Politics Discussion: Cynicism Always Warranted

Topic

Talk about politics here.

Probably quite a quiet thread at the moment I expect.

Replies

Regarding the hearings, I’m most interested in this documentary footage they’ve just been provided and that a bunch of Trump admin officials are claiming to know nothing about. Will there be anything in there that’s new or game changing? Who knows, but it’s a fascinating development.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continues their mission to destroy the country by expanding gun right even further. Probably the only potential good thing about them overturning Roe is that they’re going to be setting solid precedent that their own precedent doesn’t matter, which will leave the door open for future courts to overturn anything. Of course that really only helps if Dems can ever win in a meaningful way again. Which they may not. Because the courts are helping the GOP hold onto minority rule.

In an eye rolling statement, Clarence Thomas said “we know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need”. Really feels like every state with special absentee ballot requirements should sue the shit out of their state. If only to see this court bend over backwards to justify that it’s actually totally cool in the case of voting because reasons.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, garjones, lorcan_nagle

We knew it was coming, but it is still a sad day for this country:

ROE V WADE OVERTURNED

3 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Chris D, Todd

And it might not end there:

Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade

2 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd

[Al-x]

njerry wrote:

We knew it was coming, but it is still a sad day for this country:

ROE V WADE OVERTURNED

Wow!

Still… I said before and will say it again…When you were asleep at the wheel and something happens, you only have yourself to blame. Look who was in a position to usher in 4 seats at the time.

There is always this scenario of abortion because of rape… There are situations however where the woman  finds out she is expecting and realizes that the boyfriend/partner is really an a**hole and giving her a hard time. She decides on termination because she doesn’t want to be attached to him for life, having him in her life because of the child. That scenario is never presented as opposed to the SA victimization scene.

The US is becoming a theocracy in front of our eyes. Wouldn’t be surprised if/when it becomes a police state…

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

JRCarter wrote:

And it might not end there:

Justice Thomas says the Supreme Court should reconsider rulings that protect access to contraception and same-sex marriage as the court overturns Roe v. Wade

Well I for one am shocked, shocked that the Republicans will descend even further into extremism when there’s no effective body opposing them.

6 users thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith, garjones, Todd, JRCarter, Al-x

It is incredible how they get this level of power to impose rulings that have no popular support. It is 18 years since a Republican President won the popular vote, there are soon to be adults that have never seen it. Yet they have managed to progress their agenda all the while by playing the system.

Republicans are just way better at politics, not at being popular, but at politics.

7 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Chris D, lorcan_nagle, Ben, Todd, JRCarter, Al-x

Al-x wrote:

The US is becoming a theocracy in front of our eyes. Wouldn’t be surprised if/when it becomes a police state…

This is not about religious beliefs; this has always been about (white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

5 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Ben, garjones, JRCarter, Todd

njerry wrote:

(white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

which leads to poor and minority families’ resources being strained due to the extra mouths they need to feed.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, lorcan_nagle, Ben, JRCarter, Todd

Rocket wrote:

njerry wrote:

(white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

which leads to poor and minority families’ resources being strained due to the extra mouths they need to feed.

Then the clutched pearls reaction, “They have so many babies that are going to end up on Welfare! Can’t they control their urges?”

5 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, lorcan_nagle, Ben, Al-x, JRCarter

Trump Privately Called a Roe v. Wade Reversal ‘Bad’ for His Party

Can’t help but wonder how many Republicans are still gonna kiss his ass after this.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben, Al-x

[Al-x]

njerry wrote:

This is not about religious beliefs; this has always been about (white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

I get what you are saying,

The Fall of ‘Roe’ Was Driven by Our Country’s Original Sin: Anti-Blackness

https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/the-racist-history-of-abortion-and-midwifery-bans

But it is an imposing of some evangelical interpretations and belief systems.

For example, look at some of the anti gay, anti trans laws in some states.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.
• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

4 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, Ben, JRCarter

garjones wrote:

<span style=”color: #222222; font-family: Raleway, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;”>It is incredible how they get this level of power to impose rulings that have no popular support.</span>

I dunno…in the states that are going to ban abortion, people mostly want abortion to be banned.

 

This is not such an outlier when you look at the laws governing abortion worldwide, abortion on demand is illegal in a lot of places. Europe and North America (and China) are the exceptions where it’s allowed to some extent. And even in Europe there is a gestational limit in a lot of places, like 12 or 15 weeks.

garjones wrote:

It is incredible how they get this level of power to impose rulings that have no popular support. It is 18 years since a Republican President won the popular vote, there are soon to be adults that have never seen it. Yet they have managed to progress their agenda all the while by playing the system.

Republicans are just way better at politics, not at being popular, but at politics.

Yes, there are all sorts of maneuvering the liberal side could be doing. They could focus on making medical privacy laws so unrealistically strict that it would be impossible to close abortion clinics or prosecute as any possible evidence would literally be inadmissible in court. The right to bear arms may be protected by the constitution but the right to manufacture and sell arms isn’t so regulations there could be tightened beyond belief.

There are all sorts of legal methods to use as weapons in in a Cold Civil War that would eventually force compromise on these issues. However, I don’t see the unity or willingness in the Democratic Party that would be necessary to execute the strategy. Mainly because most democrats and the people they elect aren’t directly affected by the issues.

3 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Al-x, Ben

Anonymous wrote:

compromise

 

Are there Americans who want compromise? It’s almost like there are two camps who are driven mad with hate for the other side, without any capacity to see a point of view other than their own.

 

Biden is sort of a bumbler but I do feel sorry for him, I think he’s a good man. He’s stuck somewhere in the middle with maniacs screaming at him from both sides.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I dunno…in the states that are going to ban abortion, people mostly want abortion to be banned.

That is not true at all. Poll after poll indicates the majority of people want abortion legalized. This is all a group of ultra-conservatives (affluent white men) who are in charge and shoving terrible legislation down everyone’s throats.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Al-x, lorcan_nagle, Ben

Ah it’s those goddamn white fuckers again.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Ah it’s those goddamn white fuckers again.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

It’s almost like there are two camps who are driven mad with hate for the other side, without any capacity to see a point of view other than their own.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

[Al-x]

There is a country in the Caribbean people go to get a quick divorce on occasion. And Some go north to Canada for cheaper prescription medicine.

Where will some go now to get a legal abortion?

To all you progressives who refused to vote for Hillary because she said "super-predators" in 1996. Enjoy being "super-pregnant" in 2022. #RoeVsWade #ElectionsMatter pic.twitter.com/jbWT50Ttdo

— Bill Maher (@billmaher) June 25, 2022

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

It’ll be deemed illegal to travel elsewhere to get an abortion.  Probably with an extra twist of it being an offence to aid or support that travel. That’s how bad it is going to be.

Charles Stross has been making the point that previous era abortion bans lacked the current surveillance technology.  Put the two together and the result is a very scary answer.

Chances are US women who are pregnant might not go to their doctor so as to not be registered as then they can be tracked.  But even that won’t suffice on its own, there’s already tweets advising use of cash for instance.

Also, anyone want to bet against a pregnancy detection CCTV algorithm being developed to spot women trying to get an abortion? I think that extremism is in the cards.

Even if – and its a big if – US voters get off their arse and annihilate the Republicans in November, this will have hurt and killed a lot of women by then, and continue to.  Politics moves slow most of the time.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd, lorcan_nagle

Ben wrote:

Chances are US women who are pregnant might not go to their doctor so as to not be registered as then they can be tracked.  But even that won’t suffice on its own, there’s already tweets advising use of cash for instance.

People are already being advised to delete period tracking apps as they often sell their data.

That Bill Maher tweet is a very good example of how the US political establishment just don’t understand what’s happening on the street level and treats it more as a team sport than people’s lives. There’s no expression of sympathy or solidarity, there’s no attempt to understand why the Democrats are not trusted or liked. There’s just sneering.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Ben

lorcan_nagle wrote:

There’s just sneering.

Perfectly sums up Bill Maher, really.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Ah it’s those goddamn white fuckers again.

“Affluent” is likely more important than white. Poor and middle class white people don’t form a single voting block, are spread from ultra-conservative to ultra-progressive and individually have little in the way of political or economic advantages. With abortion and gun rights, the sides are not entirely unified either. Progressive Catholics and immigrant rights groups that would generally side with liberal policies will still oppose abortion rights. Left wing and minority militant groups that might associate with liberal proposals could also oppose gun control legislation.

