U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm not religious. I'm not a lawyer either. The point is that if the life is viable outside the womb, in my opinion, then it deserves to be protected.

 

In my opinion a handful of cells isn't life, and it's not viable outside the womb. And I think that's the majority opinion by a very long way outside the religious right. And the US supreme court.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

 

In my opinion a handful of cells isn't life, and it's not viable outside the womb. And I think that's the majority opinion by a very long way outside the religious right. And the US supreme court.

Sigh. No one mentioned handfuls of cells. If you read my original post, I pointed out why I think bringing in legislation at the point where a baby can survive outside of the womb makes sense.

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Fair enough, but you get my point aye? Not remembering the womb doesn't mean you weren't alive then. 

 

Sure I get your point, I can actually remember being so young I couldn't focus my eyes properly.

 

I can remember an aunt doing that thing where they hold a baby and lift it up close their face. She was doing this to me and my eyes which couldn't yet focus properly saw her face melting and changing shape as she went in and out.

 

And I remember later having nightmares in the cot about that melting face. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Sure I get your point, I can actually remember being so young I couldn't focus my eyes properly.

 

I can remember an aunt doing that thing where they hold a baby and lift it up close their face. She was doing this to me and my eyes which couldn't yet focus properly saw her face melting and changing shape as she went in and out.

 

And I remember later having nightmares in the cot about that melting face. 

Sure your parents weren't watching Raiders of the Lost Ark?

[JFK-1]

2 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Sigh. No one mentioned handfuls of cells. If you read my original post, I pointed out why I think bringing in legislation at the point where a baby can survive outside of the womb makes sense.

 

Pretty much everybody thinks that, so I still don't see what the big issue is here.  Again, the only reason this is happening is to humour a religious group.

 

The same religious group who if they could would be forcing teachers to tell kids that a valid "theory" is the Earth is brand new and all life on it appeared as it is right now maybe about 10,000 years ago at most.

[JFK-1]

Just now, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Sure your parents weren't watching Raiders of the Lost Ark?

 

I don't know what you mean, I was born in 1960, long before raiders of the lost ark and even before we had a TV in the home. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

3 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Pretty much everybody thinks that, so I still don't see what the big issue is here.  Again, the only reason this is happening is to humour a religious group.

 

The same religious group who if they could would be forcing teachers to tell kids that a valid "theory" is the Earth is brand new and all life on it appeared as it is right now maybe about 10,000 years ago at most.

It's actually more than one religious group, to be fair. At the same time, those groups were able to challenge and organise to overturn this because they did just that. Politicians ducked that fight and they've paid the price for trying to walk both sides of the street.

 

[JFK-1]

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade and 50 years of precedent, upholding Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and giving the green light to abortion bans nationwide.

 

MSNBC’s Chief Legal Correspondent Ari Melber breaks down the wide-ranging legal implications of this ruling, explaining how the ruling could be weaponized against other rights.

 

Apparently Clarence Thomas stated an opinion in the ruling that he thinks contraception should also be the preserve of the court.

 

 

 

[JFK-1]

Brilliant take down of the court. At one point he focuses on Clarence Thomas who is apparently justifying this decision by harking back centuries to a previous school of thought.

 

Lawrence O’Donnell says something along the lines of if that's a feature of a time period you think is fit for this time period then you might take into mind this. In that same period they were burning witches, and you wouldn't be married to a white woman.

 

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell explains that Republican judges on the Supreme Court share a dangerous Trumpian characteristic: they are incapable of being embarrassed by what they don’t know or understand.

 

 

[Unknown user]

7 hours ago, Ked said:

Of course.

 

I don't want to in anyway deny that fact.And I don't want to particularly side with any view .

Like you said earlier about arguing with yourself about it.

Another complex thing that seems to be polarised in the politics of culture .

Fek knows smithee

 

I disagreed with myself over a female only vote, I'm not disagreeing with myself over a humans right to do what she wants with her body. 

Is it right that a 13 year old should be condemned to a life of motherhood when neither her mind nor body are ready for it? We consider a 13 year old isn't old enough to understand and consent to sex so how can it be right force her through a pregnancy?

 

The right are a curious lot, they'll swing from "they shouldn't be allowed children" to "she should be forced to have a child" and it's all based on moral indignation.

[Ked]

6 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

 

This where i'm troubled, a handful of cells is not an unborn baby, ask the scientists, they're as ignorant as me on this and require your superior knowledge.

What's the mythology of the bronze age? You ever heard of the bible? That's where their inspiration for this is coming from, not science so don't bring newer knowledge and a re-examination of attitudes into it.

