideology working? Is that the way to gain power, to sit back and "oh okay another voter suppression law, guess we need 53% of the vote from now on", I don't think so. Do you think so? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:57 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In what ways did Ted Kennedy achieve the goals of the pro-life political agenda or hamper the political goals of the pro-choice agenda so much that he qualifies as "a bad Democrat" on the issue? Why do you keep referencing a race from decades ago when it's been pointed out that socio-cultural changes resulted in Obama taking a stance a mere decade ago that would rightfully drum him out as a serious contender today?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In what ways did that apply to Ted Kennedy - who every single abortion rights group says was their biggest champion in congress for decades and that they have not found someone who was able to move pro-choice legislation like he could since his death? I'm glad to know that thanks to Ted Kennedy abortion is forever safe and there's nothing to worry about then. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Cool, but these people should have to own those beliefs and get their feet held to the fire by activists. They should be put in the position of justifying those beliefs logically instead of hiding behind tripe like "well my daddy raised me catholic." Trying to come up with anything else people believe is morally incorrect but should stay legal, or the reverse. Arguments I’ve seen this used for in the past include: -Torturing terrorists (argued that it was morally correct but should be kept illegal) -Teens having sex with each other (argument was that it’s morally acceptable but should be illegal) -weed (morally neutral, but should stay illegal, but also seen “it’s bad but should be legal” in the wild) -??? All these feel incredibly incoherent to me, same as liberal Catholics and abortion
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
selec posted:Trying to come up with anything else people believe is morally incorrect but should stay legal, or the reverse. Arguments I’ve seen this used for in the past include: You can probably sum it up as "anything I don't like but don't care about if someone else has it or can do it" or "anything I personally wouldn't do anyway but don't want others to do".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Why do you keep referencing a race from decades ago when it's been pointed out that socio-cultural changes resulted in Obama taking a stance a mere decade ago that would rightfully drum him out as a serious contender today? Because if your argument is that ipso-facto someone who supports abortion rights in every way and advocates for them, but says they would never personally get one, is damaging to the movement, then the fact that the lawmaker generally considered to be the most aggressive and outspoken advocate of abortion rights was someone who fits that description exactly kind of disproves the argument. And the opposite is also clearly true, where you have people like Pelosi who speak eloquently about their personal experiences and beliefs regarding abortion, but actually do things that harm the movement politically. There is no universe where Nancy Pelosi helping Cuellar win re-election is more helpful to the political goals of the pro-choice movement than Ted Kennedy, who was apparently destroying the pro-choice political project. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:05 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:the fact that the lawmaker generally considered to be the most aggressive and outspoken advocate of abortion rights was someone who fits that description exactly kind of disproves the argument. The fact that the most aggressive and outspoken advocate of abortion rights was someone who personally thought it was immoral, is a condemnation of the Democrats as the pro choice party and the reason the party has never made it a priority to protect those rights You're celebrating this guys senate tenure, who was in congress at the same period the president was throwing away his promises to sign protections into law. Obama was free to throw those promises without consequence because he was a member of a party whose devotion to reproductive rights is so shallow that a man who who thinks its wrong, is its greatest legislative champion. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
selec posted:Trying to come up with anything else people believe is morally incorrect but should stay legal, or the reverse. Arguments I’ve seen this used for in the past include: Yeah, I don't get the logic of it being okay for lives to end because of police, military, lack of healthcare, lack of basic necessities, drug addiction, because they were skeptical/brainwashed about a vaccine, because they lived in a country hostile to the US, or because they voted wrong... but abortion is the barely tolerated necessary evil
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
The sad truth is that nuance of any sort has no place in modern political speech. You'd think "Unfortunate but necessary, thus Right" would be a trivial position to hold, but that's already too subtle.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Because if your argument is that ipso-facto someone who supports abortion rights in every way and advocates for them, but says they would never personally get one, is damaging to the movement, then the fact that the lawmaker generally considered to be the most aggressive and outspoken advocate of abortion rights was someone who fits that description exactly kind of disproves the argument. This doesn't actually prove that what he said isn't harmful to the cause. You could argue that he did enough stuff good for the cause to offset it or even be a net positive, but that doesn't prove that he might have been more effective if he hadn't agreed with his opponents that it's morally wrong. I mean that's kinda admitting it's murder. If it isn't murder how can it be morally wrong to suck unwanted tissue out of you. It's an incoherent position.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
Dems should’ve just said that it’s an issue between the woman and her doctor and that the government shouldn’t get involved in medical decisions. Don’t need to say “well I personally think it’s wrong and unfortunate, but it should still be legal”.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
Again, Ted Kennedy would never be championed if the issue at hand was the rights of people of color. No amount of good legislation and NAACP awards would protect Ted Kennedy from criticism if he thought black people were subhuman.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:17
|
|
|
Aramis posted:The sad truth is that nuance of any sort has no place in modern political speech. You'd think "Unfortunate but necessary, thus Right" would be a trivial position to hold, but that's already too subtle. Depends on what you mean by unfortunate. Unfortunate like "hey medical procedures have risks it would be better for more women to have contraception so they don't have to get there" is I think fine, but unfortunate like "ok bible-thumpers are right that it's murdering babies but sometimes ya gotta murder some babies" is actually pretty hosed up if you drill down into it, so I'm kinda on the side of side-eyeing people who agree with the religious right that it's murder. There's a third incoherent position I guess "well I don't know if it's murder but it's morally wrong anyway" but that makes little sense and is effectively the second argument anyway since there's no explanation for how killing tissue that isn't a person is somehow nebulously immoral. E: Ciprian Maricon posted:Again, Ted Kennedy would never be championed if the issue at hand was the rights of people of color. No amount of good legislation and NAACP awards would protect Ted Kennedy from criticism if he thought black people were subhuman. Or "gays are immoral sinners but let em get married not my business" is probably not what I'd want to hear from a presidential running mate idk
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/emiliesimons46/status/1521850521350516739?s=21&t=0c8HlaInkAdYoKL9A5-JTwquote:When reporters tried to question Biden about other topics after his remarks, the president prodded, “You don’t want to ask about deficits?” They are really not prepared for this moment. Paying down the deficit isn’t going to help people. Voters aren’t going to jump for joy about the deficit being lower.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:23
|
|