|
Rigel posted:They aren't going to publicly announce that they plan to try to change the rules again if they win enough seats to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. There's no political reason to come right out and say that before the election. The political reason is to show people that Democrats have a plan and convince voters to keep Democrats in power
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Majin posted:So you would prefer a figurehead POTUS that would get less done than Biden can in this environment? This kind of does go for a lot of Progressives in general. There just isn't enough support for them and the libs + the conservatives would gang up to sabotage and would be ok to take America further down to spite them. You'd have to get one that'd give a lot to capital/crazies. I mean, hell, you had Joe Biden and the Dems were ok with Manchin+Sinema to sink his Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Majin posted:So you would prefer a figurehead POTUS that would get less done than Biden can in this environment? Barring extreme circumstances, Presidents don't mind control congress. Nothing gets done for institutional and individual reasons. AOC wouldn't be much less effective at passing legislation that Biden and Bernie or someone else who has more legislative allies or is more vocal wouldn't change the incentives for individuals or the institutional problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:once again, cool statistics for a good country and not one where the police will arrest your parents because you’re a boy that wore a dress How did that work out for them exactly? What happened to Huey, and Malcolm, and Stokely, and Assata, and Mumia, and how many of the rest of the new black Panthers...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
AOC would probably be better off as a senator. Especially because that would mean she bumped off another senior member of the NY political machine. The president isn't that powerful of a position if Congress is dead-set at stonewalling them. As cool as President AOC would be, the conservative machine would go into overdrive to stymie her even worse than they did with Obama. Obama was basically "Bush but Black" in a lot of ways. AOC is "A woman, young, and actually wants to push actually progressive ideas." All things the GOP hates as much if not more than "Black and eloquent"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Majin posted:She sure would screech a lot gtfo here with this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Barring extreme circumstances, Presidents don't mind control congress. Nothing gets done for institutional and individual reasons. AOC wouldn't be much less effective at passing legislation that Biden and Bernie or someone else who has more legislative allies or is more vocal wouldn't change the incentives for individuals or the institutional problems. So no approval ratings boost is what you’re saying. As we know from Trump, a POTUS can’t run the country on EO’s alone either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
squibble posted:gtfo here with this. I’m an AOC fan, and believe she may make a good POTUS one day (if she can manage to not be eaten up and spit out by DC Politics) She’s got a bigger coalition to build if she wants to get there tho.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:44
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:How did that work out for them exactly? What happened to Huey, and Malcolm, and Stokely, and Assata, and Mumia, and how many of the rest of the new black Panthers...? I don't totally agree with Automata but what is your point here? A lot of different things happened to those people and similar things happened to people who were not advocating guns and violence. King was assassinated by the government too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Majin posted:I’m an AOC fan, and believe she may make a good POTUS one day (if she can manage to not be eaten up and spit out by DC Politics) Then say that instead of being one word shy of "she's hysterical". You know what you were doing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:47
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They aren't going to publicly announce that they plan to try to change the rules again if they win enough seats to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. There's no political reason to come right out and say that before the election. as the trump voters you were sure were just going to sink back into the mud after he was defeated have painfully taught you, there is political value in publicly promising you will do things people want you to do. this is the secret to how Trump has made a fool out of both you, and every other wishcaster clinging to Joe Biden's "the fever has to break, it has to" mentality. people are angry. people are suffering. people want change. you have seen what offering no change gets you: it's currently less popular than Trump at the peak of covid and kissing Roe vs. Wade goodbye. this despite total control over the executive and legislative branches of government. we are in the one circumstance where fighting the Supreme Court is even theoretically possible, and the Democrats have put forward the bold counterstrategy 'have Kamala babble aimlessly about how that sucks.' what, if anything, have you learned from the last six years, about how successful this strategy can anticipate being.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:49
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:How did that work out for them exactly? What happened to Huey, and Malcolm, and Stokely, and Assata, and Mumia, and how many of the rest of the new black Panthers...? It sucked but you don’t stop fighting because somebody fought back. If anything, it shows that militant resistance to the racist caste society we live in is the correct kind of resistance because it’s one of the few kinds the government finds threatening enough to assassinate people over. It’s survivor bias that so many former radicals are now lotion-soft reformists, not a sign of what methods succeed and what don’t, or will be necessary or won’t.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:56
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:How did that work out for them exactly? What happened to Huey, and Malcolm, and Stokely, and Assata, and Mumia, and how many of the rest of the new black Panthers...?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:You’re literally just gloating about black death now. I mean gently caress, stokley died of prostate cancer. Yes, please arm yourselves so you can too die of butt cancer than by the state. where did he die of prostate cancer? In what country? What series of events lead to him being there? "gloating about black death", go gently caress yourself. I'm not the one advocating that minorities go out and get the feds to do an Operation MOVE on them to make myself feel tough
