USA Politics Thread

[Occam]

I find it curious people in Canada and Europe are protesting the over turning of Roe v Wade when a state like Mississippi has more liberal abortion laws than Germany as expressed last page.

Mississippi is about to completely ban all abortions. (QED)
Its last abortion clinic has been closed. Like several other red states, it had trigger laws in place. Mississippi's abortion ban just hasn't been certified by the state Attorney General yet.
It must be nice to live in the magical land of make-believe.

[Himu]

Benji, can you give us a short summary on how the US allowed it's Supreme Court to become so politicised? Like, is there no actual oversight on these appointments to ensure these people do not politicise what should be the most politically neutral office in the country?

Friend, the SCOTUS has always been political. Take Roe V Wade. It has been said to be an awful ruling even to the point where the likes of Ginsburg said it was judicially weak. At worse, many have accused the ruling as being legislation from the bench which isn't the job of the SCOTUS. Why do you consider the overturning of Roe v Wade to be politicized but not the actual creation of the original Roe v Wade ruling which many say has no real justification? The SCOTUS has always been like this. It's just more pronounced now due to culture wars and social media.

[Occam]

Mississippi:

Under the law, abortion is banned, unless a pregnant person’s life is in danger or the pregnant person is a victim of rape and has reported the incident to law enforcement. Anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, up to 10 years in prison, or both

Such freedom. Much liberty!

[Occam]

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1540422500760178688

 

The hilarious thing is that he believes there will still be free and fair elections five years from now, let alone 20.

[Himu]

I find it curious people in Canada and Europe are protesting the over turning of Roe v Wade when a state like Mississippi has more liberal abortion laws than Germany as expressed last page.

Mississippi is about to completely ban all abortions. (QED)
Its last abortion clinic has been closed. Like several other red states, it had trigger laws in place.
It must be nice to live in the magical land of make-believe.

Mississippi also has a trigger law in place, but unlike Louisiana, it will require certification from state Attorney General Lynn Fitch before going into effect — one of seven states in this situation.

Under the law, abortion is banned, unless a pregnant person’s life is in danger or the pregnant person is a victim of rape and has reported the incident to law enforcement.

https://www.mpbonline.org/blogs/news/what-to-know-about-mississippi-abortion-rights-after-scotus-overturns-roe-v-wade/

Seems fine to me. Though charging a felony for those outside of that is a bit much.

One of the greatest benefits of Roe v Wade being overturned is that now there can be nuance to the issue when there previously wasn't. Pro-choice vs pro-life is a stupid binary. It naturally curates the question of what pro-choice even is. By definition I am pro-choice.... with restrictions. Abortion should absolutely be a right available to women under law in cases of rape, incest, and in danger of the life of the mother. Unfortunately, Democrats have ran on pro-choice but have been unwilling to define what that means and Americans support pro-choice from a full spectrum of beliefs. Most Americans are fine within the first trimester only. Now because Roe v Wade is RIP this forces governors and politicians to specifically define what pro-choice even means which they've been reluctant to do so. This speaks again to the failure of the Democrats. If they were willing to compromise andake a law that guarantees the right to abortion under the parameters expressed above - rape, incest, danger to life - things would be far more peachy. And they had 50 years to do it. 50. Years. Imagine wanting to still vote for the Donkeys.

Liberals will point to the fact that majority of Americans are pro-choice, and that's true as far as it goes but like most things they will be obscuring the facts and not looking at hard data where different lines for along that definition of pro-choice. This is precisely why liberals get nothing done. Pathetic ideology.

Rather than turning ones ire to SCOTUS, who did its job toward a bad ruling, we should be turning it to Congress who rested on its laurels for 50. Years. without passing legislation or a compromise. Imagine wanting to vote Democratic after that. How embarrassing. Please donate to us. But no, it's time to riot and protest LMAO. Going to tell my congressman to introduce a bill to Congress guaranteeing a woman's right to first trimester abortion on Monday. I'll be participating in my democracy rather than throwing a fit about it. How bout that? Not so hard holding politicians to standards is it, libs? Always remember that politicians are scum and that trusting government is re re status.

[Occam]

I find it curious people in Canada and Europe are protesting the over turning of Roe v Wade when a state like Mississippi has more liberal abortion laws than Germany as expressed last page.

Mississippi also has a trigger law in place, but unlike Louisiana, it will require certification from state Attorney General Lynn Fitch before going into effect — one of seven states in this situation.

Under the law, abortion is banned, unless a pregnant person’s life is in danger or the pregnant person is a victim of rape and has reported the incident to law enforcement. Anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, up to 10 years in prison, or both,

Seems fine to me.

[Himu]

I'm so glad we can call women "women" again and not birthing people. LMAO liberals and their bullshit wanking themselves over progressive terminology. And doing Pride month?!?!

[Occam]

[james]

What's the over /under this time?

I have Tuesday at 11:42am

[Occam]

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/

Let me guess:

Seems fine to me.

[Himu]

I find it curious people in Canada and Europe are protesting the over turning of Roe v Wade when a state like Mississippi has more liberal abortion laws than Germany as expressed last page.

Mississippi also has a trigger law in place, but unlike Louisiana, it will require certification from state Attorney General Lynn Fitch before going into effect — one of seven states in this situation.

Under the law, abortion is banned, unless a pregnant person’s life is in danger or the pregnant person is a victim of rape and has reported the incident to law enforcement. Anyone who performs or attempts to perform an abortion will be charged with a felony punishable by a fine of up to $100,000, up to 10 years in prison, or both,

Seems fine to me.

Strongest support for abortion—within limits: An Associated Press/NORC poll in June found 87% support abortion when the woman’s life is in danger, 84% support exceptions in the case of rape or incest, and 74% support abortion if the child would be born with a life-threatening illness.

When abortion support drops: The further into the pregnancy, with AP/NORC finding 61% believe abortion should be legal during the first trimester, but only 34% in the second trimester and 19% in the third, and an April Wall Street Journal poll finding more Americans approve of 15-week abortion bans than disapprove.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/06/24/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=20c269352f3a

My opinion is pretty mainstream within America. Also looking at Europe it's mainstream as well. The Mississippi law allows abortion - within limits. Sounds perfectly fine to me!

[Himu]

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions establishing certain constitutional rights.

In Griswold v. Connecticut, the court ruled in 1965 that married couples have a right to access contraceptive. In 2003, the court said in Lawrence v. Texas that states could not outlaw consensual gay sex. And the court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/

Let me guess:

Seems fine to me.

(Image removed from quote.)

A big thing here is I don't really know if what Thomas means overturning those precedents or if they're just going to look at them and the media isn't helping.

For example, the pro-choice position in America lies on a spectrum but most Americans support heavy restrictions. But when you look at liberal media sites they're full on manipulating the stats to conform to their narrative and nuance goes out the window as they act as political pundits to push their agenda.

Like say, you contrast the data posted above with Pew here. As said, it's only legal/illegal. It's very black and white as most Americans aren't going to say "I want abortion illegal" because that would be depraved. Liberals take advantage of this to push their narrative that Americans fully support abortion when, in reality, we support abortion within means.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

So when the Justice says this I have no idea what he really means and the media is telling he wants to overturn them. Frankly, I wish someone would interview him so we could get to the bottom of it rather than the game of telephone that happens. Liberals are really bad at that and get triggered at seemingly innocuous points made and think they're going to bring back slavery!!!

[Uncle]

what would you say to the idea of hospitals being unwilling to perform an abortion when someone's life is in danger, because the wording "unless a pregnant person's life is in danger" is kind of vague and they'd be rightly worried about getting in a lot of trouble if it was later determined the patient's life was not quite enough in danger to perform it? like does it functionally ban all abortions except rape ones, out of an overabundance of caution?

like what if someone says they're going to commit suicide unless they get an abortion, is their life in danger?

what if they develop problems that have a 10% chance of mortality, is that "enough" in danger to perform the abortion?

eventually you get to the point where you admit that any pregnancy has a 0.02% chance of mortality for the mother, pregnancy itself puts the woman's life in danger, so you have to define a degree at which abortion would be appropriate

and how does all this interact with the US system of insurance companies being involved, what if insurance says they won't pay for any abortions in the state, even potential rape, because they aren't going to risk being complicit in breaking the law? and then the hospitals realize the average person needing an abortion won't be able to afford it without insurance and it'd always be a loss to them, so they simply don't do them at all either for that reason?

[Potato]

Just want to set a couple of things straight...it is not through humility that I ask the question of how the US Supreme Court was allowed to get so politicised. It is through sheer amazement at how the US can continually shit on its own democracy.

We're also not friends and the only thing Roe vs Wade is to me is fish eggs.

[who is ted danson?]

Biden could fix this with a special de-evangelization operation.

4 weeks and a trillion dollars in bombs.


get it done, brandon

[benjipwns]

Just to add on, not undoing previous rulings added to the facade and mythology that the court was apolitical, and so this particular ruling really just exposed the issue but it's not something new.

But this itself is just willfully accepted mythology for certain people. The Court constantly overturns previous rulings, Roe itself was thrown out back in 1992. The Court has no need to take up prior rulings if it doesn't intend to overturn them except when lower courts are ignoring it and in those cases it almost never bothers to issue an opinion.

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

You keep posting this as if it means anything or as if it should even be news. Have you even read Dobbs to know why Thomas was bringing up his views (citing himself) on other subjects that everyone already knows he has and nobody takes seriously?

Just want to set a couple of things straight...it is not through humility that I ask the question of how the US Supreme Court was allowed to get so politicised. It is through sheer amazement at how the US can continually shit on its own democracy.

Judicial review is the entire point of the Supreme Court so it seems weird to frame it as "continually [shitting] on its own democracy" when it's doing what it's supposed to do in the democratic process. Especially in regards to a case where it was the Supreme Court who created abortion rights above the legislative process (perhaps correctly) in the first place rather than any kind of legislative bill being signed into law.

It's completely fine to be upset about states now being able to ban abortion completely, but it's very strange to frame this as somehow especially anti-democratic when championing a previous ruling nobody but the Supreme Court ever voted on. I'm more than willing to read most all abortion rights in the Ninth Amendment but I absolutely understand this as blocking people from getting to vote about legislation on it until they pass a constitutional amendment.

[therealdeal]

weren't you saying when the opinion leaked that the majority wouldn't vote on it 

[benjipwns]

weren't you saying when the opinion leaked that the majority wouldn't vote on it 

As I already have acknowledged multiple times I was skeptical that it was a majority opinion let alone one Roberts would sign onto for multiple reasons including that it meant both Thomas and Roberts passed it to Alito so he could write something so broad. If you think this skepticism on the first draft opinion ever leaked without any knowledge on the vote invalidates everything I ever say ever again and means you should favor people who clearly have no idea what they're talking about then I can't stop you from that, only advise you to be skeptical about them too. (Advice you should be skeptical about and thus reject.)

[therealdeal]

it just seems you're saying "no one should be surprised" when in fact it did surprise you

[Himu]

Ahahaha! Even after losing Roe v Wade the Democratic Party waffles and toots their horn while doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in terms of legislation. Apt for a party of DO NOTHINGS.

AOC went on MTP yesterday and expressed a desire to IMPEACH, yes impeach, Justices. This is how Democrats wield power. It's almost if...as if, they can't govern!

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/26/aoc-supreme-court-impeachment-abortion

Straight from the comments of r/moderatepolitics.

So you need a 2/3 vote in the senate to remove a Supreme Court justice from office.

Leaving aside that removal is impossible practically even if it were justified, it is in fact possible that all of the members of the house of Representatives on the Democratic side do choose to vote yea on impeachment.

What would that actually indicate here though? They don't like the ruling? We're shaking our fists in impotent rage because so we can pass an impeachment, but it would be a LOT easier to pass a law that solves the issue.

