|
Haystack posted:The last time the GOP was in that position they dithered around and infought and only managed to pass a tax break for the rich. Not that I'd ever want to be at their mercy, but there's plenty of precedence that tells us that the GOP is at least as incompetent at legislating as the dems. Yeah but the last time they promised voters something it was a thing that capital resolutely didn't want them to do (blow up Obamacare subsidies) and that would gently caress the people of their own states so hard they might notice (destroy Medicaid) Banning abortion is something capital doesn't care much about or tepidly supports (more desperate working class == lower wages ka-ching 🤑) and that their voters love, so it'd likely be easier for them to get the votes. I was also assured many, many times that the GOP would never really repeal Roe because it would mobilize Democrats to come out and VOTE, and here we are and they're doing it, so it seems a lot of people underestimated Republicans' commitment to being anti-choice
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Haystack posted:The last time the GOP was in that position they dithered around and infought and only managed to pass a tax break for the rich. The racked up a substantial number of judicial appointments
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
If you imprison the impregnated woman for attempted abortion it’s not violating the fourth amendment of the fetus because they are free to leave at any time. Also, in this ridiculous doink doink timeline, someone will use Stand Your Ground laws as a defense against anti-abortion laws. Maybe that even works who knows anymore, sure seems like the craziest way to defeat those laws though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I was also assured many, many times that the GOP would never really repeal Roe because it would mobilize Democrats to come out and VOTE, and here we are and they're doing it, so it seems a lot of people underestimated Republicans' commitment to being anti-choice While I don't think this analysis is wrong per se it's the unelected superlegislature that's repealing Roe, an institution known for, among other things, not having an electoral constituency. If the GOP succeeds at getting its permanent majority in 2024 it won't matter, but I don't think we should be giving props to the conservatives on the SCOTUS for their electoral acumen just quite yet.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:38
|
|
|
TipTow posted:While I don't think this analysis is wrong per se it's the unelected superlegislature that's repealing Roe, an institution known for, among other things, not having an electoral constituency. If the GOP succeeds at getting its permanent majority in 2024 it won't matter, but I don't think we should be giving props to the conservatives on the SCOTUS for their electoral acumen just quite yet. Is there anything evidence to suggest they won’t or that it would even matter? All polling points to a bloodbath in 2022 and Biden’s approval ratings are about the same as Trump’s were this time during his presidency. Not to mention as a latch ditch effort there are enough laws on the books today to have the republicans overrule to will of the people.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:42
|
|
|
Mizaq posted:If you imprison the impregnated woman for attempted abortion it’s not violating the fourth amendment of the fetus because they are free to leave at any time. I feel like even if you got a state judge that would allow this and a sympathetic jury, Republican legislatures would just rewrite the laws to explicitly exclude self-defense claims in abortion cases E: TipTow posted:While I don't think this analysis is wrong per se it's the unelected superlegislature that's repealing Roe, an institution known for, among other things, not having an electoral constituency. If the GOP succeeds at getting its permanent majority in 2024 it won't matter, but I don't think we should be giving props to the conservatives on the SCOTUS for their electoral acumen just quite yet. Oh yes for sure, it could well be that the people who were wrong about the court's willingness to pull the trigger were nevertheless right that it would cause blowback and Republican defeats. I am skeptical of that, but I can't tell the future. But I do think the take that the Republican legislators are only pretending to want to ban abortion but would wimp out rather than vote for it are wrong. There's enough evidence for that, they rammed in a handmaid specifically to overturn Roe right before an election, they've been loving with women's rights for years (usually with bipartisan support), they were always serious, it was the Democrats in the end who were just pretending. Probably the only thing that would stop them would be massive public unrest frightening them into backing down, but good luck with that as Democrats and media show that they'll join the tone police and attack protestors for being loud or 'violent' and send DHS in to gas and beat them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:55 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I think the bigger issue is that if you are making the logical leap of fetal personhood and abortion being murder, then crossing state lines to have an abortion is "conspiracy to commit murder" or "child endangerment" or "abduction" (if the male parent objects), at which point the place the abortion happens is not the issue being contested.