 

The religious take no heed of science or indisputable fact. It's a fact all life on this planet has evolved over billions of years, the religious haven't grasped that reality among many others. They don't want this indisputable fact revealed to school children far less taught.

So don't bring re-examining attitudes into it. Non religious people are constantly examining their attitudes as new information comes in. The religious stick with the bronze age mythology no matter what, and that's what's happening here. Humouring bronze age mythology. 

I am not a spokesman for religion and re examining any position on any subject is a good thing no?

[The Hogfather]

3 hours ago, Smithee said:

 

I disagreed with myself over a female only vote, I'm not disagreeing with myself over a humans right to do what she wants with her body. 

Is it right that a 13 year old should be condemned to a life of motherhood when neither her mind nor body are ready for it? We consider a 13 year old isn't old enough to understand and consent to sex so how can it be right force her through a pregnancy?

 

The right are a curious lot, they'll swing from "they shouldn't be allowed children" to "she should be forced to have a child" and it's all based on moral indignation.

 

Because a 2,000 year old book with absolutely no basis in fact told them so.

[Footballfirst]

I have to agree with her sentiments.

 

[Cade]

As I said way back a few pages, there needs to be sensible discourse on this.

But that's impossible because humans are stupid.

 

Upper limits to pregnancy term abortions are not keeping pace with medical science.

Fetuses that could be viable if delivered and incubated are still well within the legal limits for abortion.

Aborting as such a late stage is an ethical problem.
But then, pregnancy detection is getting better and women are finding out earlier and earlier into the term, which gives them plenty of time to think and they shouldn't have to wait until late stage before deciding.

And there are more contraception solutions available than ever before.

 

Other questions are; 

What if the mother and child's health are both at risk?

What if the child will be profoundly disabled and only live a few years or months?

What if the child is as a result of rape or incest?

What if the mother is of impaired judgement or mental capacity and incapable of raising the child?

What if contraception was used but failed?

If the state prevents you from having an abortion, does the fetus then belong to the state and does the state then have a legal obligation to help raise and care for that child?

How does the state cope with the sudden influx of unwanted abandoned children?

Who's going to pay for the upkeep of those children?

How does the economy deal with maternity/paternity leave going through the roof?

 

Answers on a postcard..........

[il Duce McTarkin]

🎶 Jesus died for all the children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
They are precious in His sight
Jesus died for all the children of the world 🎶

 

Can't argue with facts like that. 

[Shanks]

Feels like this is a massive backwards step.  
 

Who am I to sit here and try and judge when the acceptable time is during a pregnancy that a woman can have an abortion?  Surely that decision should be up to the individual as it’s her that has to live with the decision.

 

Bunch of stuffy old bible bashers trying to dictate whats right and wrong based on nothing.

[cannonfoda]

Alternative to abortion - if all blokes were given vasectomy and had to prove they were able to bring up kids to get the snip reversed? 

 

People have the right to choose what they do with their own body - that sainthoax post above is right in spades.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

18 minutes ago, Shanks said:

Feels like this is a massive backwards step.  
 

Who am I to sit here and try and judge when the acceptable time is during a pregnancy that a woman can have an abortion?  Surely that decision should be up to the individual as it’s her that has to live with the decision.

 

Bunch of stuffy old bible bashers trying to dictate whats right and wrong based on nothing.

Your problem in that case isn't with the Supreme Court itself. It is the individual states banning abortion.

[Riccarton3]

Going to see a lot more of this shite as the Right slithers its way into positions of influence. There is no way of overestimating their determination. 

 

Religious fundamentalism being used as a veil for something far darker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2022 by Riccarton3

[dobmisterdobster]

On 24/06/2022 at 06:59, Pans Jambo said:

If that happens what does that mean in reality? I

take my kids to Florida Disneyland and hundreds of Yanks are walking about with loaded 9mm semi automatic hand guns on their person?

 

Or my wife and I are in a New York bar and dozens of people there are strapped whilst getting half pissed?

 

Can they not see what theyre doing? I think these yanks need to travel more. Theyre living in a bubble. 
 

Seriously, if that becomes the new reality I wont be going back there. Be safer going on holiday in Iraq!

 

Florida already allows concealed carry which can be quite unnerving. Not sure what Disney's policy is on firearms in their parks.

 

Cities like New York will have guns regardless of legality.

 

America has always been a dangerous place. It's definitely safer to holiday there now than it was in the 80s when crime was a lot higher.

[il Duce McTarkin]

Just watched old uncle Joe sign the latest gun control legislation. He looks paggered tbh.