I don’t really seeing this changing before I die. More likely actually, something we aren’t even considering right now will likely happen that changes all the conditions that currently seem stable and solid. Nevertheless, it seems on present evidence that these issues in America will be the same issues with only slight progress available until we all are dead.

Which isn’t to say give up on them, but to keep working on them with no expectation of seeing the eventual progress. Long before the American Civil War, there were many people born into the fight to abolish slavery and who died with slavery only growing more prevalent. After the War of Independence, people were predicting that they would see the end to slavery in their lifetimes. Then conditions changed.

First, Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase. His aim was commercial and was criticized fairly harshly as most people at the time thought that it was simply too vast a region to ever be profitably settled. When the Lewis and Clark expedition failed to find the Northwest Passage, his critics took that as proof that it was a stupid decision.

Then, the use of railroads changed the conditions. It allowed the rapid transport of massive amounts of goods and people quickly across great distances. Almost immediately, settling an area like the Louisiana purchase was not only possible but relatively easy for people that colonized an entirely new world.

Finally, the demand for cotton was so high, that all this readily available fertile land meant quick riches for those that could settle it easily and start planting quickly and cheaply. That, however, required labor and lots of it.

Since slavery had not been abolished, the people that would eventually become the Southern Planter class began buying as many slaves as they could get reinvigorating the slave trade and demand for slave labor. In part, this was due to the revolution as Britain had already begun to abolish slavery, so before the revolution, an abolitionist might have had reason to hope to see the death of slavery well before 1865.

The Louisiana Purchase, railroads and the demand for cotton had nothing directly to do with any intention of sustaining slavery. They were unpredictable changes to the conditions that caused slavery to become an institution in the nation. Politically, the momentum was against slavery and then it changed.

However, conditions changed again when the cotton that the South produced fueled the industrial development of the anti-slavery North and economic and political power moved again. The planters were basically funding their own downfall. Even if there had not been a Civil War, slavery could have been impossible to sustain as the money and power were against it.

There again, though, unexpected conditions made a gradual end to slavery unlikely as the Civil War was driven less by the desire to end slavery in the Southern States and more by the need to stop it before it started in the Western expansion of the United States. To stop it before it started in US colonies.

As Lincoln states in the movie Lincoln, “we’d be seeing the spread of slavery from the American South into South America.”

As opposed to slavery as the North might have been, though, it wasn’t like they were opposed to racism or the extermination of natives in the American West. Nor were they opposed to colonizing South America, the Caribbean or South Pacific, either. The abolition of slavery helped dampen that at least, but it wasn’t intentional.

We have a very limited government with limited power to influence the culture, and though it is frustrating for progress, looking at places like Russia and China today, we don’t want government to have much power as it is easily corrupted and manipulated. These Jan 6th hearings – accurate or not – are painting a picture that Trump was trying to become an American Putin, and we should be concerned that that is exactly what the current GOP is trying to put in place with or without Trump. I wouldn’t want that sort of government even if someone I agreed with was in power.

 

I get it that Maher may have been sneering, but the truth is if you were fickle, weren’t paying that much attention and looking down the road, you really can’t whine and point the finger now.

The workarounds are already being posted:

There are also plans to go on “weekend trips” to the states were they are

still legal and so on.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

njerry wrote:

This is not about religious beliefs; this has always been about (white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

I am hearing that the country is now being turned into a “Nationalist Christian Fascist Regime”.

Parellels are being drawn to certain movies and TV shows as if it is all some bad dream

Someone posted this Venn diagram:

njerry wrote:

This is not about religious beliefs; this has always been about (white) men controlling (poor and minority) women’s control over their own bodies.

That hasn’t been my experience when arguing for abortion rights. I have to say that I’ve actually had a great deal more arguments with women that oppose abortion and pro-choice positions than men and essentially it comes down to religious belief. My wife is Thai and she opposes it as well on Buddhist grounds, but in the US, of course, it is Christian.

Essentially, the emotional part of the argument is the most difficult to address. They see the fetus as an “unborn child.” That is something has been part of the culture for ages, though, and not just religiously. Talk to a pregnant woman or a woman that wants to have a baby and irrespective of their religious beliefs, they will already have projected a sense of personhood on the future child. Naturally, that projection will apply to anyone expecting a baby even if they want an abortion. Even women that pursue ending a pregnancy will have to deal with that culturally ingrained emotional trauma whether they are religious or not.

However, it is especially true of religious positions – especially Catholic. Look at Poland where nationalism and the influence of Catholic conservatives are even opposing in vitro fertilization. So, it is accurate to say that opposition to abortion rights is about the control of religious authorities over secular institutions.

At the same time, unfortunately, since abortion was such a major platform for racist and intolerant eugenics movements in the early 20th century, there is a lot of controversial, undesirable and just plain ugly connotations that people who support it on the grounds of women’s rights also have to deal with.

I mean, it’s a horrible argument, but if the people that opposed abortion really were fascist, white supremacist neo-Nazis, they’d actually be pro-abortion for all the people they think are inferior to them.

DavidM wrote:

No, it’s because of corporate greed. The war put a blip in crude oil supply, but the OPEC countries just released more of their vast reserves to keep the market operating, so prices stabilised. If you look at this chart (change it to a 1-year view), oil is currently priced higher than it was before the war but it’s well below the peak price in March. But once a petrol company puts its retail prices up, it never drops them again. Even though they could be selling petrol cheaper now than they could in March, they’re not. That’s down to them, not the war.

The funniest development in Germany is that the FDP (they’re in the current coalition with our Green and labour parties, and they’re a “free market!!!” party) pushed a “fuel discount” through that was supposed to lower the fuel prices, but since what they actually did was lower the government’s taxes on fuel, the oil companies just took the profits and pushed the prices even higher. And now everybody is angry as if they’re realised for the first time that capitalism will fuck you over any chance it gets. It’s hilarious.

4 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle

Al-x wrote:

I get it that Maher may have been sneering, but the truth is if you were fickle, weren’t paying that much attention and looking down the road, you really can’t whine and point the finger now.

And the Democrats have no responsibility for foisting bullshit Neoliberal candidates on a public who reject them?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And the Democrats have no responsibility for foisting bullshit Neoliberal candidates on a public who reject them?

This is the real trouble with parties. The Democratic party is not democratic and the Republican party is not republican. Parties, like many private organizations, are increasingly oligarchic and dictatorial with candidates chosen that align with leadership interests rather than membership.

lorcan_nagle wrote:

And the Democrats have no responsibility for foisting bullshit Neoliberal candidates on a public who reject them?

There is that too… Plenty of blame to share on all sides.

Thing is… Ever since ( and even before) the Obama years, with the two parties there has always been this narrative of “The good guys vs. the bad guys”.  Personally I see it as a choice between “the lesser of the two…”

The Dems have taken the Person of color (not just the black) vote for granted, counting on them voting by default. Never mind it was the grassroots efforts of Stacy Abrams literally going door to door to get mostly black women to register and their showing at the voting booths was essentially what swung Georgia to Biden and practically rescued the country from 4 more years.

The Dems have a lot to answer for being inept, and expecting the default voting to compensate and come to the rescue.

 

Al-x wrote:

There are also plans to go on “weekend trips” to the states were they are still legal and so on.

Essentially that, until a couple of years ago when the vote legalised it, was the case for residents of Ireland since 1967. The UK legalised abortion in that year and Irish women took ferries and planes across (the UK and Ireland, pre EU and post Brexit, have a common travel area where generally there are no restrictions on border crossings, like US states).

There are issues though that I’m certain Lorcan could give far more detail on with his work on the campaign there but boil down to time and money. If you are an 18 year old student with no income seeking that path you need to pay for travel and lodgings that would cost several hundred pounds or euros.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle, Al-x

garjones wrote:

Al-x wrote:

There are also plans to go on “weekend trips” to the states were they are still legal and so on.

Essentially that, until a couple of years ago when the vote legalised it, was the case for residents of Ireland since 1967. The UK legalised abortion in that year and Irish women took ferries and planes across (the UK and Ireland, pre EU and post Brexit, have a common travel area where generally there are no restrictions on border crossings, like US states).

