SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »

Grouchio: Aug 31, 2014

Any other dems other than Pelosi who would have a more roaring, effective response to this bullshit than 'pay me vote for me'?

# ? Jun 24, 2022 16:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 05:57

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

Grouchio posted:

Any other dems other than Pelosi who would have a more roaring, effective response to this bullshit than 'pay me vote for me'?

Seeing as they control the Senate, House and executive you'd think there would be a leader in charge of one of them.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 16:57

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

DemoneeHo posted:

I'm going to briefly break my anti-D&D posting policy and say that blaming Jill Stein and Stein-voters is wrong. Stein had no effect on Clinton's electoral votes; any votes that she earned took away a very tiny amount away from Clinton. If there was no Stein in 2016, Clinton still would have lost those red states and still would have had a comfortable margin in blue states.

In fact, if you assumed that third party votes were "owed" to the big two, meaning Johnson and McMullin votes go to Trump and Stein votes go to Clinton, then she would have an even worse result. She would have lost Minnsota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Maine. And she would have lose the popular vote too. If anything, Clinton needed third party candidates to split Trump votes.

So shut the hell up about third party voters. They did not make Clinton lose nor did they destroy abortion rights.

quote:

In Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, one could plausibly blame third parties for the outcome. In Michigan, Clinton lost by less than a percentage point, a deficit she could have recovered from with half of Stein�s votes. Again in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, where Clinton lost by one point, Jill Stein�s votes would have covered her loss. Had Clinton won all three states, she would have won the election.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 24, 2022 16:58

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Mooseontheloose posted:

Ok great. "leftists" can't come in here and say really its the Democrats fault when they made their choices too.

It's great that literally the only people that folks are vocally getting mad at(other than maybe Thomas), is liberals.

I mean, absolutely they bear lots of responsibility but lol that conservatives don't even get mentioned other than to praise their use of power.

Absolutely opposite of most social media.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 16:59

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Cimber posted:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

It was Clinton's responsibility to appeal to those voters. That's how voting works.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:01

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

DemoneeHo posted:

I'm going to briefly break my anti-D&D posting policy and say that blaming Jill Stein and Stein-voters is wrong. Stein had no effect on Clinton's electoral votes; any votes that she earned took away a very tiny amount away from Clinton. If there was no Stein in 2016, Clinton still would have lost those red states and still would have had a comfortable margin in blue states.

In fact, if you assumed that third party votes were "owed" to the big two, meaning Johnson and McMullin votes go to Trump and Stein votes go to Clinton, then she would have an even worse result. She would have lost Minnsota, New Mexico, New Hampshire and Maine. And she would have lose the popular vote too. If anything, Clinton needed third party candidates to split Trump votes.

So shut the hell up about third party voters. They did not make Clinton lose nor did they destroy abortion rights.

This is 100% right but I will also add �she warned us and we didn�t listen� is dumb. There are people who are squishy abortion supporters and squishy abortion opposers. More than you probably think! These people if they had their druthers absolutely would ban/legalize abortion but it�s just not an issue they care enough about to vote based on. You can reach these people on other issues. Clinton failed to, miserably, because she was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and set the stage for all of this

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:01

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Jaxyon posted:

It's great that literally the only people that folks are vocally getting mad at(other than maybe Thomas), is liberals.

I mean, absolutely they bear lots of responsibility but lol that conservatives don't even get mentioned other than to praise their use of power.

Absolutely opposite of most social media.