[Riccarton3]

13 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

Just watched old uncle Joe sign the latest gun control legislation. He looks paggered tbh.

Democrats need new blood . Energised and ready for the Right because post Trump they are rabid.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Riccarton3

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Your problem in that case isn't with the Supreme Court itself. It is the individual states banning abortion.

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  They don't make laws politicians do. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the laws that politicians pass are consistent with the United States Constitution. Alito's ruling does not go in favour of or against abortion it merely put's it back into the voters hands to determine whether they want to have it legalised in their own States or not by democratic means at the ballot box. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

37 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  They don't make laws politicians do. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the laws that politicians pass are consistent with the United States Constitution. Alito's ruling does not go in favour of or against abortion it merely put's it back into the voters hands to determine whether they want to have it legalised in their own States or not by democratic means at the ballot box. 

Correct. Hence my criticism of the politicians.

[Cade]

But the Supreme Court ruled that banning abortions was contrary to the constitution.

And that set a legal precedent.

For over 50 years.

 

Then for far-right, religious fundamentalist, purely political reasons, the Supreme Court this week decided to overturn that precedent and rules that banning abortions is not, in fact, against the constitution.

 

So if legal precedent can be ignored and interpretation of the constitution depends on the personal politics of whoever is making the judgements at the time, what validity do ANY SCOTUS judgements have?

They'll just be overturned next time around, only to then be re-overturned the time after that.

That's not LAW.

That's anarchy.

 

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  They don't make laws politicians do. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the laws that politicians pass are consistent with the United States Constitution. Alito's ruling does not go in favour of or against abortion it merely put's it back into the voters hands to determine whether they want to have it legalised in their own States or not by democratic means at the ballot box. 

 

In the case of gun carrying the Sepreme Court said individual states should not be allowed to set limits.

 

The next day the Supreme Court said individual states could set limits to abortion. 

[dobmisterdobster]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

In the case of gun carrying the Sepreme Court said individual states should not be allowed to set limits.

 

The next day the Supreme Court said individual states could set limits to abortion. 

 

Second Amendment protects gun rights at a federal level. No such thing exists for abortion.

 

Not saying I agree with it. That's just the way America is.

[Footballfirst]

7 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

In the case of gun carrying the Sepreme Court said individual states should not be allowed to set limits.

 

The next day the Supreme Court said individual states could set limits to abortion. 

[JFK-1]

9 hours ago, Ked said:

re examining any position on any subject is a good thing no?

 

No, you think we should be constantly re-examining their theory of instant man by magic spell too? 

[JFK-1]

American Division: A Conversation with David French

 

In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with David French about forces that are pulling American society apart.

 

They discuss David’s experience as a JAG officer in Iraq, his experience of harassment for coming out against Trump, the way real grievances drive political derangement, the illiberalism on both the Left and the Right, the role of prophecy in Evangelical support for Trump, honor culture, the response to Hunter Biden’s laptop, the January 6th hearings, the personality cult of Trumpism, federalism, geographic sorting, group polarization, cultural divisions in sports and entertainment, the gun rights movement, the ethics of gun ownership, whether Trump will be prosecuted, the 2024 Presidential campaign, the dangers of online activism, and other topics.

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Well said JHB 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

49 minutes ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Well said JHB 

 

 

 

 

 

James, is there any chance you could take your asinine and juvenile trolling about Covid elsewhere?  By the way, if you weren't so shallow that I could wade through your deepest thoughts and still have dry ankles, you'd realise that the same ****ing people who sponsored this ripping up of women's rights to bodily privacy and integrity are after you.  They quite literally have you and people like you in their sights, and unless they are stopped they will get you - and if they ever get near you we'll be able to hear you for miles around as you shriek in high-pitched horror for people like us - and those women who have been ****ed over this week - to defend you.

 

Read your ****ing history, and cop yourself the ****ing **** on.

[Ulysses]

By the way.  I just luuurrrrvvve hearing all these constitutional law experts pontificate on why this might be technically right.

 

That's great until you're the one miscarrying or needing a terminati...  

 

...oh, wait, of course....

[JudyJudyJudy]

28 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

James, is there any chance you could take your asinine and juvenile trolling about Covid elsewhere?  By the way, if you weren't so shallow that I could wade through your deepest thoughts and still have dry ankles, you'd realise that the same ****ing people who sponsored this ripping up of women's rights to bodily privacy and integrity are after you.  They quite literally have you and people like you in their sights, and unless they are stopped they will get you - and if they ever get near you we'll be able to hear you for miles around as you shriek in high-pitched horror for people like us - and those women who have been ****ed over this week - to defend you.