There are issues though that I’m certain Lorcan could give far more detail on with his work on the campaign there but boil down to time and money. If you are an 18 year old student with no income seeking that path you need to pay for travel and lodgings that would cost several hundred pounds or euros.

It’s still happening in Ireland – there’s a conscientious objector clause where a doctor can refuse to offer abortion care, and while they’re obligated to refer to another doctor, many won’t, and there’s large chunks of the country where no doctor will offer the service. So there’s still plenty of Irish people travelling to the UK or the Netherlands for abortion.

In one recent case that got shared around social media, a young woman was trying to get an abortion, and was told at ten weeks that she couldn’t get one because it was “too close” to the twelve-week limit – not within a couple of days of the limit, a full two weeks. Because of delays in getting a passport she was past 12 weeks by the time she got to the UK and wound up needing to have a surgical abortion instead of just taking the pills.

If anyone’s interested in learning more about these issues, Mara Clarke from Abortion Support Network is a good person to look up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

garjones wrote:

Essentially that, until a couple of years ago when the vote legalised it, was the case for residents of Ireland since 1967. The UK legalised abortion in that year and Irish women took ferries and planes across (the UK and Ireland, pre EU and post Brexit, have a common travel area where generally there are no restrictions on border crossings, like US states).

In Thailand, abortion was illegal until very recently – 2021 – and even then it is only “not criminal” during the first 12 weeks which is tough for teen girls and poor women as it usually means they will only have about a week to decide after they discover they are pregnant. Again, this is due to Buddhist culture and not Christian as well.

However, what drove this change had less to do with political activism and more to do with the problems that arise when abortion is illegal. It will take about 20 years before the states that have excessively restricted abortions will start to feel the consequences of actually preventing it, so I don’t expect much progress until then.

Not that activists shouldn’t continue to push for reproductive rights, but don’t expect much change until people start to feel it and leaders can’t ignore it.

Anonymous wrote:

In Thailand, abortion was illegal until very recently – 2021 – and even then it is only “not criminal” during the first 12 weeks

 

This is the case in a large number of countries, the places where abortion is allowed after like the 20th week are the exception. Canada is the only country in the world where abortion is allowed without a gestational limit.

 

For instance abortion on demand is not permitted in a theocratic hellhole like Finland. You need to give a reason for the abortion like psychological or financial distress, and then it is allowed but only in the first 12 weeks.

1 user thanked author for this post.

[Al-x]

With this ruling (and the finger pointing) comes a lot of other issues regarding the US feminist movement and its history.

It was said that black women had to march way behind in the beginning.
Decades separated the voting rights between the white women and other women of color
Susan B. Anthony herself was dead set against black women and men having equal rights to vote.

Here are just a few links:

https://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134849480/the-root-how-racism-tainted-womens-suffrage
https://www.history.com/news/suffragists-vote-black-women
https://www.forbes.com/sites/maiahoskin/2022/03/27/is-there-a-place-for-black-women-in-white-feminism/?sh=2cb0ec4c7113
https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/celebrate-womens-suffrage-dont-whitewash-movements-racism

There have been accusations that White feminists only care really to have the same agency as the white males and they
just use the other women as a disposable means to an end.

This is all to say that: Even the protest movements are layered with heavy undercurrents.

And now that the overturn happened, it has been said that the white women are calling for a clarion call while the women of color are saying “Where were you when all this started in our area? You didn’t fight for our issues then and you want us to heed this clarion call now that you are affected?

Asleep at the wheel AND not paying attention/a blind eye to subtle changes until it fully hits you…

Parallels are quickly made to the “Handmaids Tale” a story about oppressed white women over the real life experiences and issues women of color faced.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

Again, this is due to Buddhist culture and not Christian as well.

I’m not sure if religion is overplayed in this regard.

Jon Ronson’s excellent recent BBC podcast pointed out that nobody in the US’s largely protestant evangelical movement cared about this subject until a video made by 16 year old American kid raised in Switzerland, that now distances himself from it.

Singapore is majority Buddhist and legalised abortion before the USA did. Contrary to Arjan’s earlier statement it is just a western thing (and China) abortion on demand is not uncommon in Asia.

My wife is a Catholic and when we first got together I raised the issue of contraception and despite going to church weekly she was unaware that was an issue for the church, as a minority religion they have different priorities so it was never mentioned. One script in Islam says abortion is okay until week 12 but the application of that is quite random.

Legal and practical are also at odds at times. In Malaysia it is recorded abortion is not allowed on demand (it can be for medical reasons, including the mental health of the patient which is a massive grey area) but also that there is no regulation on statute for private healthcare, so actually you can get one, if you pay.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

This is the case in a large number of countries, the places where abortion is allowed after like the 20th week are the exception.

I don’t think that is so controversial to be honest.

There will always be a debate where an unborn child moves from a dependent to independent entity. I remember Mike pointing out that for premature births it is around 21/22 weeks where the odds of survival take a massive turn from most likely to survive to barely any chance.

Most women will know if they are pregnant around the 8-12 week period. Setting it at 8 weeks makes it almost impossible to avoid and organise. There isn’t a huge campaign in liberal/agnostic western Europe for extensions because a period like 20 weeks allows the vast majority to make the call themselves.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

garjones wrote:

There will always be a debate where an unborn child moves from a dependent to independent entity. I remember Mike pointing out that for premature births it is around 21/22 weeks where the odds of survival take a massive turn from most likely to survive to barely any chance.

It’s worth noting that people who find themselves pregnant and don’t want to be obtain an abortion as early as they can – obstacles in gaining access like gatekeeping access, demanding a good reason and cooling off periods don’t change that. Later abortions are almost always because of health issues, and those stories are often horrifying or heartbreaking by turns. I don’t recommend anyone do it because they’re incredibly depressing, but the Abortion Rights Campaign’s submissions to the Constitutional Convention on the Eighth Amendment and to the committee that passed abortion legislation are a matter of public record and contain a lot of first-hand stories of people’s late-term abortions if you want to see what the reality of that situation is.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Al-x, Todd, garjones

For me the real issue is feeling pain. If a fetus is able to feel pain and suffer at some point during the gestation, then I think that should be taken into account. Maybe it is possible for abortions beyond that time limit to come up with a method that is painless for the fetus. I mean euthanasia is painless, so why couldn’t abortion be.

garjones wrote:

I’m not sure if religion is overplayed in this regard.

It does depend a lot on the country. In Thailand, the Buddhist justifications against it are almost always those I encounter, but I’m not Buddhist, so it could be that is why they bring it up. Essentially, “you don’t know the culture.”

In Poland – even among Polish Americans – Catholicism is a major influence on the policies.

I grew up as a non-Catholic in a majority Catholic family, and yeah, almost all of them are pro-Life and strongly anti-abortion primarily because of the Church. However, my dad converted to Episcopalian – which is not much different from Catholic – and though they are religiously pro-Life, the church also opposes any legislation outright illegalizing abortion and are politically pro-Choice. Same for Lutherans (again a denomination otherwise very similar to Catholicism).

So, in America, we encounter religious objections to abortion and religious support for illegalization, and also religious objections to abortion BUT that also oppose illegalization. Religion matters, but that doesn’t mean it only goes for one side.

However, it does lean toward anti-abortion and I think a lot of this is due to the unintentional effect of many liberals and progressives leaving churches altogether. So, it ends up with most organized religion in the country siding with conservative politics. If liberals had stayed in the churches, it would have balanced the debate from the inside.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

For me the real issue is feeling pain. If a fetus is able to feel pain and suffer at some point during the gestation, then I think that should be taken into account. Maybe it is possible for abortions beyond that time limit to come up with a method that is painless for the fetus. I mean euthanasia is painless, so why couldn’t abortion be.

However, where do the feelings of the person that is carrying the child come into that? Personally, I can’t even make an argument that such a thing as an unborn person even exists, but I am certain that the woman is a person and I identify completely with her. Her suffering seems to be the far higher priority.

To weigh in, what the actual fuck?

So now in Canada we have to prepare for an influx of human beings coming north to obtain a medical human right.
(And of course I say “Yes”. Now is the time to stick together.)

