Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 387: **** it, Mask Off

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yeah I think a lot of people, especially men, dont actually realize what the Morning After pill ACTUALLY does and I could see them banning it even though it just ensures that conception never happens

https://twitter.com/willy_lowry/status/1521517935155679237?s=21&t=haIaAefIC3b_8HiHKRgmQQ

this is the fire I wanted to see from Biden today

I mean yeah they very well may try to ban it and claim that the court overturning Roe lets them do that, but it would still be unconstitutional under existing precedent. For such a ban to be upheld the Supreme Court would have to go even farther than this opinion in a future case and overturn Griswold v. Connecticut.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/willy_lowry/status/1521517935155679237?s=21&t=haIaAefIC3b_8HiHKRgmQQ

this is the fire I wanted to see from Biden today

I flirted with voting for her in the democratic primary even though she is way more liberal than I prefer because I liked her. Annoying Bernie split her base

They didn't really split a base bernie aethered her lol. For good reason. Both much better than Biden ofc

Note: this may not be fully accurate I just remember her having really bad performances after a bit

DoomTheGyarados posted...

They didn't really split a base bernie aethered her lol. For good reason. Both much better than Biden ofc

Note: this may not be fully accurate I just remember her having really bad performances after a bit

That's because she's a little wonk-y and can come across as a chastising grandma. She doesn't have that personality/charisma of Trump, Sanders, etc. She had my vote in the primary, even though I knew it was an ultimately worthless vote.

Yeah Bernie didnt split her base, she split Bernies.

This would be like if I looked at UK elections and went if only the Labour party werent splitting the Green partys base!, its the first and largest bloc that gets split thats how splitting works.

Lightning Strikes posted...

Yeah Bernie didnt split her base, she split Bernies.

I mean it doesnt really matter, I dont like Bernie and I like her so Im sad Bernie was running!

I could be wrong, but I swear there were polls suggesting that there actually wasn't much overlap between Warren voters and Sanders voters. Something like when they were asked who their second choice was, they weren't particularly likely to answer the other one.

I like Warren mostly, but yeah not liking sanders is SMH tbh

Xeybozn posted...

I could be wrong, but I swear there were polls suggesting that there actually wasn't much overlap between Warren voters and Sanders voters. Something like when they were asked who their second choice was, they weren't particularly likely to answer the other one.

That sounds about right. A lot of Bernie voters were Bernie only. For myself, I know my 2nd choice after Warren was Pete.

Seanchan posted...

That sounds about right. A lot of Bernie voters were Bernie only. For myself, I know my 2nd choice after Warren was Pete.

Yeah that sounds about right, lol

Xeybozn posted...

I could be wrong, but I swear there were polls suggesting that there actually wasn't much overlap between Warren voters and Sanders voters. Something like when they were asked who their second choice was, they weren't particularly likely to answer the other one.

IIRC Warren was a popular #2 for Bernie voters but it wasn't as dramatic the other way around. A lot of Warren's base was in the fickle liberal voters that jumped around between her, Pete, and Harris as the flavor of the month, and her diehards were pretty scattered, yeah.

LordoftheMorons posted...

I mean yeah they very well may try to ban it and claim that the court overturning Roe lets them do that, but it would still be unconstitutional under existing precedent. For such a ban to be upheld the Supreme Court would have to go even farther than this opinion in a future case and overturn Griswold v. Connecticut.

Yeah, cause we all know they'd never do that.

1) Warren
2) Sanders
3) No one else was remotely close

The vitriol Sanders and Warren supporters had for each other was so stupid since the were 99% in alignment for policy

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

IIRC Warren was a popular #2 for Bernie voters but it wasn't as dramatic the other way around. A lot of Warren's base was in the fickle liberal voters that jumped around between her, Pete, and Harris as the flavor of the month, and her diehards were pretty scattered, yeah.

Depended on the poll, I think.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/28/new-national-poll-answers-critical-question-who-is-second-choice-democratic-voters/

Warren herself was my #2, but her supporters were frequently some of the most ridiculous.

The KHive is just hardcore Neolibs, so when they shit talk Bernie its whatever, but Warren supporters constantly (and still to this day) spend their time slandering Bernie as a misogynist, and that he wanted it all about him.

Ah this article better sums up the crap I was rambling about yesterday

https://theap.substack.com/p/the-institutionalists-dilemma?s=w

In particular

To paraphrase our former president, I want to be clear: Vote harder is not a bad message because its untrue. If more people voted for Democrats they would win more elections, and my preference is that Democrats win more elections than Republicans. Vote harder is a bad message because its annoying, and annoying people is a bad way to make them want to vote for you. At this point, its also clear that its bad messaging because its insufficient. A larger Democratic majority next year might pass a law protecting abortion rights. Barring a massive sea change in how Democrats govern, that hypothetical Congressional majority has no hope whatsoever of protecting that law from the existing Supreme Court majority.