 

Read your ****ing history, and cop yourself the ****ing **** on.

Wow Just wow ! It’s the hypocrisy of politicians which are pissing me off regarding this issue . I am very much for the right of anyone to have autonomy over their own body . And my posting history very much supports the rights and safety of all women . So you can just do One . A low blow about “ them” 

“ coming after me “ and the “ high pitched “ comment . Rather pathetic really . 

[il Duce McTarkin]

7 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

 

As my two favourite posters on the forum, 

 

You need to get out more.

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, jonesy said:

 

 

As my two favourite posters on the forum, could you two sort this out like the gentlemen you are, please? Thanks.

👍👍👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

You need to get out more.

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Okay, okay. I hear ya.

 

As two of my three favourite posters on the forum...

 

Happy now?

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

By the way.  I just luuurrrrvvve hearing all these constitutional law experts pontificate on why this might be technically right.

 

That's great until you're the one miscarrying or needing a terminati...  

 

...oh, wait, of course....

No one is pontificating. The fact the US has many constitutional flaws makes this event possible. There is a difference between the rationale of why it happened and whether it should have happened.

[Unknown user]

On 24/06/2022 at 17:04, Seymour M Hersh said:

Overturning Roe should transfer the abortion issue to the people, to debate and decide for themselves through their elected representatives, which is also known as democracy. If States decide to ban it via the ballot box then that is the will of the people and conversely if States allow it via the ballot box that is also the will of the people of that State. 

 

Is your body a democracy?

[FWJ]

The tyranny of the majority.

[SpruceBringsteen]

9 minutes ago, FWJ said:

The tyranny of the majority.

 

It's the tyranny of the minority though eh. I'm no getting too deep into this but the majority of US citizens agreed with Roe. The majority of US citizens wants more gun control. The majority voted for the neo-liberal senile cretin that's in charge, yet has zero power...and well, what good has it done?

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, JudyJudyJudy said:

Wow Just wow ! It’s the hypocrisy of politicians which are pissing me off regarding this issue . I am very much for the right of anyone to have autonomy over their own body . And my posting history very much supports the rights and safety of all women . So you can just do One . A low blow about “ them” 

“ coming after me “ and the “ high pitched “ comment . Rather pathetic really . 

 

What part of "go away and stop being a hysterical troll" did you not understand?  And, like I said, read the history and then comment.  I know that's a bit deeper than you normally go (so to speak), but for once in your life drop the style and see the substance.

[Ulysses]

1 hour ago, Dirk McClaymore said:

 

You need to get out more.

 

Can't argue with that. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

20 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Memes are so shit here as it just drives extremism on both ends.

 

It's easy to claim "pro life" or "pro choice" but the bottom line is that politicians somewhere have to draw up legislation. The fact that Congress ducked the issue for years on the basis that the Supreme Court made a ruling allowed the possibility of the Roe v Wade verdict of being overturned.

 

I think the UK legislation gets this right with the 24 weeks gestation limit as the life can be viable outside the womb at that point. I get why American Federal politicians ducked the issue for years but it has come back to bite them in the sense that states have the legislative power again.

 

The discussion about Canada aside, the fact is that in the late 19th century and early 20th century a bunch of patriarchal doctors rallied to get a bunch of anti-abortion laws passed. To remove those laws, it is indeed up to the politicians (because those laws were made by politicians) and for too long we've left these things up to the courts, which is becoming increasingly clear was a mistake.

 

19 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Yep. This stuns me, personally. So when does a baby having legal status? When the umbilical cord is cut?

 

A question here would be, is infanticide a major problem in Canada that isn't covered by the legal codes for doctoral practices? Are there doctors killing infants for no good reason? Performing abortions at 38 weeks just because?

 

The answer is no, because just like "partial birth" abortions that were all the rage for Republicans to ban a few years ago, late term abortions are extremely rare and are almost always performed to protect the life of the person carrying the child, and people in general aren't a bunch of wantonly infanticidal freaks.

 

19 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

It's actually more than one religious group, to be fair. At the same time, those groups were able to challenge and organise to overturn this because they did just that. Politicians ducked that fight and they've paid the price for trying to walk both sides of the street.

 

 

Sorry for the triple quote here, but while it's a lot of groups, the vast majority of the action are from white Evangelical Protestants and reactionary Catholics. That's basically it. There is almost zero anti-abortion action from the ecumenical Protestant denominations, Orthodox Christians, any of the Jewish or Muslim sects, or any Buddhist, Hindu, or other sects. It's mostly just those two.