But what needs more light shone on it is the fact that we are the second largest country on the planet, yet have 0.5% of the world’s population. 90% of Canadians live within a one hour drive of the U.S. border. Citation needed on that, but definitely the vast majority live south of the 55th Parallel (49th Parallel being most of the longest undefended border in the world).

10% of the population have shitty access to doctor’s and hospitals in general, with specialist access even worse and abortion services now confirmed to be a goddamned shitshow.
Seriously, a teenager that’s poor at the most emotional time of their life with an unknown family situation has to figure that out on their own, obtain travel on their own dime, and beat the goddamn clock.
(There is of course the very political point of Native/Aboriginal/First Nations issues going on, and very much a part of what I just brought up).

And the system is already overtasked. I repeat, not suggesting to block access to our long standing friends, but we should never, ever forget about those that need our help the most.
____________________________

So while I’m typing, a quick weigh in on my political view.
In a three party system, I usually vote Liberal (Center/lean Left) both Federally and Provincially (in BC we broke the Right a while back, but the left just grabs bad decisions like a dog on a bone).

NDP (Left) has never been in power Federally (Sad that many have to honestly vote Liberal if you want your vote to count, or you go Right) but I could definitely vote that way, just don’t like throwing away my vote.

The Progressive Conservatives? Nope! Progressive in your name just proves your a liar when you know 10% – 33% of your membership are the gun-toting, Pray-the-Gay-away, whack-jobs getting off on what’s happening in the world.
I’m never going to vote Right/Tory/Conservative, but it’s very much right here and waiting to pounce if we close our eyes.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

However, where do the feelings of the person that is carrying the child come into that?

 

Umm yeah of course those feelings matter too. But if a fetus can experience suffering when undergoing abortion, that too has to be taken into consideration morally speaking.

 

 

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However, where do the feelings of the person that is carrying the child come into that?

 

Umm yeah of course those feelings matter too. But if a fetus can experience suffering when undergoing abortion, that too has to be taken into consideration morally speaking.

 

 

But the abortions happening at that point in development are overwhelmingly because the health or life of the pregnant person are in danger, or the foetus has such grave developmental issues that they won’t survive outside the womb.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

It does depend a lot on the country.

Yes and I’m not saying of course religion isn’t a factor, especially Catholicism which has been explicitly opposed to abortion and birth control for a long time.

I do think sometimes it is a cover for other motivations. Within living memory in the 1970s we have US Baptists passing resolution in support of the right to abortion. Their bible didn’t change in that time but their position reversed, it didn’t in other Protestant countries. That kind of thing is why you get different approaches in different Christian, Buddhist and Muslim countries.

 

People who oppose abortion on religious grounds perhaps need to read the Bible.

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

I do think sometimes it is a cover for other motivations. Within living memory in the 1970s we have US Baptists passing resolution in support of the right to abortion. Their bible didn’t change in that time but their position reversed, it didn’t in other Protestant countries. That kind of thing is why you get different approaches in different Christian, Buddhist and Muslim countries.

My point is that just as often, reproductive rights activists discount or basically accuse abortion opponents of essentially lying when they say that they oppose abortion on religious, ethical and moral principles. It makes the debate easier to do that and to paint all or most of the opponents as misogynists that want to control women, but that only works if they don’t actually engage with the pro-life proponents. Try telling a woman arguing against abortion that she’s pro-life.

Personally, I believe that it is not religion but the culture that drives the greatest opposition. In pregnancies that are intentional and wanted, the parents certainly do consider that the fetus is an unborn child and the grief of miscarriages is similar to or even the same as losing a baby. I think it is natural to expect that to be projected on any fetus even if it is unwanted. Essentially, how can a woman see that another woman’s fetus is not a person when the child that they wanted existed as a person to her the moment she knew she was pregnant?

However, as in all political struggles, no progress can be made if people don’t take each other’s arguments at their word and instead constantly seek to insult and demonize the opposition. Conservatives do this when they see all civil rights action as part of a crypto-Marxist or even Satanic plot and progressives do this when they characterize all conservative aims as crypto-fascist and white supremacist. In the end, it just accomplishes motivating the other side as we’re seeing with these SCOTUS rulings.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Umm yeah of course those feelings matter too. But if a fetus can experience suffering when undergoing abortion, that too has to be taken into consideration morally speaking.

Ideally, it should be, but taken into consideration by whom? The state? I think only the woman carrying the child and possibly the doctor should have the authority in that regard and the state should only have authority in regulating the safety of the medical procedures for the woman.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

DavidM wrote:

People who oppose abortion on religious grounds perhaps need to read the Bible.

That is subject to interpretation. The Bible has also been used to justify slavery and police brutality
along with most white supremacist ideology tbh.

What gets to me are some who have this interpretation like with global warming/climate change:
Some have read the Scripture and say that because of what God told Noah after the family left the Ark
(no more flooding), therefore we don’t’ have to worry about sea levels rising.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

All God’s message to Noah is that he, God, won’t wreck the world.  It says nothing about Noah and his descendants doing it.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

Ben wrote:

All God’s message to Noah is that he, God, won’t wreck the world.  It says nothing about Noah and his descendants doing it.

I get it, but that is the interpretation some have.

And…When someone in office has that interpretation or caters to their religious constituency
Laws (some highly conservative) get passed that get others pi**ed off at the imposition.

It’s an ongoing thing, religious texts are generally very long, written in arcane language and frequently contradict themselves. They are open to an enormous amount of interpretation and often are and that’s why we see all these denominational offshoots.

Even if you look at something like the most basic 4 word instruction: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ in the ten commandments. It sits alongside ‘an eye for an eye’ which could justify capital punishment, it also sits alongside ‘turn the other cheek’ which says forgiveness and doing nothing.

So using 3 very well known and simple quotes you can generate a justification for any policy from extreme punishment to none at all.

The Old Testament has a long list of forbidden foods, which form what we know as kosher or halal rules. A single line in the New Testament about all God’s creations being good wipes that clean for Christians.

There are contradictory statements in Islam over dogs so half the followers won’t even touch a dog and half happily have them as pets, all dependent on which one you choose to be the most important.

4 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, Ben, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

It’s an ongoing thing, religious texts are generally very long, written in arcane language and frequently contradict themselves. They are open to an enormous amount of interpretation and often are and that’s why we see all these denominational offshoots.

Even if you look at something like the most basic 4 word instruction: ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ in the ten commandments. It sits alongside ‘an eye for an eye’ which could justify capital punishment, it also sits alongside ‘turn the other cheek’ which says forgiveness and doing nothing.

So using 3 very well known and simple quotes you can generate a justification for any policy from extreme punishment to none at all.

The Old Testament has a long list of forbidden foods, which form what we know as kosher or halal rules. A single line in the New Testament about all God’s creations being good wipes that clean for Christians.

There are contradictory statements in Islam over dogs so half the followers won’t even touch a dog and half happily have them as pets, all dependent on which one you choose to be the most important.

But with all this “Religious Right” and “Moral Majority”…
Does the US go by Judaeo-Christian theology?
Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?

There was also something in the news years ago about what is taught in the k-12 curriculum regarding
the Genesis creation account vs. the secular evolution lessons. (What was it…Intelligent Design?)

All this is to say that religious impositions have always been here in the US…

Al-x wrote:

Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?

Another item ‘open to interpretation’. You have God written on your currency.

I come from a country where the head of state is also head of the church but practically it means very little. There’s an inherent shame in declaring religion has anything to do with politics. The US has its supposed separation and then invokes it all the time. France and Turkey actually implement it better.

5 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, Ben, Al-x

Al-x wrote:

Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?

It is unsure wether there is such a thing. The first amendment said congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion: so government is not entitled to regulate religious insitutions. That doesn’t mean religions can’t influence government.

Also technically states are not “congress”, for instance if Arkansas was to model its laws on the baptist church, the constitution wouldn’t prohibit that.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x wrote:

DavidM wrote:

People who oppose abortion on religious grounds perhaps need to read the Bible.

That is subject to interpretation. The Bible has also been used to justify slavery and police brutality
along with most white supremacist ideology tbh.

What gets to me are some who have this interpretation like with global warming/climate change:
Some have read the Scripture and say that because of what God told Noah after the family left the Ark
(no more flooding), therefore we don’t’ have to worry about sea levels rising.

It’s true, most of those passages can be interpreted in different ways. The Bible is a complex document, not helped by many centuries of bad translations.