One of the more consequential contradictions of the Democratic Party is that the vast majority of its staffers, consultants, electeds, and media avatars, along with a substantial portion of its electoral base, are institutionalists. They believe, broadly, in The System. The System worked for them, and if The Systems outputs are bad, it is because we need more of the right sort of people to join or be elected to enter The System. But when the party does manage to win majorities, it depends on support from a substantial number of anti-system people. Barack Obama defeated the Clintons with this sacred knowledge, before he started reading David Brooks.

Institutionalists, in my experience, have trouble reaching an anti-system person, because they think being against The System is an inherently adolescent and silly mindset. But believing in things like the integrity of the Supreme Court has proven to be, I think, much sillier, and much more childish.

This is a better way of looking at it. That's a major conflict between progressives and left non-voters and liberals. It's a weakness Trump seized on in 2016. Obama really was able to take advantage of this and unite the groups, but the attempts to reform the "Obama coalition" have failed so transparently because Democrats are really hesitant to admit this.

And I get why, our political institutions are failing not only under their own weight but because the GOP is attacking them directly, so admitting they're failures is like conceding that the enemy has a point. But that's also just the political reality, Democrats benefit less and less from the system over time, and if they can't find that Obama middle ground and commit to it for real it's just not good.

Warren was my first choice, with Sanders second. But I didn't even get to vote in the primary. And the only way Bernie had a way to win was if someone split off the vote for him. Sadly, the same is also true for pretty much any progressive candidate. It was pretty much Biden's nomination to lose, though. Much like it was Hillary's before his. And much like it's Trump's to lose in 2024 Republican Primaries. Our presidential elections are reduced to a high school popularity contest, and the popular kids are the ones driving expensive cars and not the ones with good ideas.

I was also Warren first, Sanders second. Voted Sanders since by the time it got to me it was only him and Biden left.

I THINK I went Bernie in 2020 and strat voted some other R in 2016 but it's pretty much academic by the time IL votes anyway

Man that Hillbilly Elegy grifter is riding the grift all the way to the general election for the US Senate this fall? God thats pathetic

changmas posted...

Man that Hillbilly Elegy grifter is riding the grift all the way to the general election for the US Senate this fall? God thats pathetic

Came in to post about that. You might recall he is the dude who said he thinks President Trump part 2 should fire every government employee who doesnt align with his ideals, so get ready for absolute fucking chaos.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Ah this article better sums up the crap I was rambling about yesterday

https://theap.substack.com/p/the-institutionalists-dilemma?s=w

Ever since Trump won the 2016 primary, the basic message of every election has gone something like this:

GOP: [Insert some part of government] is broken because [insert made-up bigoted reason]!

Dems: No, it works perfectly! Or at least it will if the GOP isn't in charge!

Government: *Obviously broken*

The way Democrats cling to the idea that everything in America is basically fine just makes them seem completely out of touch with reality. They're really going to have to change their strategy/messaging if they want to have a chance of holding any real power in the few decades.

Well said.

Its easy to blame the voters for not voting Dems, but when Dems tell them the system hypothetically will work if we vote hard enough, meanwhile we can only see it not working every single day, thats such an obviously losing strategy that you cant help but feel like Dems are actually ok with how things are.

If I'm being generous I will say Democrats do allude to these issues but they really don't harp on them like they should, plus it's usually in that context of getting the system "back to normal" like you say or making tweaks. And it's just not actionable. The article mentions abolishing the Senate and the debates over court packing but those are just the most egregious and extreme examples. So far the Dems have not even been able to negotiate voting rights, which I think we can all agree is the bare minimum requirement for the "vote harder" strategy.

It's the feedback loop again, you can't make big promises because you can't deliver small promises and people lose excitement and trust in the party.

I was steadfastly Warren 1 Sanders 2 everyone else whatever, I voted for Bernie in the primary since Warren had dropped out by the time it got to me (although by the time it got to me it was pretty locked up for Biden)

Dancedreamer posted...

Yeah, cause we all know they'd never do that.

Well, my point is that women in MO or wherever else that has such a trigger law that bans abortifacients but not birth control specifically should continue to use IUDs/the pill as needed, because it factually won't be illegal even under these very bad laws. People shouldn't voluntarily relinquish their rights just because many other people incorrectly think that they do terminate a pregnancy.

Two thoughts I've been having about in light of what's happened:

Shouldn't a fetus/unborn child now count (have always counted?) as a person for things like Census counts?

Blue states will now have more women from red states coming in to get abortions. Why allow this, as a blue state? Couldn't you say "you must be a resident of this state to use services"? "Force" people to leave their dystopia. This is already done with stuff like in-state tuition for colleges.

I know, I know, these are silly, stupid questions. My brain was just journeying down the rabbit hole a bit.

Seanchan posted...

Two thoughts I've been having about in light of what's happened:

Shouldn't a fetus/unborn child now count (have always counted?) as a person for things like Census counts?