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Is there anything evidence to suggest they won’t or that it would even matter? All polling points to a bloodbath in 2022 and Biden’s approval ratings are about the same as Trump’s were this time during his presidency. Again, as I acknowledged in my post, it may not (probably won't) matter if/when the GOP does win in '24. I was just wanting to draw attention to the fact that SCOTUS has won precisely zero elections in its history and for that reason is probably not going to behave with elections in mind. In fact, it's arguable this decision is happening largely because a majority of justices believe there will be no more consequential elections after '24 (or even '22). Yeah, the midterms look loving dire for Biden and the Dems right now, but they haven't happened yet. Have we had any decent polling post-leak yet on midterm voting intentions?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For the most part, the blue state citizens will probably grumble a bit and then go on with their day, just like they do with every other day-to-day injustice in their own states. Similarly, the red state citizens will blow hot air about it for a couple of days, and then they'll move on to being mad about something else. I would strongly, strongly advise you to get up to speed on things that happen in your country, already. 1. Dearresting is a real thing. You can convince cops not to arrest someone. It looks like this, in theory: https://youtu.be/80Nsw9TYfOg And in practice: https://youtu.be/55VcS874xOE 2. Eviction prevention: https://youtu.be/55VcS874xOE 3. Deportation prevention: https://youtu.be/8z7HkHVP6oU
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I was also assured many, many times that the GOP would never really repeal Roe because it would mobilize Democrats to come out and VOTE, and here we are and they're doing it, so it seems a lot of people underestimated Republicans' commitment to being anti-choice It's also a direct result of the extreme radicalization of their base. We've been seeing it time and time again where "moderate" Republicans like Romney and McCain got written off and pushed aside because they weren't quite big enough assholes, resulting in exponential doubling down that began delivering Plain and Trump. A large percentage of GOP voters want Talk Radio Purist Republican and The United States of Supply Side Jesus. I think it sort of started with Reagan courting the Moral Majority but the true seed may have planted with Nixon and the southern strategy EDIT: How many SCOTUS judges were appointed by a President who lost the popular vote? Trump gives us 3 alone and GWB adds 2 more. I guess you could argue one of W's doesn't count since it came after 2004. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 15:59 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:The racked up a substantial number of judicial appointments Lowering taxes and appointing unqualified failsons or psychos to the government are pretty much the only things the GOP is capable of doing. Sadly, all you need to get control of SCOTUS is to appoint enough unqualified psychos.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Inflation has hit the quote:The White House also said Biden will attend a Democratic National Committee fundraiser while in Chicago. The Sun-Times obtained a copy of the invitation and the price levels:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-health-wisconsin-vandalism-83ef112cf20dcf511cf09dfd5241e1c1 Extremely disappointing take from the Democrats but we were expecting that. Both the spokesperson for the anti-abortion office, and Dem Gov Tony Evers made bland statements condemning the 'violence' (property damage) to an empty office building. quote:“We condemn violence and hatred in all forms, including the actions at Wisconsin Family Action in Madison,” Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, said in a tweet. “We reject violence against any person for disagreeing with another’s view. Violence is not the way forward. Hurting others is never the answer.” Yes Tony, except there was no violence done to a person. And violence is indeed what our country thinks is the answer, you just don't want to admit it or have it turned on you. quote:"The president of the lobbying group, Julaine Appling, said she considers the fire a “direct threat against us.” She said people could have been hurt if they had been working in the office at the time." Yes lady, except that they didn't firebomb the building when people were in it. They did it before anyone came to work. It was pretty clear they intentionally targeted the building when it was empty, considering the article mentions the flames being spotted around 6 a.m. What are the chances stochastic acts like this increase? If they do, will acts like this have any impact on the midterms? Do you feel that such acts help or harm the cause of pro-choicers? Personally, it would be nice to see more direct action taking place.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but the last time they promised voters something it was a thing that capital resolutely didn't want them to do (blow up Obamacare subsidies) and that would gently caress the people of their own states so hard they might notice (destroy Medicaid) Are you talking about on this board or elsewhere? I've probably heard this claim about making abortion illegal federally, but I can't imagine/remember anyone ITT trying to claim that the GOP would ensure that SCOTUS wouldn't strike down Roe v Wade. Hell, it was obvious that W/Trump were specifically nominating SCOTUS judges who looked like they would repeal Roe v Wade.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:
