Re: The US Politics Thread

[sportsczy]

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on this

this is pure evil

That's what privilege does to a MF

Not really,

I'm pro life with exceptions.  The exceptions are:
-  rape
-  medical conditions

The problem in the US is that you're either all in or all out.  No room for nuance.  I didn't agree with Roe v Wade completely and I don't agree with the 100% pro life state laws either.  But generally speaking, in the absence of a perfect solution, i will always prefer more freedom as opposed to less.  Everything is so radical here.

It shouldn't have been overturned if the likely outcome was the opposite radical stance.  But I'm not losing any sleep over it. It may make things less convenient... but practically speaking, people will be able to make a choice if they want to simply by going to another state. If they can't afford it, I'm 100% that there will be plenty of organizations that will pay for the trip and procedure.

[Hapless_Hans]

this is pure evil

That's what privilege does to a MF

Not really,

I'm pro life with exceptions.  The exceptions are:
-  rape
-  medical conditions

The problem in the US is that you're either all in or all out.  No room for nuance.  I didn't agree with Roe v Wade completely and I don't agree with the 100% pro life state laws either.  But generally speaking, in the absence of a perfect solution, i will always prefer more freedom as opposed to less.  Everything is so radical here.

It shouldn't have been overturned if the likely outcome was the opposite radical stance.  But I'm not losing any sleep over it. It may make things less convenient... but practically speaking, people will be able to make a choice if they want to simply by going to another state. If they can't afford it, I'm 100% that there will be plenty of organizations that will pay for the trip and procedure.

You can be pro life all you want it's none of your fucking business, you should have no say in the matter.

Since you can't actually get PREGNANT

[BarrileteCosmico]

Sports you can't be for small government and then all of a sudden think the state can get between a woman and her doctor over a medical matter. Let's be consistent.

[sportsczy]

The fact is BC... the federal government removed itself from the conversation entirely.  That's the ruling.  So government involvement has become smaller.

In any case, I've made it clear that I wasn't in favor of the ruling.  Both this and Roe v Wade suck.  They shouldn't have done anything if they weren't going to improve matters.

@Hans...  since a man is legally responsible for the child, whether he wants the child or not, then I should have a say.  Take all responsibility away from a man then I could at least see the logic... although it's not my belief.  Bearing children and creating life is a responsibility, not a right, and should be treated as such imo.  But again, exceptions should be made for rape and medical conditions.

[FennecFox7]

why are you personally against abortion then?

El gunner, what I’m saying is if I had the choice to abort, I wouldn’t do it, but at the same time, I will defend a womens right to get an abortion. Why? Because I realize my opinion on it might not be what someone else’s opinion is. And certainly the government shouldn’t be involved. I choose not to use cocaine, but I don’t think it should be illegal; these are non violent crimes which only serve to pack jails and give power to the State

[FennecFox7]

Sports you can't be for small government and then all of a sudden think the state can get between a woman and her doctor over a medical matter. Let's be consistent.

This is basically my stance BC.

Sports; let’s be nuanced here; the government basicallysaid here’s a law/ruling (roe v wade) that will give you more freedom. In that case, it’s okay by me. The end result of freedom is what matters, how we got the freedom is irrelevant. It’s the same concept and end goal, although I realize there are some differences, as the second amendment, it guarantees the right to bear arms, so democratic states have to work with that. I feel like republicans just talk up a big game about freedom but only with stuff they actually agree with.

[sportsczy]

Regardless of what I believe, it's only my belief and nothing more. I don't judge people or project my beliefs on anyone else. In the end, I follow the rule of law and will abide by what society decides. If a society becomes too incompatible with me, I'll simply move somewhere else.

I'm not fanatical about anything.

[FennecFox7]

Regardless of what I believe, it's only my belief and nothing more.  I don't judge people or project my beliefs on anyone else.  In the end, I follow the rule of law and will abide by what society decides.  If a society becomes too incompatible with me, I'll simply move somewhere else.

I'm not fanatical about anything.    

Both sides use issues like this, gun control to distract the people of the corruption and real problems in congress and government (lobbyists, kickbacks, subsidies, police state, federal overreach, inflation, unnecessary taxes and spending, surveillance on American citizens )

[sportsczy]

Regardless of what I believe, it's only my belief and nothing more.  I don't judge people or project my beliefs on anyone else.  In the end, I follow the rule of law and will abide by what society decides.  If a society becomes too incompatible with me, I'll simply move somewhere else.

I'm not fanatical about anything.    

Both sides use issues like this, gun control to distract the people of the corruption and real problems in congress and government (lobbyists, kickbacks, subsidies, police state, federal overreach, inflation, unnecessary taxes and spending, surveillance on American citizens )

yeah I mean we have bigger issues. No need to add fuel to the fire with this ruling that really only moves extremes and creates division.

i really don't understand what any of the leaders, with either party, is trying to accomplish. I HATE partisan politics.