Whenever people make this complaint I wonder what they even want to see. Would these threads really be better if it was discussions about how much Republicans suck and we all hate them? Anything about what you wish they would do is absolute wishcasting because they're explicitly the Christian fascist party. At least when people complain about Democrats they're also talking about actions and policies that could be taken by the party who says they want to prevent abortion rights and taking about possible actions seems way more appropriate and relevant for D&D than a five minutes of hate even if Republicans deserve the hate. People are more vocally angry at their failing allies even if it's their enemy that they truly hate.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:03

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Gumball Gumption posted:

Whenever people make this complaint I wonder what they even want to see. Would these threads really be better if it was discussions about how much Republicans suck and we all hate them? Anything about what you wish they would do is absolute wishcasting because they're explicitly the Christian fascist party. At least when people complain about Democrats they're also talking about actions and policies that could be taken by the party who says they want to prevent abortion rights and taking about possible actions seems way more appropriate and relevant for D&D than a five minutes of hate even if Republicans deserve the hate. People are more vocally angry at their failing allies even if it's their enemy that they truly hate.

Literally anything we talk about is wishcasting because Democrats don't do anything. Whatever good policy you want to talk about is worthless discussion, they will not or cannot do it.

My point is not that people shouldn't be angry at failing "allies", but that it is the only people they are visibly angry with. And I think this reflects their internal dialogues as well.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:05

DemoneeHo: Nov 9, 2017; Come on hee-ho, just give us 300 more macca

Cimber posted:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

Bruh, you can't just blame Stein voters (for the record, i am not one) and pretend Johnson voters don't exist. Libertarian votes were never going to Clinton.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:06

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

Someone ran a redline of the draft and final, for those who are curious.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wple82xvwtvkxe/Redline%20Doc.docx?dl=0

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:06

Spice World War II: Jul 12, 2004

Cimber posted:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win

Nice bad faith quoting of your own source there!

quote:

And that’s what exit polling that asked people how they would have voted in a two-party race — with the third option of not voting — finds. Under that scenario she would have won Michigan, still lost Florida, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been a 48 to 48 percent toss-up. Clinton would have needed to win both of those states to reach 270 electoral votes. So even in the artificial world of that exit poll that erased Stein and Johnson, Clinton seemed likely to lose.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:09

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Jaxyon posted:

Literally anything we talk about is wishcasting because Democrats don't do anything. Whatever good policy you want to talk about is worthless discussion, they will not or cannot do it.

My point is not that people shouldn't be angry at failing "allies", but that it is the only people they are visibly angry with. And I think this reflects their internal dialogues as well.

Democrats aren't your allies I think is the lesson that should be internalized.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:09

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

Jaxyon posted:

Literally anything we talk about is wishcasting because Democrats don't do anything. Whatever good policy you want to talk about is worthless discussion, they will not or cannot do it.

My point is not that people shouldn't be angry at failing "allies", but that it is the only people they are visibly angry with. And I think this reflects their internal dialogues as well.

What's the dream Republican hate post you want to see? Because in my head posting about how much you hate Republicans is the most boring thing you could put here because it will just be a bunch of hate when D&D is supposed to be a place to discuss politics and policy. And if it's all worthless why post? Especially why post about how the aesthetics of worthless posts don't please you enough?

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:10

Fritz the Horse: Dec 26, 2019; ... of course!

Do not direct your frustration and anger at Roe being overturned toward other posters. This is not helpful, not interesting discussion, gums up threads, and will catch you probations for posting about posters / hostility.

No person here bears significant responsibility and going after each other is just going to result in slapfights which contribute nothing of interest to threads.

That's my ruling on the field for now to try and keep things civil within the thread, I know people are going to want to vent. Koos Group may have further comments.

Fritz the Horse fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Jun 24, 2022

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:12

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Danger posted:

Democrats aren't your allies I think is the lesson that should be internalized.

That and "legislating a law that protects civil rights is tantamount to releasing a hostage for the Democrats"

If we were to set civil rights laws into stone then the number of people who would be open to voting either side of the aisle would skyrocket *in one direction*. Right wing voters would not forgive them but liberal would be more ambivalent.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:12

Tatsuta Age: Apr 21, 2005; Can't post for 16 hours!