I mean, I guess I'm fine with leaving it here, because you did answer my question - you think that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski actually care about the things they say they do and would pass abortion protections (and block a repeal) as a result. Your belief will be validated or denied in the next couple months when we see if they vote for whatever bill gets put out. We've established why you think that, even if I disagree, and I can see how you got there following the logic you've laid out Personally, I don't think either of the two have actual conviction in protecting abortion, as evidenced by the fact they gave no shits about stopping the Supreme Court nominees that effectuated this crisis, which I think is a much more relevant signpost than the ACA repeal, due to being as close to an up-or-down vote for abortion rights as we got in this timeline. Your argument seems to be that they would be less willing to repeal a law that has the word "abortion" in it than to approve a judge who they claim to believe will protect abortion, but their argument for repealing the law would be some corner-case - they would say "well I agree that abortions should be legal, but there need to be clearer standards about when they are allowable". We can predict this because Murkowski voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (Collins voted against, so maybe she is targetable). The only reason this hypothetical was initially brought up at all was to decide whether we think Dems are sincere about wanting to protect abortion tho, so if you think the answer is no because they didn't pass something over a decade ago, more power to you, but I think it's a lot more likely that they felt unjustifiably secure about the status quo holding out, and prioritized accordingly. We have 20/20 hindsight now, but the arguments probably wouldn't have convinced the various holdouts, none of whom are still in office, since the court at the time was trending progressive and by the time that stopped being the case a bill was impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Again, as I acknowledged in my post, it may not (probably won't) matter if/when the GOP does win in '24. I was just wanting to draw attention to the fact that SCOTUS has won precisely zero elections in its history and for that reason is probably not going to behave with elections in mind. I'm not sure this is completely true, SCOTUS very much does take note of public opinion and partisan interests, even though they don't necessarily feel the same urgency as a House rep up for election every two years. Or at least they did when Roberts was the swing vote maybe it's different now. Roberts is trying to convince them to keep Roe and write a 'moderate' opinion (moderate in the current Overton window) upholding 5-week bans or whatever it is without going so far as to fully overturn it. He's also done other things that seem obviously calculated to preserve the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in the eyes of the public and the media and the democratic elites: released liberal opinions on social issues he doesn't really care about to butter everyone up before dropping an important partisan ruling like Shelby County, switched his vote on Whole Women's Health to preserve the appearance of nonpartisan objectivity when the exact same law came up again with a slightly different court a year later and would would have looked obviously political to reverse the judgment just because Kavanaugh had replaced Kennedy, rescued the GOP from having to come up with a replacement for Obamacare by upholding just enough of it, generally preferred narrow rulings that gave the same outcome but switched the responsibility to a legislature he knew was incapable of acting (like instead of just saying Voting Rights or eviction moratoria were unconstitutional, he just said oh you didn't use the exact magic words I wanted to see so you have to pass the law again), helping Trump find the right wording for his Muslim ban to give the court a figleaf to approve it rather than just letting it through, etc. A lot of these don't make sense if the court doesn't care at all about public opinion or elections. Like obviously if the court just wants to get rid of voting rights it would be more effective to say it's unconstitutional and you can't pass another one ever, rather than kick it back to the legislature which could easily just pass a corrected version today if the Democrats were a completely different political party that actually wanted to do that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Are you talking about on this board or elsewhere? I've probably heard this claim about making abortion illegal federally, but I can't imagine/remember anyone ITT trying to claim that the GOP would ensure that SCOTUS wouldn't strike down Roe v Wade. Hell, it was obvious that W/Trump were specifically nominating SCOTUS judges who looked like they would repeal Roe v Wade. Not my OP nor was this response directed at me but I've heard that opinion bandied about in a lot of places, including these forums.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
If that argument had been made, it likely would have been based on Roberts' frog-boiling incrementalism strategy, which went out the window once there were five other conservative votes
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
"Working hard! Thank you!" https://twitter.com/Mdixon55/status/1523677999610359810?s=20&t=CiKW6FiRb23sJvR-EBMwXw
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:46