Forget the 67 votes in the Senate for a second. Lets say you HAVE 60 (you probably do). If you have 60, you can create abortion protections in law, just not constitutional protections. Impeachment is worthless because if you could remove, you could pass a law anyway.

My big problem with all of this anger isn't that people aren't allowed to be upset. It's that the reaction to the overturn isn't 'lets secure abortion rights', it's lets complain about the (what appears to be correct legally speaking) ruling.

There are two pro choice Republican Senators who would get on board with 16 week abortions with no debate. I imagine there are more and you need exactly 8 to get it done.

Legislative pressure is a lot more effective here, because you can actually influence people. I imagine there are 10 conservative leaning states that would codify this situation, but you have to try.

Instead, it's fuck the court, fuck the republicans, lets make them pay. That doesn't work when you don't have the numbers and it also doesn't convince people that you NEED to convince right now to have anything.

As someone who would really like to codify abortion: I need this rhetoric to stop. Does AOC know someone who can write legislation that would codify abortion, like, I dunno, a house member?

https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/vldosm/aoc_says_impeachment_possible_if_supreme_court/

AOC is definitely legislating like a New Yorker. By doing JACK SHIT except the usual virtue signal bullshit.

Just want to set a couple of things straight...it is not through humility that I ask the question of how the US Supreme Court was allowed to get so politicised. It is through sheer amazement at how the US can continually shit on its own democracy.

We're also not friends and the only thing Roe vs Wade is to me is fish eggs.

This is how our democracy works! SCOTUS does not make policy. Liberals thought it did. That's the disconnect. SCOTUS makes rulings based on the constitution. Abortion is not a right via the constitution.

Not friends?! Zehaha! So is it okay if I and others make fun of your country's authoritarian policies in the future? I mean, if you're going to dunk on America it's surely fair game to dunk on a country that calls Disco Elysium offensive to morality.

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2021/mar/24/australia-urged-to-move-on-from-moral-panic-over-video-games-after-disco-elysium-banned

[benjipwns]

it just seems you're saying "no one should be surprised" when in fact it did surprise you

No, you're talking about two completely different events. Thomas writing an opinion where he says things he's always said for 30 years that nobody else signs onto is a completely expected event.

[Himu]

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-biden-covid-health-presidential-e50db07385831e67f866ec45402be8b9

More than 1 million voters switch to GOP in warning for Dems

U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.

More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.

But nowhere is the shift more pronounced — and dangerous for Democrats — than in the suburbs, where well-educated swing voters who turned against Trump’s Republican Party in recent years appear to be swinging back. Over the last year, far more people are switching to the GOP across suburban counties from Denver to Atlanta and Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Republicans also gained ground in counties around medium-size cities such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North Carolina; Augusta, Georgia; and Des Moines, Iowa.

Trump (or DeSantis) 2024. I'd greatly prefer DeSantis as he's less compromised and he can deflate the media's attacks on him rather than REEEEing unfortunately Trump is going to run so it is what it is.

Thomas calls for overturning precedents on contraceptives, LGBTQ rights

You keep posting this as if it means anything or as if it should even be news. Have you even read Dobbs to know why Thomas was bringing up his views (citing himself) on other subjects that everyone already knows he has and nobody takes seriously?

It is news in the same way Cornyn's tweet to Obama is being argued as a threat to bring back segregation.

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/politics/john-cornyn-tweet-plessy-v-ferguson-brown-v-board-of-education/287-261b776b-65e5-4578-8f88-e49156cd2148

The entire media apparatus slobbers over the liberal political mandate rather than doing their jobs. The media is compromised. That's why it's news. The liberals enjoy twisting words and bringing up histrionics to rile people up that they're going to BRING BACK SLAVERY!!! As they live in a constant life shaking in fear like rabbits.

[benjipwns]

It is news in the same way Cornyn's tweet to Obama is being argued as a threat to bring back segregation.

You're not supposed to read his actual words and understand his obvious point, you're supposed to look deep into his racist soul and find what you already knew to be true:

[Himu]

I can't believe an actual Dem talking point right now is "they lied!!" How embarrassing.

