|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Why prioritize their feelings over trans athletes? Why have women's divisions? Just make it open and eliminate men's and women's sports.
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
Koos Group posted:Interestingly, women have an advantage over men in marathon swimming, but not regular swimming events. As far as I know marathon swimming is the only physical sport where women's performance exceeds men's, but I'm not at all certain. I went down a rabbit hole on this. The top men usually win in the more common "marathon" open water events at 10km and 20km but things start to get more interesting at "ultra-marathon" type of distances and longer. The data is very thin because ultra-marathon swimming is not a commonly contested event, but it appears that on average women may possibly have an advantage at ridiculously long swimming distances which take all day (over 40km) in cold water (under 20 C).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 06:08
|
|
|
Srice posted:No because they've gotten what they want *and* with promises of more of what they want on the horizon. If anything that's gonna make conservative voters more enthusiastic. Randalor posted:If anything, this will galvanize them. Remember that after this decision leaked, there were a few protests that the DEMOCRATS quashed. They have carte blanche from both parties to strip away as many rights as they can. It is not really possible for conservative voters to get more enthusiastic. They have been by far the most reliable voters for a very long time. When Democrats vote, conservatives lose. Almost all of the slack in the electorate is on the left.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Thats severely ableist. Very few people can afford to do that. "if you can" is obviously implied. It is still true.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Is it true from a D&D politics perspective? If your goal is giving yourself the best chances it's absolutely true. But part of D&D is zooming out and looking at societal effects and political effects and is the sympathetic upper class fleeing a state a good thing for the future class struggles and fights that will take place in that state? I don't know. I don't think so though I'm not going to tell anyone to not flee. Just that it's way more complicated. If someone is trying to flee a red state I'm not going to say a single word encouraging them to stay and suffer. The most I'd do is suggest they consider moving to a purple state if they can. CO or NV instead of CA. PA or NC instead of NY.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:How would this even work though? Congress has to pass a law first to expand the court, its been done before. The number is currently 9 in the law. This current 50-50 congress won't do that, and Biden can't just nominate a 10th justice on his own.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 17:11
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:Blue voters should be moving to red areas of blue states, if anything. If we are moving around population like pawns on a game board then the play is to move to purple states
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
uPen posted:He literally just did, Judge Jackson was nominated and approved. He just needs to nominate replacements for Thomas and Alito in case they have a heart attack next year. Better to nominate and get approval now than in 6 months when Republicans control the Senate and suddenly lose the ability to see, hear and speak while there's a Democratic president trying to fill a court seat. He can't do that unless someone announces their retirement.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 17:27
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Huh, just saw this elsewhere: Gorsuch is the one conservative who bizarrely fights for native american rights, but at best he'd get outvoted 5-4.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 19:07
|
|
|
If I saw this post outside this board I would assume it was a Russian bot or a Republican troll gleefully trying to stir up trouble. On this board, it is very likely genuinely posted in good faith. Our two party system did not appear by accident. The way our elections and government is set up, your path leads to unilateral disarmament by the left and the complete and utter destruction of every political ideal you believe in with absolutely no hope whatsoever of any victory for as long as you live. Nothing can work here other than 2 parties, when the conservatives are united and will always vote under one banner. Things might get interesting in an alternate world where the GOP somehow shattered into several smaller parties, but they haven't and won't. So, does that mean we have to acquiesce to the current Dem leadership and beg them to be better? No, that is not what the far-right extremists did. They did not politely ask for their views to be heard, they converted the base, tirelessly worked to make their ideas mainstream within the party, purged the GOP leadership of all opposition, and took over. A new Jesus party would have been a stupid idea doomed to failure, same as the greens or whatever new socialist utopian party we might dream up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 19:25
|
|
|
syntaxrigger posted:I saw this in my feed. Would this be an actual helpful thing biden could do or is it just someone being pithy on twitter? No, this is stupid. The crimes involved would all be state crimes, there is no federal crime against abortion that I am aware of. edit: How is this guy a political advisor when he doesn't know extremely basic poo poo like this? Rigel fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 20:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:(it still might) If for some reason I was under an ancient voodoo curse permanently trapping me within the state of Wyoming, then I probably would switch parties for that primary to vote for the anti-insurrectionist.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Are replies on Twitter personalized or different if you aren't logged in? Twitter feeds are absolutely personalized. They are starkly different for people with different interests and political views. edit: missed the "if you aren't logged in" part. I don't know if that gives you a "neutral" feed or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is incredibly cold comfort in the face of all of the years that the Dems had large majorities in both chambers of Congress, when they could have far more easily codified it into law. It was never going to be easier than right after the draft leaked because it was always going to require weakening the filibuster, and there's no way in hell that was going to happen before now for a theoretical possibility that they did not seriously believe would ever happen. Majorian posted:As far as appealing to voters to put more pro-choice votes in the Senate, their strategy would be much more effective if their promises were more concrete and less vague than just the "we'll fight this with every fiber of our being, but we won't say how" sentiment in that statement. This year is the acid test. As far as the politicians are concerned, this November decides it: either the voters give a poo poo about abortion, or they don't. If the voters collectively tell the politicians that they don't really care that much, then the parties will conclude that abortion is only useful for raising money but won't actually get them votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Really? That's the acid test? Not Obama getting elected in 2008 in a landslide after promising that "the first thing he would do" after inauguration was signing the Freedom of Choice Act? It seems to me like the Democratic party leadership will draw whatever conclusion they want from elections, regardless of what the voters say. The Dems are betting hard that it will matter, they seem to be moving all in on this as their November message, but if the voters apathetically shrug and vote for Republicans RIGHT AFTER Roe v Wade was struck down as you seemed to suggest they might do, then the politicians are not going to conclude that they just didn't talk about abortion enough. They will instead conclude that it is not really a vote-winning issue that people really care about.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Voters are collectively telling the democrats to do something hit the democrats sit and twiddle their thumbs. They literally did everything they could after the leak. They do not have the votes, so they are campaigning on this as their big message of the year. Biden's DOJ just now announced that they are going to try to fight states that try to go beyond their borders. If you think they are twiddling their thumbs, you are either not paying attention, or you are.... perhaps expecting them to pick up weapons and literally fight.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:if the democrats lose, the actual message is that people don’t believe in democrats, not that people are alright with abortion being overturned theCalamity posted:The voters are going to look at the Dems and ask themselves “what have the Dems done for me? I wanted abortion rights and they failed to do that despite having the power. Why should I keep voting for them?” Roe v Wade JUST got overturned, and we are going to hear almost nothing but abortion from now to election day. There's no mystery on which party is banning abortion. If after all that drama and emotion, the voters then decide to vote for Republicans anyway, *Everyone* should immediately conclude at that point that abortion does not really matter to voters. Maybe it matters to some people, but it won't win elections. Its really that simple, you can't easily spin a hypothetical result this year where the Dems campaign on abortion, lose, and then go "well abortion is still an issue that matters to voters, its just that this one thing wasn't quite sold right or they had the wrong messenger". This isn't a used car that needs to be sold or a complex subject that needs to be carefully explained, either the voters are pissed and vote based on it, or they aren't really that upset about it and they decide they care about inflation instead. .
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:It doesn't matter how many people vote because they will never get 61 Democrats into the Senate. We don't need 61, we only need 50+1. We currently have 48 who are willing to do what needs to be done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:50+1 doesn't mean anything so long as we have the filibuster, sadly. I think you misunderstood. We only need 50+1 to modify or abolish the filibuster, and we currently have 48 who are willing to at least chip away at it to move votes for election reform and abortion. There's really no reason to be obsessed with 60 anymore as the margin to really make progress, because we will get rid of the filibuster well before we ever managed to get back up to 60 again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Did they vote on ending the filibuster? Yes. Twice. People keep saying that the Dems should at least do something even if they know it won't work. They do, and then people don't notice and still assume they did nothing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Can you link to when they voted to end the filibuster? HR1, January 2022 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/19/us/biden-voting-rights-filibuster. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/senate-voting-legislation-filibuster/index.html The vote to change the filibuster was 48-52 with Manchin and Sinema voting against.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:A one-time carveout isn't the same thing as ending the filibuster. You claimed this exact poo poo in the last thread and got corrected and you're still repeating it and it's still wrong OK, so? Why does that matter? Carving out votes for filibustered bills that really matter is not a meaningful difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:it's dishonest to claim it is. Not really, outside of Senate parliamentary rule nerds. Its OK to shorthand it, and then clarify if someone asks. Everyone pretty much understands that the filibuster would not last much longer after exceptions start being made for specific non-budget legislation on the basis of "just because we really want to pass this bill, thats why" which is why Manchin and Sinema wouldn't vote for a carve out for HR1 even though they supported the bill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
Framboise posted:Such an extreme injustice, and the only thing they have to show for it is demanding votes and donations without doing loving anything. We have a democratic president. He is useless. What do you want them to do that they are not doing now?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Thank you. Any adjustment to the filibuster rules at all requires the nuclear option. The parliamentarian is going to say you can't vote on that election reform bill just because you really want to, and then the senate votes either "you are wrong, from now on yes we can vote for election reform bills" or "oops, you are right, sorry".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, Biden could say that if the Dems expand their majority in November, they will pass a new Freedom of Choice Act that protects reproductive rights, and unlike Obama, he will sign it into law the second it passes. That would be a good start. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1540379614517903360
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The ruling that came down today has made me deeply upset. Even living in Canada doesn’t change how I feel about it because I’m sad for all the people who will be hurt or have their lives irrevocably changed. I’m sad for all the women out there who are now not going to be living their fullest lives because they always gotta cope with the spectre of roe v Wade. Anecdotally, there have always been a lot of people who just wrote off culture war issues like abortion as things they don't have to care about because the court ruled on it already, and they saw rhetoric arguing otherwise as political nonsense which they could safely ignore. It is hard to say how many people this described who should have taken the threat from the GOP more seriously, but most of us anecdotally know some of these clueless idiots. Later this year it won't be a guess anymore, we will really know if the American people give a poo poo about the direction of the country or not. If the GOP got wiped the gently caress out in November (which is a big if) then things would change very fast in both parties. If these issues are met with "eh it seems bad but I care more about inflation" and the GOP isn't punished then we may be hosed in the short term.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Gatts posted:If the Democrats lose this election and further conservative bullshit continues they’ll just say “Well people have spoken and they want this. It’s democracy.” Basically this, except unironically. There really is no good excuse for the people in this election. If they decide not to punish the GOP just a short 4.5 months after Roe v Wade was overturned, then we would have to conclude that abortion rights is just simply not that important to most people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A more likely explanation is that voters have simply lost faith in the Democratic Party's willingness to protect their hard-fought rights, and don't see any point in turning out for them. One can already see this at work as the Dems hemorrhage working-class POC voters across the country. Most people are not extremely online political nerds like us who follow Washington's minutia and agonize over whether their priorities are being given serious consideration by party and congressional leaders. There is also not really any confusion whatsoever on which party supports and opposes abortion. It is very, very simple this year. If the GOP is not punished then the most likely explanation is that abortion is just really not that important to most people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No, they base their votes (including whether or not to vote at all) on whether or not they feel the party in power has made their lives materially better. The Dems have not succeeded at doing this for many working-class voters of color, which is why they are falling away from the party. I don't disagree with that. The election is not that far away. If this does not fire people up and get them to decide they care about voting this time, then we have to conclude that abortion is not important. Maybe some people who don't vote might have mildly cared a little bit, but not really all that much.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Not clear how that’s possible without an act of Congress. This sounded weird enough to look into, especially since AOC called for it. She's usually pretty careful about not making illegal or unworkable demands without checking with her staff. As weird as it sounds, according to what I'm reading Biden might actually be able to make abortion services available on Federal land without anything needed from congress and there could possibly be nothing that the states can do to stop it (well, until in a 6-3 decision...) Its not a permanent solution since obviously that poo poo gets shut down if the GOP wins in 2024, but in the meantime this should be explored.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:The democrats are literally in control of Congress No they aren't, not really. The Democrats have effective control of a 48-seat minority of the Senate. 2 people who can't be blocked from running in the Democratic primary and who choose to call themselves Democrats are in favor of doing nothing. No one has control of congress, it lies mostly dead and dormant. You can't take the views of those two idiots and attach them to the entire party. Maybe the average uneducated voter who doesn't know anything might, but you presumably are more informed. Rigel fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Jun 25, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:You absolutely can. They're literally Democrats Mormon Star Wars posted:The Democratic party doesn't have a set ideology or shared belief. We can tell this because of the recent support for anti abortion dems. So if Manchin calls himself a Democrat, is a member of the party, and is recognized as a Democrat by the party, he's a Democrat. When 48 Democrats want to do something, a couple other stupid Senators refuse and would rather sit and do nothing, there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them into giving in, then how would a person who is smart and educated argue that this then means that all 50 are against doing something?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:32
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's not that you're not describing reality, you are, it's that they can either call themselves a political party or they can be a vague group of people who can't be blamed as a group and have no responsibility for each other. They don't get to be both because the second one is not congruent with what a political party is. I get that busy uneducated average voters who are not political nerds and who don't know any better may be frustrated about the party, and that is a problem. We presumably know better here, so when someone argues that not passing laws mean "The Democrats" don't want to pass laws (not Manchin or Sinema, but "The Democrats", meaning the whole party), then I have to conclude that maybe they just don't know any better and are unaware of how the Senate works and how very little leverage anyone has over a couple morons. If they do know better, then they might not be arguing in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:What on earth are you talking about "there is absolutely no way whatsoever to pressure them"? Take away their committee assignments. Publicly endorse and fund primary challengers. Madison Cawthorn them for gently caress's sake. Did you miss that whole debacle? That's what Republicans do when someone is an embarrassment to the party. They will switch parties, and would actually politically benefit. These are people who campaign at home promising to stand up to Schumer for Arizona/West Virginia and not let the party get everything they want. If you want to argue that maybe driving them out is a good thing (thus giving up the ability to pass a budget or confirm judges) to make it clear to the average voter that the Dems are not in control for non-budget legislation, fine but just say so. Don't try to pretend that the Democrats could pass these laws if they really wanted to. They have absolutely no leverage to speak of whatsoever.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:46
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Does this sound like a legitimate excuse? To make this analogy comparable you need to include the fact that those members are needed to enable good things to happen and that driving them out costs you those good things. Perhaps those members are wealthy and their contributions enable local programs for the homeless to continue but losing those members mean those programs end. Or if you are unhappy with that, come up with something else, its your analogy. With that modification, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:54
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Going by your other post, having them switch parties wouldn't mean anything and change nothing, right? You said that the Democrats are not in power. If those two switch parties, the Democrats would still not be in power, right? They would likely block judicial nominees and reconciliation votes. Every time a Senator switched parties in the past, their votes after the switch also moved substantially left or right towards their new party.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Someone brought up reservations as a work around and I had a really stupid idea. I think there is actually a group that literally does that for nations which ban abortion. https://www.womenonwaves.org/en/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 15:00
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:I don't think you'll find people willing to give any organization the benefit of doubt that they totally, as a group, oppose bigotry, but can't actually make that opposition manifest because of a few bad votes. I agree that average uneducated voters who don't know how the Senate works will be confused and that is a problem. We should not have that same level of confusion here on this board. The fact remains that it is intellectually dishonest to conclude that "the Democrats" actually oppose abortion and election reform when the House literally passed those bills which the president wants to sign and we just have a couple idiots in the Senate preventing the legislature from functioning. We should be smart enough to not blame "the Democrats", but that would be inconvenient for those who out of rage and frustration just want to vent that there's actually no point in voting anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:21 |
|
|
B B posted:Over half of the Democrats in the Senate haven't made their position clear, just want to return to a talking filibuster, or outright oppose changes to the filibuster. We literally had a vote on this in January. It failed 48-52. It was a big deal on this board. Manchin and Sinema supported the bill that was being filibustered but opposed changing the rules because they are idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2022 15:08
|
|