But for fun, try asking a “conservative Christian” to explain how they support their own position. In my experience, people who identify as Christians have read less of the bible than I have, they have merely been told what they have to believe.

 

4 users thanked author for this post.

Chris D, Al-x, Todd, lorcan_nagle

On some social media sites, the “undercurrents” are coming up.

This overturning is bringing out all these protests from white women and their testimonials/stories
while the women of color (Black, Hispanic, Asian) are telling them: “We told you so for decades! It
is only NOW that you care and start complaining once it affected you. You never budged to fight
for us when it came to our issues when we were targeted. NOW all of a sudden you cry sisterhood.
Where have you been?”

It is getting ugly with “Hilary told you so… even ANITA HILL regarding Clarence Thomas”.

Hindsight is 20/20, but for some to be so “shocked” and “appalled” at things like FLoyd with that cop,
how many stormed the Capitol, 70M who voted GOP in 2020, how “unreasonable/backwards” some are in interviews…

It is like that line in Superman 2: “Where have you been pal? On a desert island?!?”

DavidM wrote:

People who oppose abortion on religious grounds perhaps need to read the Bible.

 

Building on this:

Think Christianity Is Anti-Abortion? Think Again

Al-x wrote:

This overturning is bringing out all these protests from white women and their testimonials/stories while the women of color (Black, Hispanic, Asian) are telling them

It’s interesting. I have seen a lot of info in the last few days that one of drivers for this abortion thing (like I said in the 1970s evangelicals were campaigning in support of it so it’s not scripture) that a driver is to keep America white, as was recently dropped at a Trump rally.

I read an account that it would boost the US white population as they are the ones mostly seeking elective abortions. It’s an almost universal truth that the richer you are the smaller your families get. In Asia the lowest fertility rates are in South Korea, Japan and Singapore, the 3 richest countries. The highest globally now are no longer in Asia but in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest.

I think that’s part of the motivation but also probably doomed to failure. Legislation is a very poor way to manage behaviour, it really doesn’t work. If it did then the US locking up the most offenders should make it the safest place around, low violence, no drugs.

As we saw pre Roe v Wade abortions happened all the time, just in a dangerous way.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

garjones wrote:

Turkey actually implement it better.

Umm I don’t know about that…the Turkish government controls a third of all mosques in the Netherlands.

 

Directorate of Religious Affairs – Wikipedia

 

If I’d have to say which country was closer to a theocracy, the US or Turkey, that would be Turkey.

All the tweets, demonstrations with signs having the best soundbites, highlighting conservative double standards on life,
the “discovery” that it feeds into a white supremacist agenda. All this and the GOP smugly say “So what?”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., on the Justices on the Supreme Court: pic.twitter.com/U1hX839IqQ

— Farnoush Amiri (@FarnoushAmiri) June 24, 2022

Here’s how Dems can + must do more than wait for an election.

Let’s start w/ why:

– 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by a party that hasn’t won a popular vote more than once in 30 years

– 1 of those seats was stolen

– Several lied to Congress to secure their appointment…

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 25, 2022

 

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Yeah and that directorate is run by Erdogan and his party.

Turkey has taken a massive step back under his rule, he’s destroyed any prospect of them joining the EU which seemed on the cards but before that they did church and state separation pretty well. It’s almost unfathomable that a country with 98% Muslim population banned Islamic symbols in public places, including head coverings for women.

Compared to the US with a lower percentage and God invoked every 2 minutes in political speeches, 10 Commandments on walls, swearing on bibles, ‘Trust in God’ written on currency and the like – historically they have applied ‘church and state’ better until the present regime.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Phillips O’Brien puts the decision down to religion. He’s a military historian so this isn’t really his field, but he’s also an American currently living in the UK so he probably has a good broad perspective.

The fastest growing demographic in the USA (you might be surprised to hear) is the non-religious. Americans are increasingly moving away from organised religion and are expressing more doubts about the existence of a God.

The change really has been dramatic in the last two decades. Now almost 30% of Americans reject a religious identity.

Not surprisingly those that are still religious are becoming more extreme. For Christians the mainstream more liberal denominations are struggling while evangelicals are becoming dominant

As such these Supreme Court rulings represent more a desperate attempt to protect an ancien regime than anything else. Only problem, is that they will probably accelerate this move to secularism as the state starts to be seen as an agent of religious propaganda.

What we are seeing from the Supreme Court is an attempt to turn the clock back to a time that no longer exists.

Worth noting. Anti abortion rhetoric was always most useful to the Republicans to whip up their base. Now that they have to defend actual laws, it won’t be so fun for them. Imagine the politics of the state arresting some young woman for having a termination.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Al-x, lorcan_nagle

The last bit there really should say “imagine the politics of arresting some young WHITE woman for having a termination”. Because this country doesn’t give a crap about minority women. In fact, arresting young minority women for abortions will probably whip up the garbage base pretty damn well. It’s exactly the kind of thing these so-called Christians want to see. They’re bloodthirsty animals.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, lorcan_nagle, Al-x, Todd

I don’t think they’ll be too bothered about arresting a white woman either. It’ll only be a problem if some politician or pastor’s mistress gets found having an abortion.

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd, Chris D

On the subject of women wanting freedom of choice, rather amusing to see Nicola Sturgeon’s indyref2 plan come down to “‘mon then.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

I’m glad all those Remainer claims that Brexit would lead to an economic downturn and the break-up of the UK were just Project Fear.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Her best chance of realising independence would appear to be Boris remaining as Prime Minister.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

saga wrote:

Her best chance of realising independence would appear to be Boris remaining as Prime Minister.

Oh I definitely think that’s a factor in the timing. He’s a great argument against staying in the UK.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

DavidM wrote:

People who oppose abortion on religious grounds perhaps need to read the Bible.

 

I read that and I also have a neighbor of mine who read the second book:
In the old Laws of Moses there was a law covering some freak situation:

If two guys got into a fight and if there was a pregnant woman there for some
reason…If she got injured (collateral damage) then payment must be made and
if the unborn died from it all, then it was life for life.

I get it, and that was then.

But how different is the SCOTUS taking after evangelical interpretation and some Islamic countries taking up Sharia law?

Personally, I don’t see an abortion as being like say, taking out the appendix or tonsils.
It has to be a tough decision.
And I see the situation/scenario of women who don’t want to be tied to some a**hole guy who would be
the father. This is so much more than the rape situation we always get.

Al-x wrote:

Personally, I don’t see an abortion as being like say, taking out the appendix or tonsils.
It has to be a tough decision.
And I see the situation/scenario of women who don’t want to be tied to some a**hole guy who would be
the father. This is so much more than the rape situation we always get.

It is my understanding that most abortions in the US are performed on middle-aged (give or take some years) women out of a medical necessity (mother could die if she carries the baby to term). I belive young people having abortions end an unwanted pregnancy has been on the decline. Hell, teen pregnancies have been on the decline and that can be attributed to the MTV show “Teen Moms”.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

Al-x wrote:

But how different is the SCOTUS taking after evangelical interpretation and some Islamic countries taking up Sharia law?

It’s a good question with probably a lot more nuance than most would imagine.

The concept of Sharia law is presented in the west as a very evil thing, which it can be, but essentially it is all about the levels of applying and combining religion with law.

We all do to some extent, no country was formed from an atheist basis so our laws have a lot of origin in religious morals. You should probably think about internally renaming Sharia law to essentially Muslim law to better compare to Christian law or Buddhist or Hindu.

In Saudi Arabia that Muslim law is very literal and very extreme adoption of their religious text above all other considerations. In other Muslim countries like here in Malaysia it is only applicable to Muslims and largely around family and moral concepts rather than crime. So technically the Supreme Court decision based on Christian law is worse than that Muslim law because it imposes it on everyone. It’s not as bad though as Muslim law that dismembers people or jails women for being raped. There has been Christian law in the Caribbean that prescribed capital punishment for sodomy between men which is worse than Muslim law here which decreed a couple of years jail.

Personally I’d like religion entirely removed from law, we are far from there but the issues globally are essentially about how they encroach and how absolute they are.