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Are you talking about on this board or elsewhere? I've probably heard this claim about making abortion illegal federally, but I can't imagine/remember anyone ITT trying to claim that the GOP would ensure that SCOTUS wouldn't strike down Roe v Wade. Hell, it was obvious that W/Trump were specifically nominating SCOTUS judges who looked like they would repeal Roe v Wade. Oh I've seen it on this board too, though probably just repeating the same opinion that you've seen in the liberal media: that it's okay for the Democrats not to have a coherent line on abortion, that it was okay not to pass the Freedom Of Choice Act, that it was rude and uncouth to expect Ginsburg to retire while Dems held the Presidency and the Senate, etc, because abortion is just "red meat" for the Republican base that the GOP trots out for fundraising and votes but if they ever caught that car they'd chicken out because the feminist rage would sweep them out of office etc. Maybe you don't remember it, but you shouldn't really be surprised when the opinions in the pages of liberal newspapers filter down to places like this and get regurgitated on political boards, social media, etc. That's what the opinion pages are for, to shape in-group opinion, of course it works to some extent. I'm sure I probably believed it at some point myself, it's quite a comforting thing. And some Republicans did seem to think that way (Roberts for example, who switched his vote once his anti-choice dissent would have become the majority post-Kavanaugh) If you're planning to derail the thread by tediously demanding citations for a common opinion, it's fairly easy to find that opinion by simply searching for keywords "overturn Roe" or somesuch and you can find discussions with arguments on both sides VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:51 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
Call Trump or Pence? It’s decision time for Jan. 6 panel https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-ivanka-trump-biden-donald-elections-7f840bc863259b8465164bd28aa743a9 quote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection has interviewed nearly 1,000 people. But the nine-member panel has yet to talk to the two most prominent players in that day’s events — former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence. Odds on anything at all coming of this? Or is it time to "move on" and put it behind us? Because I don't think they're going to do poo poo and even if they do call Trump or Pence and they ignore it, they still won't do poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
40% of American Households will now be eligible for free 100 mbps internet. Program was originally part of a Coronavirus relief package, but the White House is using funds from the infrastructure bill to make it permanent. Eligible Americans going from 11.3 million households to 48 million households. Edit: New website is up. According to White House tweet, this is the new website for it: https://www.whitehouse.gov/getinternet/?utm_source=getinternet.gov https://twitter.com/business/status/1523677435413286912 quote:White House says 20 internet companies will provide effectively free internet to millions of Americans https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1523636760336637952 Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Call Trump or Pence? It’s decision time for Jan. 6 panel If there are any 5D chess games going on to have wall to wall coverage of Republican corruption closer to elections after the hostile takeover of the illegitimate Supreme Court, the Dems might want to do something about it now. Biden also should have synced with Garland and have warrants ready. Otherwise I don’t understand what the JAN 6 commission is even for and would love someone to help me out here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:15
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Fetal eviction notice: every uterus is a rental property, that deadbeat fetus hasn't paid you rent for a month, got a court order and a call to the sheriff's department to remove them from the premise. Better yet, incorporate your uterus as an airbnb, corporations are people, but can't face the death penalty or jail time. Evict deadbeat with no ability to pay. Fine me and I'll declare bankruptcy and reorganize under another name.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Edit: Basically, I'd rather live in the world where we have to keep flipping coins than the one where we always lose, but there is no way to walk this back to a functional government from here because this is basically the endpoint of governmental entropy - we get the fash or a revolution with uncertain results within a pretty small timeframe from here, and the revolution isn't guaranteed to be a positive step either
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1523679767081648128
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:30
|
|
|
Oracle posted:So why the hell aren't leftists joining the ranks of the military/national guard/police in droves right now? They call for revolution all the time, but the most they do is drill in the woods with like-minded individuals and maybe a few veterans. Police are very poorly staffed right now and where the old excuse of 'one person can't change the whole organization' when you've got 30% of positions vacant that seems like a much better chance of implementing the kind of change you wish to see. “Why aren’t leftists, devoid of national leadership or organizing strategy, constantly monitored and literally hosed by undercover police, joining these hardened, ideologically-driven organizations where they will be forced to become the foot soldiers of capital?” Dawg, you first. Spend a few years cuffing kids for truancy and busting heads just to be ready for when the Revolution comes, or be ratted out by your fellow officers, locked in a mental hospital or worse.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