It is news in the same way Cornyn's tweet to Obama is being argued as a threat to bring back segregation.

You're not supposed to read his actual words and understand his obvious point, you're supposed to look deep into his racist soul:
(Image removed from quote.)

He's so wacist. The Democratic Party is absolutely unhinged.

Please note that Cornyn tried to make Juneteenth federally recognized for over ten years and has a good record of bipartisanship in the state of Texas. But instead let's reeee.

I'm absolutely not shocked that persons twitter handle has "NYC" at the end of it.

[benjipwns]

Elie Mystal is The Nation's "justice correspondent" and a big deal among Blue Checks even though he has admitted multiple times he doesn't actually care what the law actually is (so shouldn't be beholden on Twitter when he gets it wrong) and that his only goal in life is to accuse Republicans of wanting to murder and enslave Black people.

John Cornyn can be the most racist person to ever exist and that will ever exist, he's still right that Brown overturned the 58 year old precedent of Plessy.

Seems weird to give racists the power to determine what history is and is not true.

[Himu]

John Cornyn can be the most racist person to ever exist and that will ever exist, he's still right that Brown overturned the 58 year old precedent of Plessy.

Seems weird to give racists the power to determine what history is and is not true.

Obama knows full well the court changes precedent. He's riling up his base. Will that get them to the polls? Time will tell.

[Occam]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/second-civil-war-us-abortion

"The leftwing American political class, incredibly, continues to cling to its defunct institutional ideals."

"Any time anyone acts on their violent rhetoric, the rightwing politicians and media elites are appalled that anyone would connect what they say to what others do."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[benjipwns]

Thank you for sharing the wise words of a fellow violent anti-democrat like yourself, in this case a Canadian novelist with a background in English drama trying to sell his book about his weird violence fantasies.

[Himu]

SCOTUS passed a ruling on a coach praying on the 50 yard line and liberals are already screeching that we live in a theocracy.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1541421786759413760

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/26/second-civil-war-us-abortion

"The leftwing American political class, incredibly, continues to cling to its defunct institutional ideals."

"Any time anyone acts on their violent rhetoric, the rightwing politicians and media elites are appalled that anyone would connect what they say to what others do."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Second civil war.

The link you posted is nothing but hyperbolic BS.  There won't be a second civil war any time soon. Liberals are too pussy to even deal with guns and even during encroaching division, rather than arm themselves with literal power, choose to scoff at it to their downfall.

I just read that link and it was outfitted with the most banal clap trap.

[Uncle]

himu seriously what do you think about my post above? even if there were reasonable-sounding limits, doesn't it seem like the reality on the ground would result in practical limitations that go beyond what's simply stated by law?

like imagine laws in other contexts, if there were enough technicalities and restrictions on something like the sale of firearms, you might see vendors saying "you know what, I can't make head or tail of all these restrictions, I can't keep up and I can't afford any legal repercussions for making one mistake, I give up and I'm getting into a different line of work" which reduces availability for everyone (which would of course be part of the unstated goal behind the restrictions)

[Himu]

Which post exactly?

And your case sounds like a major what if to me that is, once again, fixed by legislation from Congress making it a right for emergencies up to 15-17 weeks and only medical emergency after that.

[Uncle]

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=48352.msg3048686#msg3048686

and I don't come from a standpoint of being indignant or enmity or anything, I can just see some pretty believable downsides

there really should be some very specific language, like "if it meets the common medical standards of a potentially dangerous ectopic pregnancy, abortion is allowed"

or "if there is a condition or event that could easily lead to a life threatening situation," rather than waiting for the life threatening situation to be actively taking place

"ok she's officially dying, NOW we can help" 



and, ideally those details would be pinned down before repealing anything, that leaves you in no man's land waiting to get things shored up better

[who is ted danson?]

REPEAL THE 14TH!
https://completechristianity.blog/2022/06/07/repeal-the-fourteenth-amendment/

The fundie catholics are going to take over, and its going to be great to watch 

[Occam]

fellow violent anti-democrat like yourself

Come on now.
I believe democracy needs to be protected, you believe it will magically regulate itself.
Just like a free and uncontrolled market regulates itself and would never allow the development of any naughty anti-consumer mechanisms like monopolies.

[Uncle]

fellow violent anti-democrat like yourself

Come on now.
I believe democracy needs to be protected, you believe it will magically regulate itself.
Just like a free and uncontrolled market regulates itself and would never allow the development of any naughty anti-consumer mechanisms like monopolies.

do you agree with your link that there ought to be a good solid second civil war to fix everything up?

[Occam]

No, that is idiotic.

[Kurt Russell]

[Himu]

(Image removed from quote.)

Dank.

[Uncle]

here's something I hadn't considered

roe v wade always seemed to be one of the primary sources of "my body, my choice" rhetoric/mode of thinking

with it gone, if it truly is not your body, your choice, does that lay the groundwork for mandated vaccination in the future?

if you can be forced to carry a baby to term against your will, can't you be forced to take a vaccine as well? there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from vaccination

I don't mean to frame the repeal nor this potential consequence as good or bad, it's just something to consider

[Himu]

here's something I hadn't considered

roe v wade always seemed to be one of the primary sources of "my body, my choice" rhetoric/mode of thinking

with it gone, if it truly is not your body, your choice, does that lay the groundwork for mandated vaccination in the future?

if you can be forced to carry a baby to term against your will, can't you be forced to take a vaccine as well? there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees freedom from vaccination

I don't mean to frame the repeal nor this potential consequence as good or bad, it's just something to consider

Democrats have been forcing Covid vaccinations to participate in society and for months conservatives have been saying "my body my choice" in response to Covid vaccinations. Aren't you kind of late on this? I've been railing on liberal hypocrisy for months because my stance on neither has changed: I am pro-choice on both issues.

what would you say to the idea of hospitals being unwilling to perform an abortion when someone's life is in danger, because the wording "unless a pregnant person's life is in danger" is kind of vague and they'd be rightly worried about getting in a lot of trouble if it was later determined the patient's life was not quite enough in danger to perform it? like does it functionally ban all abortions except rape ones, out of an overabundance of caution?

like what if someone says they're going to commit suicide unless they get an abortion, is their life in danger?

what if they develop problems that have a 10% chance of mortality, is that "enough" in danger to perform the abortion?

eventually you get to the point where you admit that any pregnancy has a 0.02% chance of mortality for the mother, pregnancy itself puts the woman's life in danger, so you have to define a degree at which abortion would be appropriate

and how does all this interact with the US system of insurance companies being involved, what if insurance says they won't pay for any abortions in the state, even potential rape, because they aren't going to risk being complicit in breaking the law? and then the hospitals realize the average person needing an abortion won't be able to afford it without insurance and it'd always be a loss to them, so they simply don't do them at all either for that reason?

My problem is this is a massive what if with no real basis in reality. Legislate. Make it law.

[Uncle]

My problem is this is a massive what if with no real basis in reality. Legislate. Make it law.

I'm only basing this on what you linked and said above: http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=48352.msg3048655#msg3048655

if the law says "unless the life of the patient is in danger," that is already reality, that is already law, and it's already vague

it's not a "what if" when such situations of waiting for official lawyer approval while a patient dies are already happening



would you say this is likely a made up story by someone who just wants to sow trouble

[Nintex]

CNN is always so overly dramatic 
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1541065711023521793

Jake clearly has imaginary friends.

[Himu]

My problem is this is a massive what if with no real basis in reality. Legislate. Make it law.

I'm only basing this on what you linked and said above: http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=48352.msg3048655#msg3048655

if the law says "unless the life of the patient is in danger," that is already reality, that is already law, and it's already vague

it's not a "what if" when such situations of waiting for official lawyer approval while a patient dies are already happening

(Image removed from quote.)

would you say this is likely a made up story by someone who just wants to sow trouble

Unless you can source it I have zero reason to believe it.

Finally, I find such laws like Texas for example to go against my religious freedom so I critique when necessary. But the Texas law happened even before Roe v Wade upended so what exactly was Roe v Wade protecting? Legislate. Codify. Get on politicians ass. Stop kissing their ass. Demand they do their jobs instead of all of this emotional boo hoo f.aggot shit. I respect action, not crocodile tears and excuses.

The Heartbeat Act isn't entirely bad as it's a concession. Negotiate to broaden it to guaranteed set of weeks. Once there's a heartbeat isn't bad in itself. Legislate. Codify. Just stop the political theater. Liberals also use vague or misleading language. Both. Both are rot.

I've never heard of a law that said "if patients life is in danger" either. Most abortion concessions are if there was rape, incest, or danger for the mother. So unless you can actually point me to an actual law that vaguely says "only if patients life is in danger" there's nothing to argue much less articulate, Uncle.

[benjipwns]

Come on now.
I believe democracy needs to be protected, you believe it will magically regulate itself.

I admit I was perplexed by your advocacy. Why would someone so concerned about liberal democracy be so insistent on deliberately and illegally suppressing his own most important tool in a liberal democracy? Why would someone so concerned about "minority rule" do things like advocate constantly for a minority to suppress opposition to maintain power or link approvingly to a violence fetishist unconcerned that his own country had two-thirds of the voters vote against the current ruling party two consecutive times? Why would someone just "warning" and "trying to help" refuse to learn anything about the country and system he's advising to continue advocating for blatantly illegal acts and suppression of the democratic process? Why would someone ignore when being told something is wrong and never worked the way they think to continue advocating for it anyway if they didn't just want to start providing more avenues for people to jail political opponents? Why would someone accuse someone else arguing in favor of working peacefully within the rule of law and democratic process as "[believing] it will magically regulate itself" if the first person is not advocating for something to be imposed non-democratically on the system?

I have an alternative hypothesis now that seems to fit the provided evidence despite the lack of affirming statement I'll never get. You seemingly want to live vicariously through seeing other people commit violence against still other people. You seemingly want to convince my countrymen to abandon the democratic process so you can watch. It's not new for authoritarians to "advise" you commit violence and pursue authoritarianism to "protect" or gain "real" democracy so this regular denial actually seems to fit in supporting the thesis.

You lost this argument here 235 years ago and appear not to have gotten over it. I suggest you act locally rather than continue to dream internationally.

[Occam]

America is about to descend into authoritarian religious minority rule against which it has no safeguards, while you pretend that all is well. Is this your special kind of trolling?
My suggestion for a modernised version of the fairness doctrine that would apply to all news media outlets was just that, a suggestion.
You continue to mock people who don't understand the law, but you don't actually offer any ideas how to counter America's ever worsening plutocratic system.

[Himu]

America is about to descent into authoritarian religious minority rule against which it has no safeguards, while you pretend that all is well. Is this your special kind of trolling?

He mocks you because you not only don't understand American law you continuously judge it.

He mocks you because while you point fingers of authoritarian rule your solutions are repeatedly authoritarian.

You think only your worldview has credence in this world and only your worldview is valid. Like many liberals you subsist in and only value a disgusting monoculture wrapped in a so-called flag of "progressivism" that is reflective of your values only. Benji isn't trolling. He truly beliefs this.

[benjipwns]

America is about to descend into authoritarian religious minority rule against which it has no safeguards, while you pretend that all is well. Is this your special kind of trolling?
My suggestion for a modernised version of the fairness doctrine that would apply to all news media outlets was just that, a suggestion.
You continue to mock people who don't understand the law, but you don't actually offer any ideas how to counter America's ever worsening plutocratic system.

You called on the President of the United States to respond to a Supreme Court decision he disagreed with by unilaterally and illegally overthrowing the entire judicial branch.

I don't find "one man, one office, one vote, one time" to be a very compelling theory of democracy. Especially when the election held for that office wasn't even conducted in this way nor with this knowledge available to the populace.

I have never, not once, claimed that "all is well" nor advocated that nothing should ever be done. You fight with enemies in your head.

[Occam]

Not directly, obviously.
When some people call for Biden to stack the court, they don't mean him personally.
I assumed that much was understood.

What do you call this tactic of deliberately misunderstanding the person you are debating?

[Himu]

It's really good to see the leftists reveal themselves and their disgusting crimson lucidity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, violence is inherent to leftist ideology. Divide and conquer is a part of the leftist DNA.

[benjipwns]

Yet again, I cannot respond to things you do not say. If you wish to make proposals that aren't stupid and/or authoritarian you will have to actually do so rather than simply order everyone to do as you say without ever saying.

[benjipwns]

What do you call this tactic of "deliberately" "misunderstanding" the person you are debating?

Occam's razor.

[Occam]

See, you continue to avoid answering direct questions while making assumptions about me that are not supported by what I post.

[benjipwns]

See, you continue to avoid answering direct questions while making assumptions about me that are not supported by what I post.

No, I continue to take what you say as what you mean.

I have avoided no direct questions.

[Occam]

What do you call this tactic of "deliberately" "misunderstanding" the person you are debating?

Occam's razor.

No, I think it's something-something bad faith.

[Himu]

Nothing Benji has said has been in bad faith. He merely uses your own words against you. All you've done, like most foreigners, is judge America and our countrymen to purport your own vision of it by any means necessary.

[benjipwns]

It was a joke, Vom got it. If I am misunderstanding you, then clarify, don't obfuscate further then try to blame others for misunderstanding your clear words over many years.

[Himu]

No one throwing tomatoes at the SCOTUS still hasn't turned their ire to congress and the Democratic Party failure to codify abortion into law for 50 years. Even now Democrats get an excuse for being devoutly mediocre who abuse and mislead their constituents with a proverbial carrot on a stick over and over again.

I really need my fellow Americans on the left side of the aisle to tap into the greatest of American traditions: acknowledging that all politicians and the federal government are shit. As President Reagan said,"government isn't the solution to our problem, government is the problem." Hold them to higher standards. Call your stupid congressman/woman NOW.

[benjipwns]

People don't like democracy, they want to order things the way they want and just see everyone obey.

To get to what I assume Occam is referring to when he says I avoided questions there is only one solution in a democracy: advocate to win elections. Advocate to win elections. Advocate to win elections.

You want to skip this and whine to the refs and now you want to whine to some other refs that the refs aren't fair? Well, advocate to win elections so you can replace the refs.

You want to skip that and just tinker with the rules so you always win? Well, advocate to win elections so you can tinker with the rules.

If you aren't doing this, and aren't joining the many pre-existing groups seeking to call an Article V convention, then I can only assume you're relying on the last recourse.

This doesn't apply to people just lamenting and venting which is why I never responded to any of the people who did that when Dobbs was announced and instead, only the person who has been raging about the people being able to speak without permission of their betters for as long as I've known he existed.

[Himu]

People don't like democracy, they want to order things the way they want and just see everyone obey.

It's not "people". It's modern liberals and progressives. They want a monoculture in which only their values survive. This is why the greatest evil facing America today is progressivism. It must be fought to save our country. They hate our country. They admit that openly. I used to admit it openly until I was proven incorrect and in my humbleness I can say I was really, truly wrong. But the ideology is meant to remake America in their own way. Don't let them and fight progressivism tooth and nail. What Occam is arguing is what progressives want.

[Uncle]

My suggestion for a modernised version of the fairness doctrine that would apply to all news media outlets was just that, a suggestion.

I will say I have a little more respect for anyone willing to go out on a limb and offer suggestions for anything, because everyone likes to identify problems without offering solutions, because then you're expected to defend it and get put on the back foot

if there are problems with an idea it at least gives a basis for learning why such ideas might not work, or if they've already been partially tried



well I guess I don't know, is it better to be an idiot running your mouth with bad ideas when you don't know as much as you think you do about a topic, or to recognize your lack of understanding and just point out what you see as problems all day without offering anything constructive? (not about you, just in general)

it's not like anything considered here would be truly novel and have benji rushing to congress with a dot matrix printout of a forum post