CuddleCryptid posted:

That and "legislating a law that protects civil rights is tantamount to releasing a hostage for the Democrats"

If we were to set civil rights laws into stone then the number of people who would be open to voting either side of the aisle would skyrocket.

good thing we don't have any concern to worry about there, as the flow of "corporations/billionaires -> lobbies -> bought politicians -> legislation" has not an iota of monetary value to squeeze from "more rights for citizens"

well, except the right to buy guns in any and all circumstances I guess (which explains why that one is reinforced so often)

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:14

Iamgoofball: Jul 1, 2015

Cimber posted:

I hope all the ladies who protest voted for Jill Stein are happy.

blaming women for un-elected old white guys taking their rights away is definitely the correct move here, i'm sure, you definitely didn't post something monumentally stupid on the internet because you wanted to get a petty snipe in about an election during the worst moment in recent history for women's rights

Fritz the Horse posted:

Do not direct your frustration and anger at Roe being overturned toward other posters.

No person here bears significant responsibility and going after each other is just going to result in slapfights which contribute nothing of interest to threads.

That's my ruling on the field for now to try and keep things civil within the thread, I know people are going to want to vent. Koos Group may have further comments.

sorry i saw this post too late, hit me with my sixer, but also sixer the dipshit blaming women thanks

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:21

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

FlamingLiberal posted:

Agreed

Obama allowed a seat to be stolen from him

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

quote:

Rule I.A.4. User loses posting privileges for 6 hours

Cimber posted:

I hope all the ladies who protest voted for Jill Stein are happy.

Is Rule I.A.4 the one against criticizing Obama or disagreeing with the mods or something.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

A writeup of the "domestic supply of infants" line, since it's gotten misrepresented a fair amount:

Discendo Vox posted:

https://twitter.com/drgjackbrown/status/1522738724416630784?s=21&t=PGFR_gMRrwC_AkugnLt2IA

There's a whole loving layer cake of misrepresentations here, none of which redeem the Alito decision (of course), but which pointlessly confuse the claim (and slander the root cited text) several ways at once.

The tweet is citing a footnote from page 34 of the draft decision - it's something Alito wrote, not Barrett. The citing paragraph is as follows (internal citations omitted):

So the purpose of this citation is not to say that there needs to be a domestic supply of infants, but rather that there is existing demand for children to adopt, and that therefore the burden of a pregnancy isn't so terrible. In the context of the broader opinion, this is also not Alito expressing his own opinion or analysis; instead, it's part of Alito giving a both-sides-have-different-opinions equivocation about developments in society since Roe, and the next couple paragraphs he says all these opinions on both sides don't effect the court's decision and will instead be reflected in state law once Roe is gone. To be clear, all of this is horrible and also terrible legal reasoning, but it's not what the tweet's saying it is.

But it gets even more convoluted:

The cited quote, including the supposedly damning "domestic supply of infants," isn't coming from a brief or a pro-abortion source of any kind; it's from page 23 of a completely anodyne CDC report, Vital and Health Statistics, from 2008 (being cited as a book, it looks like, instead of a periodical). The report is using the language about domestic supply in a completely neutral sense as part of the conclusion paragraphs on historical trends in adoption demography. The footnote also appends a citation to unrelated data from CDC, and botches the web address, which is actually https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/a-keystat.htm#adoption.

As far as I can tell, Barrett never wrote any kind of brief on this; the closest I can find is that she raised the general "modern adoption policies mean forcing women to give birth isn't so bad!" claim during oral arguments in this case last year.

So to be clear, this is a tweet misattributing a footnote to a misrepresented claim from a moot section of an opinion by a different person, which is itself mis-citing two separate sources of information. All of which is to say, that twitter account probably shouldn't be treated as a good source for legal analysis...or probably anything else.

The only difference I see on a quick review is they fixed the one CDC link.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:32

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Dems aren't slow or unwilling to act on stuff like this because of hostage taking or whatever, they aren't that politically ruthless or even if they were, aren't institutionally capable of acting on that ruthlessness, against the insane fundies at least. Same deal with Clinton, even if she won how's she gonna keep those seats from just sitting empty for 4 more years?

Even if it's taken as a given that Clinton lost because of third party votes, that just means so did Trump in 2020, and eliminating third parties entirely just means that Trump wins both times instead of just once. It's not a terribly productive argument, because trying to sniff out the root of this sort of thing to find a solution isn't as easy as going back just 6 years and sticking to a two parties in opposition dynamic

Iamgoofball posted:

blaming women for un-elected old white guys taking their rights away is definitely the correct move here, i'm sure, you definitely didn't post something monumentally stupid on the internet because you wanted to get a petty snipe in about an election during the worst moment in recent history for women's rights

sorry i saw this post too late, hit me with my sixer

Things are heated at the moment, rightly so, just please avoid it in future, nobody is probing people for the pleasure of it. We just don't want things to get personal here because AFAIK no Senators or Reps post here, we're all just a motley assortment of desperate and powerless rabble coming to terms with that. If any do, let me know and I'll submit a ban request for them.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:32

azflyboy: Nov 9, 2005

Susan Collins is officially concerned.

Idiot from Maine posted:

throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to political chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government.”

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:33

Proust Malone: Apr 4, 2008

Sub Par posted:

I'm not gonna pretend that Thomas couldn't find some reason to want to overturn Loving, but his listing in that concurrence is about cases decided on substantive due process grounds. Loving was decided on equal protection grounds which is why it's not on his target list.

So was Obergefell. Turns out poo poo doesn�t matter when you have the votes to do what you want.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:34

Everyone: Sep 6, 2019; by sebmojo

Abortion is now illegal in red states. The best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. So until abortion is legalized in red states, women should deny sex to men there.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:34

Oracle: Oct 9, 2004

Everyone posted:

Abortion is now illegal in red states. The best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. So until abortion is legalized in red states, women should deny sex to men there.

Ah yes the Lysistrata defense.

Too bad it doesn't work against rape.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:36

azflyboy: Nov 9, 2005

Everyone posted:

Abortion is now illegal in red states. The best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. So until abortion is legalized in red states, women should deny sex to men there.

Until the 5th Circuit rules that a "sincerely held religious belief" in the Old Testament makes withholding sex illegal, and SCOTUS confirms it via the shadow docket.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:37

haveblue: Aug 15, 2005; Toilet Rascal

Oracle posted:

Too bad it doesn't work against rape.

Good thing we're also removing all restrictions on guns then

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:38

Everyone: Sep 6, 2019; by sebmojo

Oracle posted:

Ah yes the Lysistrata defense.

Too bad it doesn't work against rape.

Guns might. And those right-wingers love them some access to guns. Maybe after women shoot some would-be rapists in the dick they might rethink that, but figure shot-off dicks tend to prevent rape.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:39

uPen: Jan 25, 2010; Zu Rodina!

Everyone posted:

Abortion is now illegal in red states. The best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. So until abortion is legalized in red states, women should deny sex to men there.

Boycotts are illegal in the US.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:40

Name Change: Oct 9, 2005

azflyboy posted:

Susan Collins is officially concerned.

It's official that all the conservative nominees lied about this issue.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:41

ulmont: Sep 15, 2010; IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Kalman posted:

Someone ran a redline of the draft and final, for those who are curious.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0wple82xvwtvkxe/Redline%20Doc.docx?dl=0

Anything significant? I�m on a phone and got 15 pages of just formatting comparison issues before I gave up.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:41

Liquid Communism: Mar 9, 2004; коммунизм хранится в яичках

Sodomy Hussein posted:

It's official that all the conservative nominees lied about this issue.

So?

There isn't even a mechanism for consequences for a SCOTUS Justice who lies to Congress but gets confirmed to the bench.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:44

Crows Turn Off: Jan 7, 2008

Liquid Communism posted:

So?

There isn't even a mechanism for consequences for a SCOTUS Justice who lies to Congress but gets confirmed to the bench.

Technically, impeachment and removal.

Practically, nothing.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:46

Groovelord Neato: Dec 6, 2014

It would be nice if they skipped the song and dance of confirmation hearings in the future. Even assaulting someone didn't matter.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:49

ilkhan: Oct 7, 2004; I LOVE Musk and his pro-first-amendment ways. X is the future.

Everyone posted:

Guns might. And those right-wingers love them some access to guns. Maybe after women shoot some would-be rapists in the dick they might rethink that, but figure shot-off dicks tend to prevent rape.

Shooting would be rapists in the dick, or preferably in the chest, is a big part of why conservatives want to protect gun rights.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:50

Epic High Five: Jun 5, 2004

Sodomy Hussein posted:

It's official that all the conservative nominees lied about this issue.

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean they don't intend to overturn it. I'd say they were lying by omission if they didn't also all have such a long history of saying it is precisely their intention to overturn Roe at the first possible opportunity, but in any case they're allowed to lie all they want, there's nothing stopping them and no formal expectation that they operate in good faith or honestly.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:50

Everyone: Sep 6, 2019; by sebmojo

ilkhan posted:

Shooting would be rapists in the dick, or preferably in the chest, is a big part of why conservatives want to protect gun rights.

I always thought there was room for a Pro-Choice/Pro-Gun group. Like, "You'll control my womb after you pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers" or something.

Epic High Five posted:

Just because something is settled law doesn't mean they don't intend to overturn it. I'd say they were lying by omission if they didn't also all have such a long history of saying it is precisely their intention to overturn Roe at the first possible opportunity, but in any case they're allowed to lie all they want, there's nothing stopping them and no formal expectation that they operate in good faith or honestly.

"But you said Roe was settled law in your confirmation hearing."

"I changed my mind later."

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:54

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Danger posted:

Democrats aren't your allies I think is the lesson that should be internalized.

Certainly not on abortion rights I agree. Not on most other things either. Hence the quotes.

This reply does not address my point, it just reinforces it.

Gumball Gumption posted:

What's the dream Republican hate post you want to see? Because in my head posting about how much you hate Republicans is the most boring thing you could put here because it will just be a bunch of hate when D&D is supposed to be a place to discuss politics and policy.

I don't have a dream hate post. I'm just noticing there's almost nothing said about the fascist party actually doing the fascism. Do you see antifa actions that only mention the supposed allies they're angry at?

quote:

And if it's all worthless why post? Especially why post about how the aesthetics of worthless posts don't please you enough?

I'm commenting on the discussion being had. If you think that it's not noteworthy, good for you.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:57

HashtagGirlboss: Jan 4, 2005

Everyone posted:

Abortion is now illegal in red states. The best way to prevent pregnancy is abstinence. So until abortion is legalized in red states, women should deny sex to men there.

This is exactly what the conservative movement wants to happen. They want sex to come with big and life altering consequences so that it can be used to keep women generally and poor women especially in line based on their moral compass

# ? Jun 24, 2022 17:59

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

Sodomy Hussein posted:

It's official that all the conservative nominees lied about this issue.

Yeah they didn't lie and it was obvious at the time to anyone with any legal training what they were saying. It *was* settled law. Then.

# ? Jun 24, 2022 18:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 05:57

Everyone: Sep 6, 2019; by sebmojo

HashtagGirlboss posted:

This is exactly what the conservative movement wants to happen. They want sex to come with big and life altering consequences so that it can be used to keep women generally and poor women especially in line based on their moral compass

They want abortion to be legal and abstinence to be the only "contraception." As straight guys they very much do not want to lose access to vaginas.

BTW, go giant mega-corporation? Disney says it will cover abortion travel costs

# ? Jun 24, 2022 18:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > SCOTUS 2023: Rice pilaf from Louisiana...is that like an ISIS video?

«‹›839 »