American Politics

[xi0]

That's not exactly new though. Nor even slightly controversial in conservative circles. Now, without roe v wade and a non packed court that would be all too willing for it.. they just need the right case to mount the right precedent.

How is it not new? I'm talking about the next step they want to take now that the legal precedent used for the last 50 years has been diminished. They could have daydreamed all they wanted up until now.

I mean, if you want to ask what they want for other issues then it's more of the same. Their brand of authoritarianism is justified if it's beating back "progression" that's deemed as "degenerate".

 

[kkck]

How is it not new? I'm talking about the next step they want to take now that the legal precedent used for the last 50 years has been diminished. They could have daydreamed all they wanted up until now.

I mean, if you want to ask what they want for other issues then it's more of the same. Their brand of authoritarianism is justified if it's beating back "progression" that's deemed as "degenerate".

Because... that's the natural conclusion of life beginning at conception? As in, almost every form of abortion (including day after pills) amounting to first degree murder. Or you mean the actual possibility of these proposals becoming law is new? I suppose that's the case in a way though the right wing wanting this to begin with is pretty old. Why do you think so much of the right wing is willing to believe politicians and people they don't like literally cannibalize and rape children? Because they already believe children are being murdered by the thousands. The fight on the conservative end has always been about at least criminalizing abortion (I can't understand this fight in any other way tbh). And with the current court it's not that an insane of an idea that they could go further with the right case to set the right precedent.

 

[xi0]

Because... that's the natural conclusion of life beginning at conception? As in, almost every form of abortion (including day after pills) amounting to first degree murder. Or you mean the actual possibility of these proposals becoming law is new? I suppose that's the case in a way though the right wing wanting this to begin with is pretty old. Why do you think so much of the right wing is willing to believe politicians and people they don't like literally cannibalize and rape children? Because they already believe children are being murdered by the thousands. The fight on the conservative end has always been about at least criminalizing abortion (I can't understand this fight in any other way tbh). And with the current court it's not that an insane of an idea that they could go further with the right case to set the right precedent.

Yeah, I'm talking about the practical aspect of it, not conservative wish fulfillment. But of course, with the Court as it currently is and potentially how it will be for the next few decades, the world is their reactionary oyster.

The DNC needs to make it a top priority to end the filibuster and add an even number of liberal justices to the SCOTUS. Conservatives are using this new landscape to "give liberals something to cry about", so liberals have no choice but to live up to conservative's pearl-clutching idea of who they are. Anything less of that is a defeat that will resound for a very long time.

I'm of the opinion that these fucks do not care about the integrity of institutions, so there is no reason for the left to pretend to glorify them either.

--- Double Post Merged, May 7, 2022, Original Post Date: May 7, 2022 ---

Oh and they should move to impeach this piece of shit and throw his wife in jail

--- Double Post Merged, May 7, 2022 ---

None of this will happen though btw, the DNC are feckless and only care about winning elections so they can let down their voter base, lose elections next time so they can cry about it for the next 2-4 years, rinse and repeat.

 

[Sanity Check]

 

[shionoro]

I don't really care for election promises as those don't often materialize. The simple fact is Trump has done irreparable damage to the balance of the court, so the Democrats needed to address this by adding more seats. Let the Republicans bitch and moan, they would have been for the same exact thing if Clinton had been elected and only nominated liberal picks.

What I mean is that I do not think the Democrats can do that with the thin majority they have. I think they have to run on that to be able to pressure their own into pulling through with it, seeing people want it and voters can be won with it.
It is clear the supreme court is a shitshow. Not just since Trump. But reforming it needs a robust mandate, elseways it will be blocked.

 

[xi0]

What I mean is that I do not think the Democrats can do that with the thin majority they have. I think they have to run on that to be able to pressure their own into pulling through with it, seeing people want it and voters can be won with it.
It is clear the supreme court is a shitshow. Not just since Trump. But reforming it needs a robust mandate, elseways it will be blocked.

There is no precedent for it being blocked, that's the point. Not a single word or mention in the Constitution of how many seats the Supreme Court should have. You only need to look at the Reform bill FDR had proposed -

"The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years."

We already know they move at a snail's pace so maybe it could be an issue they could run on, that's not something I had in mind or care about, I just want reform. The SCOTUS gifted them that opportunity with this latest decision. But the DNC message is always VOTE VOTE VOTE and never REFORM REFORM REFORM.... so this opportunity will most likely be wasted in the end even if by some miracle Biden wants it.