It’s not a thing I believe but there is arguable justification for saying a healthy mother and child go to term and put out for adoption. The zeal to not exempt victims of rape and incest or medical necessity is I think cruel and unusual punishment.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Sean Robinson, DavidM, Ben, lorcan_nagle

Todd wrote:

It is my understanding that most abortions in the US are performed on middle-aged (give or take some years) women out of a medical necessity (mother could die if she carries the baby to term)

Unless it’s changed recently it’s middle-aged women, but ones who already have one or more children and don’t want another. Most abortions still take place before 12 weeks – generally if someone discovers they’re pregnant and doesn’t want to be, they arrange for an abortion as quickly as possible. But the ones later on are primarily for health reasons. But the reality of abortion for most people is not the stereotypical teenagers fooling around. It’s families who already have children and the parents know full well that they can’t handle raising another one. A friend of mine who makes YouTube videos put it very well in a video on Abortion: Statistically, one out of Marge, Patty and Selma Bouvier has had an abortion, and statistically it was Marge. Hashtag Marge Simpson had an abortion.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, Todd

More proof that things are just getting started:

Abortions can resume in Texas after judge blocks pre-Roe v. Wade ban

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Todd, lorcan_nagle

JRCarter wrote:

More proof that things are just getting started:

Abortions can resume in Texas after judge blocks pre-Roe v. Wade ban

Does anyone know the process for recommending someone for a Congressional Medal of Honor? Because Texas Judge Christine Weems definitely deserves a medal.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, DavidM

Todd wrote:

t is my understanding that most abortions in the US are performed on middle-aged (give or take some years) women out of a medical necessity (mother could die if she carries the baby to term). I belive young people having abortions end an unwanted pregnancy has been on the decline. Hell, teen pregnancies have been on the decline and that can be attributed to the MTV show “Teen Moms”.

I get the scenario almost all the time of some woman being r*ped, or a 12 year old girl being molested by a family friend or whatever and what will be done given this overturn. Those scenarios happen and if they only happen once, then it is one time way too many.

What I see not being presented are what you said about middle aged women and so on. I wasn’t talking about a one night stand situation mistake. I was briefly mentioning about women in a relationship and then seeing the guy’s “true colors” once they are expecting, and not wanting to be tied to him the next 20 years.

I agree that the more common scenarios as well as the records that give the breakdown of abortions to give the public the real
picture should be presented.

[Al-x]

In the Jan 6 hearings, this aide to Mark Meadows at the time named Cassidy Hutchinson (What’s the story with all these model types in the MAGA admin?) gave her testimony of that day.

She said Tr*mp went on a tirade throwing a plate and ketchup ended up on the walls. etc…

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumpworld-reaction-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-testimony-2022-6

——————————–

I don’t know…

Some variables:

Obama did taunt Tr*mp at that dinner.
Some stories of involvement with cyber hacking the election by Russia
Dems not doing that much to put in a viable candidate successor
Hilary and some “shenanigans” for her to get to get the ticket
Dem voters being fickle about Hilary
Trump’s populist racist message and bringing out MAGA slogan and inciting new voters for the GOP
The rest of the GOP falling in line.

All of the above (and more) had a part in how things came to the 4 years and all this. (Feel free to add)

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

Al-x wrote:

Obama did taunt Tr*mp at that dinner.

He did but that is what they do at that dinner, it’s a political roast. I know a lot of people don’t like the look it gives but either Trump should have known what was coming or been warned by his staff as that’s what happens every year.

Being upset about it is a bit like getting angry because you got wet on the Splash Mountain ride.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, njerry, lorcan_nagle

[Al-x]

Al-x wrote:

In the Jan 6 hearings, this aide to Mark Meadows at the time named Cassidy Hutchinson (What’s the story with all these model types in the MAGA admin?) gave her testimony of that day.

She said Tr*mp went on a tirade throwing a plate and ketchup ended up on the walls. etc…

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumpworld-reaction-cassidy-hutchinson-january-6-testimony-2022-6

——————————–

I don’t know…

Some variables:

Obama did taunt Tr*mp at that dinner.
Some stories of involvement with cyber hacking the election by Russia
Dems not doing that much to put in a viable candidate successor
Hilary and some “shenanigans” for her to get to get the ticket
Dem voters being fickle about Hilary
Trump’s populist racist message and bringing out MAGA slogan and inciting new voters for the GOP
The rest of the GOP falling in line.

All of the above (and more) had a part in how things came to the 4 years and all this. (Feel free to add)

• This reply was modified 2 years, 6 months ago by Al-x.

I think it’s a pendulum thing, you had 8 year of Obama which wasn’t that great so some voters in the middle either decided not to vote, or made a switch to the other side.

 

 

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I think it’s a pendulum thing,

This time it feels like more than a pendulum thing. In my lifetime the presidency has turned over from one party to the other ten times (Eisenhower to Biden), and for most of that time the changes have been relatively minimal because the three branches of government maintained a fairly even balance of either liberal-but-not-too-liberal or conservative-but-not-too-conservative…until Obama was elected.

Something shifted at that point, a combination of middle-America whites fearing that they are going to lose their position at the top of the mountain (or be forced to share it with others) and of the GOP and FOX News feeding those fears by focusing on how all these minorities and disenfranchised Americans are now being catered to while the Murrican majority are losing their position of privileges and perks and exclusivity.

This shift ultimately led to Trump’s election and to the rising feeling of empowerment that he gave to white supremacists and similar groups. At this point the pendulum appears to be broken and leaning heavily to the right.

3 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Al-x, Todd

It could be the pendulum may be swinging more violently. A part of the reason Republicans have been manipulating things is the demographics really aren’t on their side. The white population is decreasing, the country is becoming more urban, the young more open to ideas that have been deemed too ‘far left’ in previous decades.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state

WTF will it take to get this heifer out of office?

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

njerry wrote:

This time it feels like more than a pendulum thing. In my lifetime the presidency has turned over from one party to the other ten times (Eisenhower to Biden), and for most of that time the changes have been relatively minimal because the three branches of government maintained a fairly even balance of either liberal-but-not-too-liberal or conservative-but-not-too-conservative…until Obama was elected.

Something shifted at that point, a combination of middle-America whites fearing that they are going to lose their position at the top of the mountain (or be forced to share it with others) and of the GOP and FOX News feeding those fears by focusing on how all these minorities and disenfranchised Americans are now being catered to while the Murrican majority are losing their position of privileges and perks and exclusivity.

This shift ultimately led to Trump’s election and to the rising feeling of empowerment that he gave to white supremacists and similar groups. At this point the pendulum appears to be broken and leaning heavily to the right.

It all feeds into this feeling like : “This is America and I am white! Why am I struggling from paycheck to paycheck?”
Rather than realizing the economy situation (automation, outsourcing, etc.) and “business overlords” underpaying them, and given that Obama was POTUS etc. along comes someone who tells you that the Mexicans, illegal immigrants, blacks, Asians have taken over, squeezing you out, and you must take back your country by any means necessary!

Now… IF Tr*mp goes and is put out to pasture, it has been said that another GOPer, a smarter one, can just pick up where Tr*mp left off and inherit the base, but do things smarter. The name DeSantis is being floated around now. If the Dems think it will be all over if/when he goes…even if these hearings get rid of him, another takes the place almost Hydra style.

A smarter GOPer taking over, and the Dems being a paper tiger…. Scary.

njerry wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

I think it’s a pendulum thing,

This time it feels like more than a pendulum thing. In my lifetime the presidency has turned over from one party to the other ten times (Eisenhower to Biden), and for most of that time the changes have been relatively minimal because the three branches of government maintained a fairly even balance of either liberal-but-not-too-liberal or conservative-but-not-too-conservative…until Obama was elected.

Something shifted at that point, a combination of middle-America whites fearing that they are going to lose their position at the top of the mountain (or be forced to share it with others) and of the GOP and FOX News feeding those fears by focusing on how all these minorities and disenfranchised Americans are now being catered to while the Murrican majority are losing their position of privileges and perks and exclusivity.

This shift ultimately led to Trump’s election and to the rising feeling of empowerment that he gave to white supremacists and similar groups. At this point the pendulum appears to be broken and leaning heavily to the right.

Honestly I can’t really judge it. However it seems to me the divisions have always been pretty sharp. You had the Vietnam war and those protests (and terror attacks by activists), the Reagan era when democrats thought Reagan was an unhinged Christian zealot, the Dubya era when everybody on the left thought Bush was an idiot. And of course the Republicans who thought Obama was the antichrist.