Blue states will now have more women from red states coming in to get abortions. Why allow this, as a blue state? Couldn't you say "you must be a resident of this state to use services"? "Force" people to leave their dystopia. This is already done with stuff like in-state tuition for colleges.

I know, I know, these are silly, stupid questions. My brain was just journeying down the rabbit hole a bit.

This doesn't resolve the issue of whether an unborn (maybe pre-born is a better term?) child is legally a person. Presumably, red states would consider them persons and blue states would not.

As far as discriminating based on residency, probably, although I can't imagine any blue state would want to do that.

Blue states will now have more women from red states coming in to get abortions. Why allow this, as a blue state? Couldn't you say "you must be a resident of this state to use services"? "Force" people to leave their dystopia. This is already done with stuff like in-state tuition for colleges.

why would they want to do this? Theres no downside to having someone from another state visit and use your services, thats money in your states economy.

and theres kind of an inherent time limit on getting an abortion... I dont think its practical to expect a woman to find out shes pregnant and then completely uproot her life to move to another state within that window of time (if they can even afford to move at all)

To the extent that the census counts unborn children as persons in red states and not in blue states, that would of course increase the representation of the red states. They probably won't do that for purposes of the census since the census is purely federally run.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

I dont think its practical to expect a woman to find out shes pregnant and then completely uproot her life to move to another state within that window of time (if they can even afford to move at all)

I assumed he meant women should move beforehand in case they ever do need an abortion, but that's even more unrealistic. Time wouldn't be a factor for women doing that, but it's crazy to say the solution to abortion access is just for all women to move to blue states.

Seanchan posted...

Shouldn't a fetus/unborn child now count (have always counted?) as a person for things like Census counts?

Waiting to see citizenship granted at conception rather than birth now

MoogleKupo141 posted...

why would they want to do this? Theres no downside to having someone from another state visit and use your services, thats money in your states economy.

and theres kind of an inherent time limit on getting an abortion... I dont think its practical to expect a woman to find out shes pregnant and then completely uproot her life to move to another state within that window of time (if they can even afford to move at all)

Xeybozn posted...

I assumed he meant women should move beforehand in case they ever do need an abortion, but that's even more unrealistic. Time wouldn't be a factor for women doing that, but it's crazy to say the solution to abortion access is just for all women to move to blue states.

The "downside" would be people getting the best of both worlds, i.e. low taxes from red state but services from blue state. You hear all the time about people moving out of blue states because "the taxes are too high".

Of course this isn't going to happen, but with this drive for more "state rights" it pushes us in the direction of each state being even more like its own little country. If a state wants more power, you give them a reason to live there. Abortion access probably doesn't move that needle. But what about when it's gay rights/marriage, contraception, interracial marriage, etc.

I don't mean to be staring into the abyss here but it's just where the last few days have brought me.

not everybody can just peace out to a different state

The "downside" would be people getting the best of both worlds, i.e. low taxes from red state but services from blue state. You hear all the time about people moving out of blue states because "the taxes are too high".

yeah but tourism is good, and someone coming to your state to get an abortion is a weird dystopian kind of tourism

But what about when it's gay rights/marriage, contraception, interracial marriage, etc.

this stuff you wouldnt even need to explicitly restrict to residents because its impractical to travel for them. If a state bans gay marriage, it probably just wouldnt legally recognize a couple who got gay married out of the state. Youd have to move.

Seanchan posted...

The "downside" would be people getting the best of both worlds, i.e. low taxes from red state but services from blue state. You hear all the time about people moving out of blue states because "the taxes are too high".

Abortions aren't funded with tax money, though. Outside of basic infrastructure, abortion tourists wouldn't really be using any state government services.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/louisiana-abortion-homicide-crime-bill.amp

Basically if this passes, in Louisiana, zygotes will have more human rights than the people carrying them

In fairness, about half of zygotes are male (and thus deserve human rights). That's much higher than the percent of males among people carrying zygotes.

So that means anyone murdering a pregnant woman is getting charged with 2 counts of murder then right? If not

Thats already true in some cases

That was a big argument for pro life people at one point. That if a woman was killed on the way to getting an abortion it would be two counts of murder which meant that killing the fetus was murder.

GWB made a big deal out of the "someone murdering a pregnant woman should get charged with two counts of murder" point in the campaign for the 2004 election.

Am I the only one who feels like the right hates the left more than vice versa? At this moment I swear the Republican Party is fueled by pure rage and little else.

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Am I the only one who feels like the right hates the left more than vice versa? At this moment I swear the Republican Party is fueled by pure rage and little else.

Considering how you have no original thoughts, you will never be the only one to feel like anything about anything

Conversely, what original thoughts do you have, NFUN?

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Conversely, what original thoughts do you have, NFUN?

none, but I don't drop in with the same four banal non sequiturs all the time

Drop in, eh? I guess I'll have what she's having!

Pause for studio audience laughter.