 

[Sanity Check]

Warning on Mass Extinction of Sea Life: ‘An Oh My God Moment’ (Published 2022)

A new study finds that if fossil fuel emissions continue apace, the oceans could experience a mass extinction by 2300. There is still time to avoid it.

www.nytimes.com

--- Double Post Merged, May 9, 2022, Original Post Date: May 9, 2022 ---

The brutal news headlines keep coming.

Russia’s economy is back on its feet

There's a reason for its resilience

www.economist.com

Putin may have high ratings â but Russians are terrified too | Alexei Levinson

Today on Russia’s Victory Day, the Guardian and other European news organisations are publishing articles by the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta

www.theguardian.com

 

[kkck]

Chilling with the people who thought russia's army was amazing I suppose? Though forecasts show the russian economy contracting some 10-ish% this year. Which is pretty devastating.

 

[Sanity Check]

Hmmmm. Interesting.

...


More headlines.

Faecal transplants reverse hallmarks of ageing

www.uea.ac.uk

'Sextortionists' are increasingly targeting young men for money. The outcome can be deadly.

“They wouldn’t give up, and he felt he had no choice but to do it to protect his family,” one mother said after internet blackmailers targeted her son and he took his own life.

www.nbcnews.com

Fed raises rates by half a percentage point — the biggest hike in two decades — to fight inflation

Wednesday's rate hike will push the federal funds rate to a range of 0.75%-1%.

www.cnbc.com

A Landlord ‘Underestimated’ His Tenants. Now They Could Own the Building. (Published 2022)

When a new landlord bought their building in the Bronx and threatened to raise rents and kick them out, tenants banded together. They never expected how far they might get: the chance to buy their apartments for $2,500 each.

www.nytimes.com

Why human brains were bigger 3,000 years ago

Our modern civilisation may be the most advanced to ever exist on Earth, but around 100 generations ago, our ancestors had brains that were larger than our own.

www.bbc.com

 

[shionoro]

Chilling with the people who thought russia's army was amazing I suppose? Though forecasts show the russian economy contracting some 10-ish% this year. Which is pretty devastating.

Still waiting for the "good soldiers" to arrive, after the "cannonfodder" sniffed out the ukrainian positions. Also, Russians would never seriously try to get all of ukraine of course! (because ukrainians would not let them).

Putin could not even completely get Mariupol until May 9th. Ukrainians are taking back villages and there is no real Russian offensive to speak of anymore. That can change of course and shuold not be taken for granted, but it is clear to me that ukrainians get stronger by the day and russians, leading an exhausting campaign outside their borders, just get more demoralized by the day.

I do not believe in an outright russian victory anymore. There might be some positions they can hold, simply because Ukrainians won't shell their own cities, but short of tactical nukes, i do not see how they would be able to keep their presence on the long run. They just do not have the logistics, they are fighting sabotage in Belarus and sanctions hamper their longterm options.

The big questions is how a russian withdrawal could or should look and what its implications will be. To me, it is just crystal clear that this needs to end with a big push for Nato and EU membership of several states coupled with a strategy to extend Europe's hand to russia after it withdraws. That might sound contradictory, but Russia never felt threatened by Nato, it was always an excuse. Maybe Russian people did, but certainly not the leadership.

 

[Sanity Check]

there is no real Russian offensive to speak of anymore.

I wonder how much of that is pure logistics.

If you can kill a russian T-90 tank that costs $1.2 million.

With a switchblade drone that costs $6,000.

It could mean war is no longer a cost effective option.

 

[kkck]

This alone should earn pelosi a dunce hat that is nailed into her skull and banned for politics forever. I could understand the position that she isn't for abortion... But the idea that at any point the republican party supported any amount of abortion is beyond inane. I suppose there was a point sometime before the 2000s at which republicans gave a crap about climate change but come on.. it'd been decades since that. Let alone the sheer unmitigated stupidity of wanting the very people who will fight your every policy proposal (not that polosi has any) to pretty much death to be strong...

 

[shionoro]

I wonder how much of that is pure logistics.

If you can kill a russian T-90 tank that costs $1.2 million.

With a switchblade drone that costs $6,000.

It could mean war is no longer a cost effective option.

This also pales in comparison to what russians waste on missiles to shoot at rubble. From a military standpoint or a geostrategical standpoint, nothing about this war makes sense. It only makes sense if you value having a "russian sky" over belarus, ukraine and other such state higher than your people, your country and your standing in the world.
The Russians made it pretty clear that they would rather reign ruins than making the actual russia a first world nation.

 

[xi0]

This alone should earn pelosi a dunce hat that is nailed into her skull and banned for politics forever. I could understand the position that she isn't for abortion... But the idea that at any point the republican party supported any amount of abortion is beyond inane. I suppose there was a point sometime before the 2000s at which republicans gave a crap about climate change but come on.. it'd been decades since that. Let alone the sheer unmitigated stupidity of wanting the very people who will fight your every policy proposal (not that polosi has any) to pretty much death to be strong...

It's a revealing the man behind the curtain moment. She probably thinks this will play well with centrists (whatever those are), but the reality is this is what she wants since the focus can be on campaigning and not legislating. She and the top brass have no strategy to contend with Trump and his sycophants, they just want an easier time at filling their coffers with corporate money.

 

[M3J]

This alone should earn pelosi a dunce hat that is nailed into her skull and banned for politics forever. I could understand the position that she isn't for abortion... But the idea that at any point the republican party supported any amount of abortion is beyond inane. I suppose there was a point sometime before the 2000s at which republicans gave a crap about climate change but come on.. it'd been decades since that. Let alone the sheer unmitigated stupidity of wanting the very people who will fight your every policy proposal (not that polosi has any) to pretty much death to be strong...

That's how you know she's a horrible woman and full of shit. Anyone with a brain knows republicans are generally against those things, and they only pretend to care about women when they have an agenda, like being anti-LGBT+ or Islamophobic or whatever. I can't think of a republican who actually cared about the environment since Teddy Roosevelt.

Dems are disappointing.

 

[kkck]

That's how you know she's a horrible woman and full of shit. Anyone with a brain knows republicans are generally against those things, and they only pretend to care about women when they have an agenda, like being anti-LGBT+ or Islamophobic or whatever. I can't think of a republican who actually cared about the environment since Teddy Roosevelt.

Dems are disappointing.

The worrisome part is that she probably believes this nonsense. I'd honestly be less concerned if she didn't and was actually lying about her beliefs. One bit i do want to comment on though... I dislike the framing the US leftwing makes regarding anyone who is anti abortion hating women. I mean, that's obviously nonsense. It's mathematically nonsense. There's a spectrum in regards to how people feel about abortion (from no abortion, to necessary evil, to abortions are as ordinary as tic tacs, to 4rth trimester abortions) and this isn't a male vs female thing. It's a conservative vs liberal thing at best and approximately half of conservatives are actual biological females. It makes zero sense to suggest that every female pro lifer hates women.

 

[M3J]

The worrisome part is that she probably believes this nonsense. I'd honestly be less concerned if she didn't and was actually lying about her beliefs. One bit i do want to comment on though... I dislike the framing the US leftwing makes regarding anyone who is anti abortion hating women. I mean, that's obviously nonsense. It's mathematically nonsense. There's a spectrum in regards to how people feel about abortion (from no abortion, to necessary evil, to abortions are as ordinary as tic tacs, to 4rth trimester abortions) and this isn't a male vs female thing. It's a conservative vs liberal thing at best and approximately half of conservatives are actual biological females. It makes zero sense to suggest that every female pro lifer hates women.

What's 4rth trimester abortion? Sounds like right wing propaganda bullshit.

It makes perfect sense to say that anti-abortionists hate women. Abortion doesn't just remove the fetus, it can also save the mother's life if something happens to the fetus. There's no reason to strip that right away from women, especially since it affects no one but the mothers. Not to mention, they're willing to punish women for miscarriages or for choosing to remove the dead fetus. If you think it's nonsense, then you haven't been listening to women.

 

[kkck]

What's 4rth trimester abortion? Sounds like right wing propaganda bullshit.

It makes perfect sense to say that anti-abortionists hate women. Abortion doesn't just remove the fetus, it can also save the mother's life if something happens to the fetus. There's no reason to strip that right away from women, especially since it affects no one but the mothers. Not to mention, they're willing to punish women for miscarriages or for choosing to remove the dead fetus. If you think it's nonsense, then you haven't been listening to women.

I kinda meant that fourth term bit a tad humorously. I've seen a few people supporting pretty late term abortions though this is generally on the fringes. I personally wouldn't object to saving the mother in case a pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. But that's not the point I am making. I don't see how any of what you said defends your point about hating women. None of that has any relevance to the fact that approximately half of all people who oppose abortions are females. Or that there's a wide range of views regarding what the limits of abortions should be. Add to that substantial portions of the left in the US outright dismissing the possibility that conservatives could believe fetuses are people.

 

[M3J]

I kinda meant that fourth term bit a tad humorously. I've seen a few people supporting pretty late term abortions though this is generally on the fringes. I personally wouldn't object to saving the mother in case a pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. But that's not the point I am making. I don't see how any of what you said defends your point about hating women. None of that has any relevance to the fact that approximately half of all people who oppose abortions are females. Or that there's a wide range of views regarding what the limits of abortions should be. Add to that substantial portions of the left in the US outright dismissing the possibility that conservatives could believe fetuses are people.

Where have you seen that? No doubt some people do support it, but often it's the right wingers presenting false info. I've yet to see anyone seriously say they support late term abortion just because.

How does it not? Abortion is healthcare. By banning abortion, women are putting their lives at risk to get abortion, and whether or not through abortion or miscarriage, if the fetus dies, then they're punished for it. They're not doing this because they care about lives or fetuses, and some republicans even said it's to keep up the supply of infants for wannabe parents to adopt.

If they don't hate women, then why are they okay with punishing women (even called for killing them) even for miscarriages? If they really are pro-lives, then why don't they support better aid and welfare for families, better parental leave, and all that other stuff that makes it easier for women to have and raise kids? Why just say "you do the fuck, you live with the consequence?"


Internalized misogyny is a thing, as well as brainwashing or being taught to believe certain things thanks to environment. Where did you get those stats though? And did it list the race of women who oppose abortion? Their religion?

Conservatives have proven they don't give a shit about fetuses or babies. Literally almost every sign points to conservatives, whether men or women, hating women and trying to strip away their rights. What have they done for women that in any way implies they actually care about women??

 

[kkck]

Where have you seen that? No doubt some people do support it, but often it's the right wingers presenting false info. I've yet to see anyone seriously say they support late term abortion just because.

From talking to people and occasionally on the internet? You can just google this, there's even a wikipedia article about this. The point I made was ultimately that people in the US have a variety of views on abortion and what it's limits should be, dunno why you are harping on that specific bit.

How does it not? Abortion is healthcare. By banning abortion, women are putting their lives at risk to get abortion, and whether or not through abortion or miscarriage, if the fetus dies, then they're punished for it. They're not doing this because they care about lives or fetuses, and some republicans even said it's to keep up the supply of infants for wannabe parents to adopt.

If they don't hate women, then why are they okay with punishing women (even called for killing them) even for miscarriages? If they really are pro-lives, then why don't they support better aid and welfare for families, better parental leave, and all that other stuff that makes it easier for women to have and raise kids? Why just say "you do the fuck, you live with the consequence?"

So... are you under the impression that people on the conservative end of the spectrum gather, both males and females, and go "Ok people, how do we go about making female's lives absolutely fucking miserable?".

Internalized misogyny is a thing, as well as brainwashing or being taught to believe certain things thanks to environment. Where did you get those stats though? And did it list the race of women who oppose abortion? Their religion?

Everyone is influenced by their circumstances and environment. That doesn't mean the tens of millions of people on the conservative end of the spectrum feel nothing but abject hatred of women. What difference would religion or race make in this case? Would race or religion merit outright dismissing their views on the subject? Also, just to be clear, you are asking for stats that would prove that views on abortion held by the 350 million people in the US are more nuanced than merely for or against?

Conservatives have proven they don't give a shit about fetuses or babies. Literally almost every sign points to conservatives, whether men or women, hating women and trying to strip away their rights. What have they done for women that in any way implies they actually care about women??

It's absolutely true that folk on the conservative end don't want anything to do with the otherwise aborted babies once they are born. But I would argue this is better explained by their ideology rather than abject hatred. With their believes being that fetuses from conception are human beings that have their own right to live and that society should have minimal amount of government and little to no social programs.

I mean, why would conservatives hate women? how does that make any sense? How does that explain anything going on? This whole thing with the left wing screaming at conservatives that they hate women is ultimately about dismissing what conservative's views on abortions actually are... It's obviously easier to dismiss someone who hates females than someone who claims that fetuses are human beings.