I did not become a cop because I reasonably assume the other cops would arrange to let me die after I didn't join them in beating up teenagers
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
Should they join the police to be saboteurs or to reform from the inside? How exactly do you see that working out?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I did not become a cop because I reasonably assume the other cops would arrange to let me die after I didn't join them in beating up teenagers Plus it’s guaranteed you’ll have the shittiest, most racist, horny, stupid co-workers possible. Just absolutely garbage human beings who graduated from high school bully to adult bully. Gun freaks, rapists, wife beaters and dimwits who can’t even shoot straight.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:If there are any 5D chess games going on to have wall to wall coverage of Republican corruption closer to elections after the hostile takeover of the illegitimate Supreme Court, the Dems might want to do something about it now. I am *terrified* that, all the way at the end, after all the evidence is laid out, that the dems go "and this is why ypu have to VOTE!". I know it's unlikely. I know they have to have something else in mind. But I also know it's possible they won't.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
Meatball posted:I am *terrified* that, all the way at the end, after all the evidence is laid out, that the dems go "and this is why ypu have to VOTE!". I know it's unlikely. I know they have to have something else in mind. But I also know it's possible they won't. This is actually the most likely outcome. They aren't going to do anything or they would have done it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:45
|
|
|
3/4 of cops never discharge their weapon in their entire career and 98% don't in an average year. There's a whole lot of cops whose entire career is just sitting in their car near the interstate with a radar gun, going to court, and doing paperwork. Not sure if that makes it better or worse, but it is very possible to be a cop and never physically arrest anyone in a given year. So, you could definitely request speeding or meter maid duty if you really wanted to be a cop without busting heads. But, you probably aren't getting into a leadership role or stopping anyone else from doing it by going that route, though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:3/4 of cops never discharge their weapon in their entire career and 98% don't on average year. Cops kill more people with their knees than they do with their guns, Leon. They killed George Floyd with nothing but another body and an application of physics.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Cops kill more people with their knees than they do with their guns, Leon. They killed George Floyd with nothing but another body and an application of physics. Not even close. Over 99% of people killed by police are killed by guns. ~1,100 people were killed by police using guns in 2021. It was only 15 for physical force.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:56
|
|
|
Turns out passing legislation isn't impossible after all and all those mandatory debate periods and committee hearings and stuff are fake and don't really hold anything up at all. https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1523690465589010432 It is also really interesting to hear Dems say that they've got midterms in the bag if Republicans blow up abortion rights, meanwhile Democrats do everything they can to help and protect the Republicans, who exactly are all those pro-choice midterm votes going to go to? The party that cries their hands are tied when it comes to protecting the people from the courts, but can't move fast enough to protect the courts from the people?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:3/4 of cops never discharge their weapon in their entire career and 98% don't in an average year. Lol this is your brain on America if you think this is an exculpatory statistic. In my country <25% of cops are even licensed to carry a firearm, with one discharge per 25,000 officers per annum
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Turns out passing legislation isn't impossible after all and all those mandatory debate periods and committee hearings and stuff are fake and don't really hold anything up at all. Holy poo poo, completely loving brainless. If the Democratic response to Republicans stripping women of their human rights is to pass a law cracking down on protesters I was somehow giving them too much credit
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Lol this is your brain on America if you think this is an exculpatory statistic. It's not exculpatory. Just saying that the people arguing about "infiltrating the police from within" can definitely become a cop without shooting anyone. But, being a meter maid isn't going to give you any influence to change the culture and the person whose spot you took on meter maid duty probably wasn't going to be shooting anyone, so you haven't really accomplished anything.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's not exculpatory. Just saying that the people arguing about "infiltrating the police from within" can definitely become a cop without shooting anyone. But, being a meter maid isn't going to give you any influence to change the culture and the person whose spot you took on meter maid duty probably wasn't going to be shooting anyone, so you haven't really accomplished anything. Probably all true. It's just worth pointing and lol'ing whenever anything is said about guns/police in America
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 18:27
|
|