[BarrileteCosmico]

Sports the government didn't get smaller, it got bigger. We had a rule saying "the government cannot interfere here" and now we have one saying "the government may choose to interfere here". That's certainly an increase in government say, no?

[sportsczy]

Sports the government didn't get smaller, it got bigger. We had a rule saying "the government cannot interfere here" and now we have one saying "the government may choose to interfere here". That's certainly an increase in government say, no?

The rule was "the federal government oversees this matter and this is how the law is applied across all states".  This was changed to "the federal government has no authority on this matter".  The federal government's intervention decreased.

"small government" has varied definitions anyhow.  Non-federalists define it as a loose confederation of independent states.  You're referring to the libertarian definition that is very minimal government intervention and none in matters considered to be private or personal.  I adhere to the classic (or some would say capitalistic) view, which seeks to minimize the role of the government, especially in providing services and regulating the private sector.

To reiterate... it sucked that abortion was unregulated and it sucks equally that abortions are getting completely banned in some states.  I'm not arguing that this sucks overall.  My only point is that I'm not sure which one sucked more so I'm don't have strong feelings one way or another.  If you're going to replace one very flawed law with another that creates a legal vacuum that allows for other forms of stupidity... why bother.

So much energy spent on absolutely solving nothing one way or another.

Finally, all things being equal... i always side with more personal freedoms as opposed to less. So on balance, I'm against this ruling.

[Myesyats]

What this is is religious nutjobs overtaking courts and changing social policies based on phony science, alternative facts, misinterpreted history and just outright lies.

Another misinterpreted part of history by those idiots is the 2nd amendment and probably many others that I cant think of now. Same shit happens with conservatives all over the world, they're bending historical narratives so much so as to justify their batshit policies. I mean what can you expect from someone who followes rules from a book written 2k years ago by monks who were wasted on wine.

I think this could be good for dems though in context of the midterms, no? to mobilize their base?

[rincon]

Sports the government didn't get smaller, it got bigger. We had a rule saying "the government cannot interfere here" and now we have one saying "the government may choose to interfere here". That's certainly an increase in government say, no?

The rule was "the federal government oversees this matter and this is how the law is applied across all states".  This was changed to "the federal government has no authority on this matter".  The federal government's intervention decreased.

"small government" has varied definitions anyhow.  Non-federalists define it as a loose confederation of independent states.  You're referring to the libertarian definition that is very minimal government intervention and none in matters considered to be private or personal.  I adhere to the classic (or some would say capitalistic) view, which seeks to minimize the role of the government, especially in providing services and regulating the private sector.

This isn't much more than a technicality. Everyone knew, including the judges, that the federal government removing themselves from this issue would result in more government intervention. Its a intellectually dishonest argument for the judges and politicians to hide behind the "lets leave it to the states" when they knew exactly the outcome beforehand, it was driven by their agenda to ban abortion.

Before this court ruling, women had more rights, they had the right to abort (under some circumstances). Now, due to government intervention they have lost that right in half of the country. The supreme court and republican state governments have gone out of their way to intervene and limit people's freedom to abort.

[rincon]

What this is is religious nutjobs overtaking courts and changing social policies based on phony science, alternative facts, misinterpreted history and just outright lies.

Another misinterpreted part of history by those idiots is the 2nd amendment and probably many others that I cant think of now. Same shit happens with conservatives all over the world, they're bending historical narratives so much so as to justify their batshit policies. I mean what can you expect from someone who followes rules from a book written 2k years ago by monks who were wasted on wine.

Its crazy, so much of the US wanting to impose basically a theocracy. A real democratic backslide is occurring.

[McLewis]

I think this could be good for dems though in context of the midterms, no? to mobilize their base?

On the surface, yes. In reality, I'm just not sure.

Democrats voters historically do not have high turnout during midterms when the president is Democrat. This usually means a red wave.

Republican candidates' messaging is nearly en masse around the economy: high inflation, baby formula shortages, a looming recession, etc. Midterms are always a referendum on the current administration, especially when it comes to the economy. The President's party never survives a midterm in tact if the perception is that the economy's in bad shape.

So even with the rage over these SCOTUS decisions, if Democrats don't address what's being done about the economy, they're not going to keep Congress. And to have any chance in fighting back against these rulings, they need to not only keep Congress, but make gains, particularly in the Senate. They need at least 2 more seats flipped to nullify Manchin and Sinema.

Personally, I just don't see it happening. I believe history will repeat itself. I'd love to be wrong though.

[BarrileteCosmico]

It will likely improve turnout but just to turn a catastrophe into a loss.