 

11 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  They don't make laws politicians do. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine whether the laws that politicians pass are consistent with the United States Constitution. Alito's ruling does not go in favour of or against abortion it merely put's it back into the voters hands to determine whether they want to have it legalised in their own States or not by democratic means at the ballot box. 

 

This is a common misconception but it erases the role of common law in the production of law. Common law is created by the courts and while it's not legislation, it's still very much law (in fact it's the vast majority of the text of the law).

 

That said, I again agree with Geoff that there were a thousand chances to deal with this legislatively but were passed up because it was politically tricky. And that's created this utter travesty.

[Ulysses]

51 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No one is pontificating. The fact the US has many constitutional flaws makes this event possible. There is a difference between the rationale of why it happened and whether it should have happened.

 

Yep.  And all the ****ers commentating on that like it matters have one thing in common.  Leave it out, Geoff.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

19 minutes ago, FWJ said:

The tyranny of the majority.

 

6 minutes ago, SpruceBringsteen said:

 

It's the tyranny of the minority though eh. I'm no getting too deep into this but the majority of US citizens agreed with Roe. The majority of US citizens wants more gun control. The majority voted for the neo-liberal senile cretin that's in charge, yet has zero power...and well, what good has it done?

 

Exactly. The reactionaries in the GOP make up about 25% of the population, and the GOP has gotten the majority of the national Presidential vote in exactly one election since 1988, not even getting a plurality in any of the others. The 50 Senators that have hog-tied Congress under McConnell's absurd nihilist rule represent 43.5% of the country, and some of them are only safe in their seats because of active, multifaceted voter suppression of non-white voters, particularly in the deep south.

 

Polling support for unrestricted reproductive care has been climbing for years and is now up to 70% by some measures.

[Ulysses]

3 minutes ago, Led Tasso said:

 

That said, I again agree with Geoff that there were a thousand chances to deal with this legislatively but were passed up because it was politically tricky. And that's created this utter travesty.

 

We got our chance in 2018, and we took it with both hands.  America won't, not because it's politically tricky (it really isn't), but because American politics is run by minority interests with tons of cash.  Same goes for guns.  The opinions of the voters are drowned out by hard cash.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

We got our chance in 2018, and we took it with both hands.  America won't, not because it's politically tricky (it really isn't), but because American politics is run by minority interests with tons of cash.  Same goes for guns.  The opinions of the voters are drowned out by hard cash.

 

When I said "politically tricky" I meant to imply that we've had politicians who are cowards.

 

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision, which wiped away restrictions on campaign expenditures, continues to haunt us.

 

Also, what passes for the Left/progressives/whatever has been a disorganized mess my entire life. It's far less bad than it was in the 80s and 90s but the fact that Bernie Sanders, a generally good but notoriosuly cranky long-time Senator from a tiny state, was everyone's best idea of who to run on that wing should be an indicator of how barren the cupboard has been for so long.

[Ulysses]

Just now, Led Tasso said:

 

When I said "politically tricky" I meant to imply that we've had politicians who are cowards.

 

The Citizens United SCOTUS decision, which wiped away restrictions on campaign expenditures, continues to haunt us.

 

Also, what passes for the Left/progressives/whatever has been a disorganized mess my entire life. It's far less bad than it was in the 80s and 90s but the fact that Bernie Sanders, a generally good but notoriosuly cranky long-time Senator from a tiny state, was everyone's best idea of who to run on that wing should be an indicator of how barren the cupboard has been for so long.

 

Indeed.  We all have politicians who are cowards.  IMO (and I'm often wrong):

 

Rather than a "conservative v liberal" thing, Roe v Wade was a product of a very particular view of personal privacy and the separation of the person from the government that arose out of the social and political changes from the late 50s to the early 70s. 

 

Rather than a "states v the federal government" thing, striking down Roe v Wade is a product of a political philosophy that genuinely believes that some people are more entitled to human rights than others, and that rights are something gifted by the holders of dominant positions in the body politic.

 

If you don't have a uterus, you can have tremendous fun and games debating the constitutional niceties and the political intricacies of this.  Oh, what a jolly laugh it all is debating this stuff in the abstract.  But these intricacies and niceties didn't matter a **** to Savita Halappanavar in Galway in 2012, nor did they matter to Andrea Prudente in Malta this week.  And frankly, if those who have dicks faced either the same potential risks, the same potential hardships or the same potential responsbilities every time they shagged, this problem simply would not exist because they'd have written the law to suit themselves long ago.