I wonder if there’s an effect from social media, twitter, facebook and tiktok making the divisions as they are now seem bigger than is realistic.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Honestly I can’t really judge it. However it seems to me the divisions have always been pretty sharp. You had the Vietnam war and those protests (and terror attacks by activists), the Reagan era when democrats thought Reagan was an unhinged Christian zealot, the Dubya era when everybody on the left thought Bush was an idiot. And of course the Republicans who thought Obama was the antichrist.

As I said above, I’ve lived through those previous administrations and, while there have always been major “headline” issues (My Lai, JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations, Black Panthers/Weather Underground, Watergate, gas shortage, inflation/recession, trickle-down economics, Clinton/Monica scandal, 9/11, and on and on…), things have never felt as extreme and hopeless, frankly, as they do right now. As Al stated above, even if Trump is put out to pasture, his tenure has emboldened smarter dickheads like DeSantis and Rubio and Cruz and MTG and Boebert and on and on… Even Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas seem to feel like they can do whatever they want now. Scary times.

4 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Chris D, Ben, Al-x

JRCarter wrote:

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state

WTF will it take to get this heifer out of office?

Invade Colorado?

2 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Todd

JRCarter wrote:

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state

WTF will it take to get this heifer out of office?

These messages that get to the people on some emotional, primal level will always get across better to the common people at large than rational logical arguments.

I could get into that old “Willie Horton” ad that practically won Bush Sr. over Dukakis in the late 80s.

Always a message to practically “scare” people and they will vote in droves.

1 user thanked author for this post.

JRCarter

garjones wrote:

Al-x wrote:

Obama did taunt Tr*mp at that dinner.

He did but that is what they do at that dinner, it’s a political roast. I know a lot of people don’t like the look it gives but either Trump should have known what was coming or been warned by his staff as that’s what happens every year.

Being upset about it is a bit like getting angry because you got wet on the Splash Mountain ride.

It was a roast, but it may have inadvertantly been the thing that gave him the ideas.

WATCH: Inside the Night President Obama Took On Donald Trump

The beginning excerpt:

It was April of 2011. For weeks, Donald Trump had been fanning the flames of the “birther” movement and attacking President Barack Obama on television — demanding that Obama produce his birth certificate, implying that he was not born in the United States, and questioning both his religious identity and the legality of his presidency.

But on April 30, the tables were turned. Trump was the recipient of President Obama’s jokes at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner — and Trump political adviser Roger Stone tells FRONTLINE in The Choice 2016 that the dinner was a turning point for Trump.

“I think that is the night he resolves to run for president,” Stone says in the opening scene of FRONTLINE’s two-hour documentary on Trump and Clinton, which premieres on Tues., Sept. 27 at 9 p.m. EST/8 p.m. CST on PBS stations nationwide.

“I think that he is kind of motivated by it: ‘Maybe I’ll just run. Maybe I’ll show them all,’” Stone adds.

Stone isn’t the only Trump surrogate to tell FRONTLINE that Obama’s mockery that night was a motivating moment in Trump’s journey from flamboyant businessman and reality TV star, to the Republican presidential nomination.

——————————————————

As for the “variables” mentioned. It was most likely all of them and more that had a part in this “perfect storm”.

 

Al-x wrote:

These messages that get to the people on some emotional, primal level will always get across better to the common people at large than rational logical arguments.

I could get into that old “Willie Horton” ad that practically won Bush Sr. over Dukakis in the late 80s.

Always a message to practically “scare” people and they will vote in droves.

This ad:

And he’s not the only one:

1 user thanked author for this post.

Al-x

njerry wrote:

Arjan Dirkse wrote:

Honestly I can’t really judge it. However it seems to me the divisions have always been pretty sharp. You had the Vietnam war and those protests (and terror attacks by activists), the Reagan era when democrats thought Reagan was an unhinged Christian zealot, the Dubya era when everybody on the left thought Bush was an idiot. And of course the Republicans who thought Obama was the antichrist.

As I said above, I’ve lived through those previous administrations and, while there have always been major “headline” issues (My Lai, JFK/MLK/RFK assassinations, Black Panthers/Weather Underground, Watergate, gas shortage, inflation/recession, trickle-down economics, Clinton/Monica scandal, 9/11, and on and on…), things have never felt as extreme and hopeless, frankly, as they do right now. As Al stated above, even if Trump is put out to pasture, his tenure has emboldened smarter dickheads like DeSantis and Rubio and Cruz and MTG and Boebert and on and on… Even Supreme Court Justices like Clarence Thomas seem to feel like they can do whatever they want now. Scary times.

Fair enough, I agree it’s a shitshow but I’m still not quite sure it’s a lot different from what it used to be. There’s January 6 of course and Roe v Wade being overturned…I dunno, maybe things are worse.

 

To be quite honest I’ve given up on politics making any sense, although I have to hold out some hope things can get better.

 

I liked this, no matter how much we disagree, we still have to see each other as human.

 

Nice Moment: Justice Sotomayor Praises Justice Clarence Thomas in Moving Remarks – YouTube

As a US citizens, it feels much worse now than ever before in my lifetime. It honestly feels like we’re on the precipice of the end of the United States. The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on an election law case centered around the power of state legislatures with regards to federal elections that, if the 6 justices continue to rule as they have been, could basically kill any semblance of democracy in this country. A few years ago, I would have never thought it possible, but today it actually doesn’t feel far fetched.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Andrew, DavidM, Todd, Martin Smith, lorcan_nagle

I’ve got a great idea for a new Carry On film. It’s about a dodgy Tory whip called “Chris Pincher” who loses his job over drunken groping allegations, while the prime minister is desperately trying to cover up rumours that he was handing out £100k government positions to anyone who’d give him a blowjob on the sofa while he was foreign secretary.

I think I’ll call it Carry On Fucking The UK.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, lorcan_nagle, DavidM, Martin Smith

Chris D wrote:

As a US citizens, it feels much worse now than ever before in my lifetime. It honestly feels like we’re on the precipice of the end of the United States. The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on an election law case centered around the power of state legislatures with regards to federal elections that, if the 6 justices continue to rule as they have been, could basically kill any semblance of democracy in this country. A few years ago, I would have never thought it possible, but today it actually doesn’t feel far fetched.

I don’t know. When I was born, my dad was drafted with no choice for a war that was universally unpopular among the public and that even the President at the time did not want to be involved in. Abortion was absolutely illegal, homosexuality was mostly illegal and the courts had only just decided that interracial marriages were legal.

And we were all pretty sure WW3 was just a year or two away — especially under Reagan.

This is also what a nation looks like before progressive action really starts to make progress. Read Roe v. Wade and it is not the best protection of abortion. It doesn’t directly or positively make the case for abortion as an individual right and in fact outright denies that it is.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree….

The entire Roe v Wade is an interesting case to read, though difficult, but it is basing it’s decision on the implied right to privacy and the direct due process in the constitution.

However reasonable people may find those arguments, they are not strong. In the same way that the Emancipation Proclamation was not a strong argument to ensure the freedom of former slaves after the Civil War. The only way to settle an issue is through an amendment. If there is no amendment, then it can still be argued against and Roe v. Wade certainly had a lot of holes that people could get through, and it lasted because it was in line with the will of the people.

Essentially, liberals relied on Roe v. Wade to get around the necessity of actually pushing for an amendment that would directly address reproductive rights. That’s the way legislation and our government should work. Laws proposed and passed that address directly the conflict in perspectives. It is not up to the courts to decide if it actually exists by implication as that leads to the situation we’re in now where both sides are legislating by proxy by stacking the courts with those that share their political philosophies. However, the political power is an illusion – people are going to do what they think is right. People don’t obey laws they don’t agree with.

And often even an amendment won’t stand up to the will of the people. The 13th Amendment left a hole open with forced labor as a punishment for a crime that the Southern States (and all states to be honest) used to basically reinstitute slave labor. Roe V. Wade left open all sorts of regulatory options for states to practically ban abortion – just as this recent decision will allow people to still receive abortions even though their states ban it.