I'd like to see the dems move to codify other Supreme Court "wins" while they still can, but haven't seen anything about that. If gay marriage and contraceptions are on the table let's make sure it's locked in.

[McLewis]

There was an opportunity to codify Roe when the decision was leaked a month ago, but it would've required removing the filibuster, which killed it since the Manchin wing are pro-filibuster.

I suspect the same would happen if they tried to codify the other targeted ruling as well. The same wing of the party would stymie it. It's why they need to flip an additional 2 more seats.

[sportsczy]

filibuster is a good thing.  Unless a side has a super majority, I don't want a razor thin majority to make policy without compromise.  I'm talking both sides here.  I don't trust any of them.

If margin remains thin and things continue to digress, majority of people will get very upset and angry regardless of party.  Incumbents will fear for their re-election.  It will force discussion and compromise.

It's terrible that we need crisis to have debate... but that's how people think today.

And btw, compromise and debate is not saying "I'm right, you're wrong and you need to change your mind". It's about give and take.

[Pedram]

It will likely improve turnout but just to turn a catastrophe into a loss.

I'd like to see the dems move to codify other Supreme Court "wins" while they still can, but haven't seen anything about that. If gay marriage and contraceptions are on the table let's make sure it's locked in.

I still think Democrats are headed for a heavy loss, their electorate look sick and tired of the party's utter incompetence. they don't even feel like donating anymore because they know their money will just be wasted on electing more conservative anti abortion Democrats like Henry Cuellar or in races in which Democrats has no chance of winning.

[McLewis]

Soooooo......

We have to codify Roe vs. Wade into law.

If the filibuster gets in the way, we should provide an exception to the filibuster to deal with the Supreme Court decision.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) June 30, 2022

And yet............

Both Manchin and Sinema’s position on preserving the filibuster hasn’t changed in light of the Dobbs ruling or Biden calling for congress to eliminate it in order to codify Roe v. Wade, their spokespeople tell me

— Alayna Treene (@alaynatreene) June 30, 2022

This is exactly why Dems need to flip more seats in the Senate. The will of the base cannot be held hostage by 2 people.

[McLewis]

filibuster is a good thing.  Unless a side has a super majority, I don't want a razor thin majority to make policy without compromise.  I'm talking both sides here.  I don't trust any of them.

If margin remains thin and things continue to digress, majority of people will get very upset and angry regardless of party.  Incumbents will fear for their re-election.  It will force discussion and compromise.

It's terrible that we need crisis to have debate... but that's how people think today.

And btw, compromise and debate is not saying "I'm right, you're wrong and you need to change your mind". It's about give and take.

The problem with everything you just said is that you believe the Right are operating in good faith and that the Left should recognize that and respond in kind.

The reality is that the Right are repeatedly punching the Left in the face with cheap shots and apparently the Left are supposed to either take it or try to make a deal so the Right stops hitting them.

The one thing, according to you, that the Left aren't supposed to do, is fight back. No, no, no. That would be considered improper when getting decked with haymakers. Can't have that, can we?

[Myesyats]

There's no compromise with traitors who tried to overthrow a fairly elected president. Conservatives really own every conversation somehow and live in their own reality

[sportsczy]

I think the Left is operating in just as bad faith, and frankly far more imo, than the Right.  Both suck.  Both have extreme segments that are becoming larger and dominating the platforms.... that's the issue.

One extreme calls themselves "True Americans"... whatever the f that means.
The other extreme calls themselves "Progressives"... except nobody other than themselves see them as progressive.

[McLewis]

I truly don't understand it.

The time for compromise ended on 1/6. If we're being very serious, it ended on November 9th, 2016 when Trump was elected. That started us down a path of hyper partisanship that only the Right can stop by rejecting Trumpism utterly. Anything short of that is in bad faith.

It is not on the Left to mend the divide. The Right continually pushes the envelope and yet it's the Left that's expected to take the higher ground, even as it the Right litters it with banana peels. It's a ridiculous school of thought.

[elitedam]

Even after one side tried to overthrow the government, we still have to listen to this enlightened centrist bullshit.

[sportsczy]

Asking for only one side to compromise = nothing will happen.  Ever.  Complete stalemate.

The result is... Republicans will very likely sweep house and senate in November and also very likely the presidency in 2 years.  Will reverse every Dem policy (even the good ones).  2 years after that, Dems will win elections and reverse all the Rep policies (even the good ones).

Rinse.  Repeat.  Everyone literally sitting in their trenches and the country continues to spiral downward because it's impossible to move forward.

This is where we're headed with closed mindedness.

Once US society is in complete tatters and people are forced to listen to each other and compromise, the country will move forward again... if it's not too late.

[Sponsored content]