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:How did that work out for them exactly? What happened to Huey, and Malcolm, and Stokely, and Assata, and Mumia, and how many of the rest of the new black Panthers...? Oh really? What happened to the literal face of non-violent resistance Martin Luther King?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Oh really? What happened to the literal face of non-violent resistance Martin Luther King? I was responding to someone claiming minorities arming themselves to resist the government is going to work and using as an example a group of people who did that and were variously murdered, imprisoned and COINTELPRO'd out of the country. Not to mention that calling MLK "the literal face of non-violent resistance" is buying wholesale into right-wing whitewashing
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I was responding to someone claiming minorities arming themselves to resist the government is going to work and using as an example a group of people who did that and were variously murdered, imprisoned and COINTELPRO'd out of the country. Not to mention that calling MLK "the literal face of non-violent resistance" is buying wholesale into right-wing whitewashing Yes and as shown by MLK, armed or peaceful is irrelevant to what caused those men to be murdered, imprisoned, etc. They were killed for their politics, not how they expressed them. And yes, the celebrated, endlessly referenced, face of non-violent resistance in the USA is MLK. He is evoked endlessly when anyone wants to criticize protestors for breaking property, or offending anyone. It may not be fair to the man, or the many others, who performed the work of the Civil Rights era or non violent resistance in a wider context but it would not be a mischaracterization to say that in this country, MLK Is the face of non-violent resistance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I don't totally agree with Automata but what is your point here? A lot of different things happened to those people and similar things happened to people who were not advocating guns and violence. King was assassinated by the government too. The claim was that "Cops become way more weary to enact their authority if the community is organized and armed. Look at the black communities police occupied during the war on drugs." and then you look at said communities and they got murdered and imprisoned at higher rates than the general population who WEREN'T armed and organized. It seems wild to claim cops are "weary to enact their authority" when the people you're holding up as an example got crushed into dust by the feds?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/motherboard/status/1541456351414583297 Are these period tracker apps just surveillance apps for anti-abortion groups? I know there are plenty of “pregnancy centers” run by anti-abortion pro-adoption garbage groups
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Yes and as shown by MLK, armed or peaceful is irrelevant to what caused those men to be murdered, imprisoned, etc. They were killed for their politics, not how they expressed them. Right, but you just listed a bunch of reasons why it sucks and it's incorrect to call him that, so why do so? "Other people are cynically misusing this guy, so I guess that's the framing we all have to use" is not a compelling argument, to me
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I was responding to someone claiming minorities arming themselves to resist the government is going to work and using as an example a group of people who did that and were variously murdered, imprisoned and COINTELPRO'd out of the country. Not to mention that calling MLK "the literal face of non-violent resistance" is buying wholesale into right-wing whitewashing You've done nothing to connect that with guns. Those things happened to people who were not armed or preached arming minorities too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You've done nothing to connect that with guns. Those things happened to people who were not armed or preached arming minorities too. Yeah, exactly. It makes no difference if you're armed or not. I was arguing with the person claiming otherwise?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Right, but you just listed a bunch of reasons why it sucks and it's incorrect to call him that, so why do so? "Other people are cynically misusing this guy, so I guess that's the framing we all have to use" is not a compelling argument, to me Because it supports the idea that these men were killed for their politics not how they behaved. How they are remembered is relevant. Ciprian Maricon fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Yeah, exactly. It makes no difference if you're armed or not. I was arguing with the person claiming otherwise? Yeah but you don't establish that either. You're just pointing at a bunch of people killed or harassed by the government and then saying that means it's pointless to be armed. You've established that oppressors hurt and kill the people they oppress but neither of you have really presented anything to actually show how guns impact those dynamics. Just the existence of deaths in conflicts isn't enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
Is a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy really at risk now because of Roe v. Wade, or is that some hysterical fearmongering. I legit don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Is a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy really at risk now because of Roe v. Wade, or is that some hysterical fearmongering. short answer yes, medium answer depends on the state
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:19
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:short answer yes, medium answer depends on the state No. All the states with weird fetal protection laws require intent or neglect on the part of the mother. An ectopic pregnancy is out of her control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Is a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy really at risk now because of Roe v. Wade, or is that some hysterical fearmongering. Unverified reports from TwoXChromosomes on reddit are saying that doctors are delaying treatment to consult lawyers to see if they can remove ectopic pregnancies, yes. Take that with a grain of salt, but personally I wouldn't be surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:21
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Is a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy really at risk now because of Roe v. Wade, or is that some hysterical fearmongering. IANAL but my understanding is that it depends on the exact wording of states' anti-abortion laws. States that have passed abortion bans that are very restrictive or loosely worded might include ectopic pregnancies. Most states afaik have an "except to preserve the health/life of the mother" clause but who knows if state courts will decide ectopic pregnancies count or not. My sister is currently trying to conceive and has had two ectopic pregnancies this last year, so this is an issue that hits pretty close to home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:23
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Unverified reports from TwoXChromosomes on reddit are saying that doctors are delaying treatment to consult lawyers to see if they can remove ectopic pregnancies, yes. Take that with a grain of salt, but personally I wouldn't be surprised. The Hobbs ruling lets states regulate abortion however they want. It doesn't establish fetal personhood, and even if it did, a naturally occurring ectopic pregnancy isn't considered manslaughter in any state under even the strictest fetal personhood law. An ectopic pregnancy is also by definition non-viable. Fritz the Horse posted:IANAL but my understanding is that it depends on the exact wording of states' anti-abortion laws. States that have passed abortion bans that are very restrictive or loosely worded might include ectopic pregnancies. Most states afaik have an "except to preserve the health/life of the mother" clause but who knows if state courts will decide ectopic pregnancies count or not. 0 state abortion bans specifically include ectopic pregnancies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:The claim was that "Cops become way more weary to enact their authority if the community is organized and armed. Look at the black communities police occupied during the war on drugs." and then you look at said communities and they got murdered and imprisoned at higher rates than the general population who WEREN'T armed and organized. It seems wild to claim cops are "weary to enact their authority" when the people you're holding up as an example got crushed into dust by the feds? Automata 10 Pack fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Hobbs ruling lets states regulate abortion however they want. It doesn't establish fetal personhood, and even if it did, a naturally occurring ectopic pregnancy isn't considered manslaughter in any state under even the strictest fetal personhood law. An ectopic pregnancy is also by definition non-viable. Well that's some slight reassurance, thanks. Of course I assume this will be challenged in a court case at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Hobbs ruling lets states regulate abortion however they want. It doesn't establish fetal personhood, and even if it did, a naturally occurring ectopic pregnancy isn't considered manslaughter in any state under even the strictest fetal personhood law. An ectopic pregnancy is also by definition non-viable. But you can understand how a surgeon might be hesitant to perform a procedure that, at the very least, might land him in court to defend his work or at worst, in prison? This is the bowl of M&Ms with 1 poison M&M in it problem, because our justice system doesn't get everything right on the best of days, and now you're dealing with new laws and christo-fascist zealotry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:31
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:But you can understand how a surgeon might be hesitant to perform a procedure that, at the very least, might land him in court to defend his work or at worst, in prison? This is the bowl of M&Ms with 1 poison M&M in it problem, because our justice system doesn't get everything right on the best of days, and now you're dealing with new laws and christo-fascist zealotry. I can totally understand how people would be worried. But, currently, 0 states (even the strictest abortion bans) have criminalized having an ectopic pregnancy and the Hobbs decision does nothing to criminalize or even allow states to criminalize it. That's just from a factual and legal standpoint. It doesn't mean people shouldn't be worried, but that is the actual situation as it stands right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:No. All the states with weird fetal protection laws require intent or neglect on the part of the mother. An ectopic pregnancy is out of her control. Yes because of abortion bans doctors may be more hesitant to ask questions and women might be more hesitant to answer questions that might identify dangerous conditions like an ectopic pregnancy early to avoid collecting information in lovely states. Are you married or in a cis relationship , if you are ask your wife or parents what questions do they always ask at a gynecological visit they might not ask now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:But you can understand how a surgeon might be hesitant to perform a procedure that, at the very least, might land him in court to defend his work or at worst, in prison? This is the bowl of M&Ms with 1 poison M&M in it problem, because our justice system doesn't get everything right on the best of days, and now you're dealing with new laws and christo-fascist zealotry. Indeed, the fear is not that treating an ectopic pregnancy actually falls into one of the criminal statutes in question, it's that the doctor will run afoul of overzealous enforcement, vigilantes empowered by SB8-style laws, or accusations of administering abortions under the guise of treating ectopic pregnancy. Much like with the Don't Say Gay bill, the chilling effect spreads much wider than the actual footprint of the law in question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I can totally understand how people would be worried. But, currently, 0 states (even the strictest abortion bans) have criminalized having an ectopic pregnancy and the Hobbs decision does nothing to criminalize or even allow states to criminalize it. That's just from a factual and legal standpoint. It doesn't mean people shouldn't be worried, but that is the actual situation as it stands right now. The social effects yer ignoring the social effects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:39
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The social effects yer ignoring the social effects. I know the social effects. The original question was whether having an ectopic pregnancy would put a pregnant woman in legal jeopardy now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:41
|
|
|
Bellmaker posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/motherboard/status/1541456351414583297 Probably not. They are simply futureproofing themselves for all the Texas-style “prosecute women for not giving birth” laws that are coming in short order because they know which way the wind is blowing. This is a foghorn to women in states where abortion is now illegal to dump the app ASAP before this poo poo starts happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 16:29 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I know the social effects. The original question was whether having an ectopic pregnancy would put you in legal jeopardy now. The original question is would she be "at risk" - and yes, she is at greater risk because treatment is being delayed. Right now, that's happening. She is at increased risk of complications and death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 01:43
|
|