If the will of the people – basically, the cultural expectations of the masses – is that women should have access to abortion, it is going to be very difficult for any government to move against it in America. We’ve spent billions on trying to stop illegal immigration and drug smuggling and have given police excessive powers to do so, but it is nearly impossible to enforce a law where all the people involved have no interest in cooperating with authorities. Just look at how well the 21st Amendment worked out. Especially in the Southern states, where being an “informer” to the “G-men” and “revenuers” was as bad there as in revolutionary Ireland.

However, this SCOTUS and its conservative action (or return to inaction, really) will and has forced a political response. In my view, what the court is doing is basically saying that the previous courts had no authority to make these decisions, we have no authority to make a new decision, it needs to be done by an act of congress.

That is like putting a lid on a pot of boiling oil. It’s the pressure needed to force actual political progress.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Arjan Dirkse

Dave wrote:

I think I’ll call it Carry On Fucking The UK.

I’ve seen that film: they show it every night on BBC News at 10.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Todd, Dave, lorcan_nagle

Chris D wrote:

As a US citizens, it feels much worse now than ever before in my lifetime. It honestly feels like we’re on the precipice of the end of the United States. The Supreme Court has just agreed to take on an election law case centered around the power of state legislatures with regards to federal elections that, if the 6 justices continue to rule as they have been, could basically kill any semblance of democracy in this country. A few years ago, I would have never thought it possible, but today it actually doesn’t feel far fetched.

I would advice giving the news a rest for a while…you can’t really influence the turn of events anyway (except for voting of course) and the media just hypes the most alarming things to get clicks.

I did this myself with the Ukraine war, I don’t need to follow how a bunch of dumbasses are leading the world into destruction. I have cat videos to watch.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Nearly 850,000 people signed a petition demanding that Justice Clarence Thomas should be booted from the Supreme Court following Roe v. Wade ruling

I’d say he’s only one of five, but then he did voice that concurring opinion.

2 users thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle, Todd

Interest in vasectomies spiked since Roe v. Wade overturned by Supreme Court

Interest in vasectomies has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade last week.

A cursory look at Google Trends shows searches for the word “vasectomy” jumped on the morning of June 24, which was the day the Supreme Court’s ruling came down.

There was a staggering increase of over 850% for the search term “where can I get a vasectomy,” according to preliminary data collected by Innerbody Research, a telehealth and health research company.

The top two states where people searched for the term were in Texas (No. 1) and Florida (No. 2), an Innerbody Research spokesperson told FOX TV Stations.

What’s more, searches for the term “vasectomy side effects long-term” was up 4,950% and the top states that contributed to that increase were Utah, Arkansas, Idaho, Montana and Oklahoma.

And it’s not just web browser searches that are seeing a spike in interest in vasectomies. Doctors, too, are seeing an increase in vasectomy consultations at some urology and fertility clinics.

Doctors in both red and blue states see an increase

Dr. Parviz Kavoussi, a reproductive urologist at Austin Fertility and Reproductive Medicine in Austin, Texas, said he’s seen a significant jump in interest for vasectomy consultations since last week.

“I’ve been practicing in Austin for 12 years and there is a high volume in general. On average, we get maybe eight requests for consults for new patients a day. But since last Friday’s decision, now we’re averaging over 100 a day, it has been insane, which I get,” Kavoussi told FOX TV Stations.

The ages of people asking for vasectomies ranged from single men in their 20s, to married men in their middle ages and older.

But according to Kavoussi, who can only speak for his clinic, there is a noticeable increase among single men in their 20s seeking this procedure.

“I’m seeing men in their 20s who have no children calling about a consultation, which isn’t abnormal, but there was an increase,” Kavoussi said.

His usual vasectomy patients are married men who’ve already had children and/or their wife experienced a very treacherous pregnancy and they want to avoid it altogether.

And Kavoussi said many of the men who are now seeking these vasectomies are only doing so because of last week’s Supreme Court ruling.

Even in California where abortion will remain legal, some clinics have seen an unusual spike in interest in vasectomies as well.

Dr. Joshua Gonzalez, a urologist and sexual health expert in Los Angeles, said he too has seen a slight increase in patients seeking consultations for a vasectomy.

“I do like one vasectomy a month and just in the past week, I saw two vasectomy consultations and I think I have two or three more lined up next week and the week after,” Gonzalez told FOX TV stations.

“I guess it makes sense that people are worried about reliable contraceptive methods and if women’s reproductive rights are being taken away, then there are men out there that are feeling they need to take matters into their own hands,” Gonzalez added.

Patients who seek vasectomies where Gonzalez practices are usually those who have already been thinking about it for an extensive period of time, but it usually takes an event to really push them over the edge.

“There’s not a lot of men that are super excited about having a procedure done near their testicles, right? So many times when we see patients coming in requesting vasectomy, it’s: they just had a kid. Like, their kid is under six months old, or some other event has happened or their partner has decided that they don’t want to use whatever form of contraception they’ve been using. They had a reaction to the pill or they want their IUD removed or whatever that is,” Gonzalez said.

What is a vasectomy?

A vasectomy is a permanent form of male birth control that men can receive if they decide they don’t want to father any more children. The surgical procedure stops sperm from leaving the body by closing off the ends of the vas deferens, which are the tubes that carry sperm.

Both Gonzalez and Kavoussi said they counsel their patients who are considering a vasectomy under the notion that the procedure is permanent and should not be taken lightly.

“An important thing to relay is that one, we don’t know that this (Supreme Court decision) is going to be forever, this is how it is now, so things have the potential to change and people need to be mindful of that when making such a big decision,” Kavoussi stressed.

More than 500,000 men elect to have vasectomies each year in the U.S., according to the Cleveland Clinic.

The failure rate of a vasectomy “is very low,” the Cleveland Clinic states, noting how semen samples are routinely checked after surgery to confirm a successful procedure.

The procedure can be outpatient and most people can resume everyday activities within 48 to 72 hours “unless the activities are unusually vigorous,” the clinic states. Most report a full recovery in an average of just over a week.

Some risks of a vasectomy can include residual pain, swelling, bleeding or infection, which are relatively uncommon, the clinic says.

Are vasectomies reversible?

Vasectomies are reversible, but the procedure may be more expensive and isn’t usually covered by insurance, according to Gonzalez.

A vasectomy reversal, called a vasovasostomy, involves a small incision in the scrotum to allow the surgeon to find the vas deferens and identify the site of the vasectomy.

“Scar tissue from both ends of the vas deferens is removed, leaving the two cut ends of the tube, which are aligned and sewn together under a microscope. Once sewn together, the vas deferens is placed back into the scrotum and the incision is sewn closed,” the Cleveland Clinic explains.

Men seeking a vasectomy reversal do so for various reasons, according to the clinic. Some may be in a new relationship and wish to have children with a new partner, while others may want children after making an initial decision not to have a family.

“Prior to the ruling, I approach it as a permanent form of sterilization. It’s a long-term done deal but they are reversible and about 6% of those who do get vasectomies want it reversed,” Kavoussi said.

“So, yes, it’s reversible and in well-trained experienced hands, there is a high success rate. A 97% success rate for men within the first eight years of having their vasectomy, from the nine- to 15-year mark 95% success, and the longer it goes it can get a little more challenging to reverse,” Kavoussi added.

3 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, lorcan_nagle

JRCarter wrote:

Nearly 850,000 people signed a petition demanding that Justice Clarence Thomas should be booted from the Supreme Court following Roe v. Wade ruling

I’d say he’s only one of five, but then he did voice that concurring opinion.

Yeah, but he’s also got the wife who was trying to overthrow the government and he was the only vote against releasing materials to the Jan 6th committee, so I’d say it’s fair to rank him as the worst right now. That said, 850k signatures is only about 0.25% of the population so I guess let me know if it gets to 10 million signatures. Not that it matters either way, but at least it might raise my eyebrows a bit.

4 users thanked author for this post.

JRCarter, Todd, lorcan_nagle

As Trump’s star wanes, another rises: could Ron DeSantis be the new Maga bearer?

Isn’t DeSantis basically Trump lite?

DavidM wrote:

JRCarter wrote:

Republican Lauren Boebert wins in Colorado after denouncing separation of church and state

WTF will it take to get this heifer out of office?

Invade Colorado?

That’s starting to make more sense now:

There was just a mass shooting in Denmark, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in Europe.

It’s time to admit that gun laws DO NOT stop mass shootings!

— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) July 3, 2022

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd