Enjoy everyone’s favorite veep conveniently passing the buck to Congress implying there’s nothing for the whitehouse to do, and doesn’t consider abortion centers on federal land. Is it just her or are dems not particularly pro-choice either (beyond the virtue signaling)?
-
21
-
44561 wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
I love it, three Nixon appointees and two Eisenhower appointees and now they are liberals? Maybe they were simply wise and got it right. Fundamentally, the law is what we say it is. Roe was not wrongly decided, it was simply decided. In a vacuum, Dobbs was not wrongly decided either, but when you throw out the super precedent of Griswold and the reaffirmed precedents of Roe/Casey, that’s dangerous legal ground and a shock to the rule of law. In the end this shock was the product of a single justice (Gorsuch replacing Garland). If Garland was on the court, Robert’s would have written this 5-4 decision upholding the central argument of Roe and reaffirming Griswold. So in the end, a political trick played by McConnell has led to this dramatic change in our jurisprudence. Whatever your view of Roe and abortion rights, you can see why this is a destabilizing event, inviting more chaos, division, rancor and skepticism.
People still buy into the idea that what McConnell did was somehow improper? Obama wasn’t denied his constitutional right and the senate fulfilled their own. You can not like the outcome, but it was all on the up and up. Trump and ACB also followed the rules, it’s just that Trump had the benefit of a Republican majority senate so his conservative pick was pushed through. Obama did not have the same luxury.
14 -
bluh.. wrote:
Enjoy everyone’s favorite veep conveniently passing the buck to Congress implying there’s nothing for the whitehouse to do, and doesn’t consider abortion centers on federal land. Is it just her or are dems not particularly pro-choice either (beyond the virtue signaling)?
Sam Seder advocates for universal healthcare, abortion rights etc. Do you watch the show daily? He’s very critical of the democrats for not being progressive enough. Regardless; kudos to anyone who tunes into the majority report it’s a great show. Sam has gone into great detail this week on why the democrats have not done enough for progressive policies.
11 -
Half true wrote:
44561 wrote:
People still buy into the idea that what McConnell did was somehow improper? Obama wasn’t denied his constitutional right and the senate fulfilled their own. You can not like the outcome, but it was all on the up and up. Trump and ACB also followed the rules, it’s just that Trump had the benefit of a Republican majority senate so his conservative pick was pushed through. Obama did not have the same luxury.
The only plausible argument I’ve seen to criticize McConnell’s tactic is that, even though there is little difference in the final outcome between not holding a hearing and holding a hearing but declining to confirm as the R’s could’ve always done is that a hearing reveals to the public what the nominee thinks and what the senators think, so McConnell essentially quashed an oratory showboating opportunity that was intended in the constitution.
Umm ok, unclear if that was intended or seen as critical or would’ve told people much of anything they didn’t already know in 2016.
32 -
MR fan wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Enjoy everyone’s favorite veep conveniently passing the buck to Congress implying there’s nothing for the whitehouse to do, and doesn’t consider abortion centers on federal land. Is it just her or are dems not particularly pro-choice either (beyond the virtue signaling)?
Sam Seder advocates for universal healthcare, abortion rights etc. Do you watch the show daily? He’s very critical of the democrats for not being progressive enough. Regardless; kudos to anyone who tunes into the majority report it’s a great show. Sam has gone into great detail this week on why the democrats have not done enough for progressive policies.
I take it you assumed I identify as a staunch conservative based on my posts. :) I don’t identify with any labels because they don’t mean very much.
I am unequivocally for universal healthcare, specifically the existence of a public option.
But to answer your question, no, I don’t watch him, but just did a YouTube search and happened to pick that video.
00 -
bluh.. wrote:
MR fan wrote:
Sam Seder advocates for universal healthcare, abortion rights etc. Do you watch the show daily? He’s very critical of the democrats for not being progressive enough. Regardless; kudos to anyone who tunes into the majority report it’s a great show. Sam has gone into great detail this week on why the democrats have not done enough for progressive policies.
I take it you assumed I identify as a staunch conservative based on my posts. :) I don’t identify with any labels because they don’t mean very much.
I am unequivocally for universal healthcare, specifically the existence of a public option.
But to answer your question, no, I don’t watch him, but just did a YouTube search and happened to pick that video.
They are about as ‘far left’ as it goes. Vaccine mandates/Covid precautions , gun restrictions. Huge aoc/Bernie supporters. Figured I’d let you know if you were trying to own the libz or something.
10 -
MR fan wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
I take it you assumed I identify as a staunch conservative based on my posts. :) I don’t identify with any labels because they don’t mean very much.
I am unequivocally for universal healthcare, specifically the existence of a public option.
But to answer your question, no, I don’t watch him, but just did a YouTube search and happened to pick that video.
They are about as ‘far left’ as it goes. Vaccine mandates/Covid precautions , gun restrictions. Huge aoc/Bernie supporters. Figured I’d let you know if you were trying to own the libz or something.
Thanks for the warning, especially on AOC (Bernie is okay though I don’t care for populist economics). I don’t use phrases like “owning the libs” or even the word “liberals”. On this thread, I have consistently used either pro-choicers or Roe-apologizers or democrats depending on the context.
One issue at a time. Broad brushes are meaningless.
00 -
bluh.. wrote:
dababykilla wrote:
What if you were the last person on Earth who would you choose?
How would you choose between a 90 year old and a five year old? How would you choose between a baby and a 5 year old? Maybe go with the safest bet?
I think your scenario is illustrative of personhood. Here's a more relevant scenario to the debate:
Would you rather save an autographed Galen Rupp singlet or the frozen embryos?
These types of philosophical questions don’t provide practical answers.
Does anyone here think it okay to cut off a baby’s head instead of the umbilical cord even as it is trying to come out? That’s what I thought.
Now you are just squabbling about a cutoff (see what I did there) date. Who decides that date? Each individual woman in isolation? Sorry, that makes no sense from any moral, medical, or political principle. The people as a whole decide that. That’s how a democracy works. What happened last week is just that: scotus returning the buck to democratic legislation.
The only morally and intellectually honest opposition to the above can be from someone who sincerely believes in the sanctity of life and therefore can accept no cutoff date after fertilization no matter what the people of the state want. Yet, the shrillest complainers on this thread are the Roe apologists.
The question about saving a 5 year old girl or 100 embryos at a burning clinic is a very good one. Everyone chooses the 5 year old girl which makes it clear there is a difference in rights between the two even for abortion absolutists. Thus, abortion absolutism = completely intellectually and morally inconsistent. Game over.
12 -
McConnell is one of the best to ever do it, but it’s a bit easier to operate when the senate is skewed so rural.
10 -
bluh.. wrote:
MR fan wrote:
They are about as ‘far left’ as it goes. Vaccine mandates/Covid precautions , gun restrictions. Huge aoc/Bernie supporters. Figured I’d let you know if you were trying to own the libz or something.
Thanks for the warning, especially on AOC (Bernie is okay though I don’t care for populist economics). I don’t use phrases like “owning the libs” or even the word “liberals”. On this thread, I have consistently used either pro-choicers or Roe-apologizers or democrats depending on the context.
One issue at a time. Broad brushes are meaningless.
Well Sam and crew are certainly pro choice. Interesting you post their content with a pro life perspective??
00 -
Half true wrote:
44561 wrote:
People still buy into the idea that what McConnell did was somehow improper? Obama wasn’t denied his constitutional right and the senate fulfilled their own. You can not like the outcome, but it was all on the up and up. Trump and ACB also followed the rules, it’s just that Trump had the benefit of a Republican majority senate so his conservative pick was pushed through. Obama did not have the same luxury.
Obama DID have a Democratic majority early on, but he didn't push to codify RvW into law when he could have.
Whata coulda shouldas dont matter anymore, no longer a national issue. Time to pack your bags and start protesting state by state for whatever abortion policy you find suitable.
If Dems were smart they would use this as a chance to REALLY push for contraception, sex education, etc.. but I don't think that really raises as many funds.
10 -
Harambe wrote:
bluh. wrote:
Those polls are crap. Same ones that have Hillary a 99% chance.
Lol this is classic:
1) Claim that there is large part of America that supports strict controls on abortion
2) Get shown data that shows the opposite -- most Americans support reasonable legal abortions
3) Get mad and say the polls are crap. Demand that people accept your gut feeling as reality.
Your reading comprehension skills appear to be simian.
1) Wrong.
2) Meaningless claim without quantification.
3) Wrong, not mad, don’t care about anyone’s gut.
Polls are crap because it’s easy to get the answer you want and single-issue polls don’t matter anyway in a two-party system. But I realize you are here just to yell.
11 -
If New Zealanders don't like the color of your skin, they will just get out the jackbooted New Zealand police force to terrorize and arrest you.
People of Colour in New Zealand live in constant state of fear because of the racist, invading white colonial Uber-lords running this failed state.
10 -
MR fan wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Thanks for the warning, especially on AOC (Bernie is okay though I don’t care for populist economics). I don’t use phrases like “owning the libs” or even the word “liberals”. On this thread, I have consistently used either pro-choicers or Roe-apologizers or democrats depending on the context.
One issue at a time. Broad brushes are meaningless.
Well Sam and crew are certainly pro choice. Interesting you post their content with a pro life perspective??
As I said, I don’t watch him and intent wasn’t to promote him, but share what the title of the video said. I’m not flustered either at having inadvertently promoted a far left channel.
I don’t describe my personal perspective as pro-life. I’ve consistently in previous posts said I don’t have a personal investment in sanctity of life arguments rooted in religion. My perspectives have strictly been based on two principles: 1) equal rights for sexes; 2) democracy. All the legal analysis of scotus opinions and the constitution is intellectual masturbation (though conscientious nevertheless).
00 -
bluh.. wrote:
44561 wrote:
Yeah, and if the moons of Jupiter were aligned with uranus, this wouldn’t have possibly happened, so it’s all the fault of uranus coming in the way.
It was our constitutional democracy working as designed. The senate has always had the power to not confirm. It’s not a courtesy ornamental event. McConnell is a shrewd bustard, good for the republicans. The dems only wish they had a turtle like him.
The Senate didn't have "the power to not confirm" because McConnell blocked the confirmation process.
Effectively, McConnell assumed a veto power over any Supreme Court appointment by Obama.
We could quibble about whether that action is nothing more than "hardball politics" or is a grave abuse of Constitutional powers, but it isn't democracy in any reasonable sense.
11 -
bluh.. wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Lol this is classic:
1) Claim that there is large part of America that supports strict controls on abortion
2) Get shown data that shows the opposite -- most Americans support reasonable legal abortions
3) Get mad and say the polls are crap. Demand that people accept your gut feeling as reality.
Your reading comprehension skills appear to be simian.
1) Wrong.
2) Meaningless claim without quantification.
3) Wrong, not mad, don’t care about anyone’s gut.
Polls are crap because it’s easy to get the answer you want and single-issue polls don’t matter anyway in a two-party system. But I realize you are here just to yell.
10 -
bluh.. wrote:
Your reading comprehension skills appear to be simian.
1) Wrong.
2) Meaningless claim without quantification.
3) Wrong, not mad, don’t care about anyone’s gut.
Polls are crap because it’s easy to get the answer you want and single-issue polls don’t matter anyway in a two-party system. But I realize you are here just to yell.
Anyone who has to assert they are 'not mad' online is actually mad. Axiomatic.
10 -
bluh.. wrote:
MR fan wrote:
Well Sam and crew are certainly pro choice. Interesting you post their content with a pro life perspective??
As I said, I don’t watch him and intent wasn’t to promote him, but share what the title of the video said. I’m not flustered either at having inadvertently promoted a far left channel.
I don’t describe my personal perspective as pro-life. I’ve consistently in previous posts said I don’t have a personal investment in sanctity of life arguments rooted in religion. My perspectives have strictly been based on two principles: 1) equal rights for sexes; 2) democracy. All the legal analysis of scotus opinions and the constitution is intellectual masturbation (though conscientious nevertheless).
So you’re just in here stroking yourself with no opinion on Roe then, got it.
01 -
I'm for a society where you have to prove you are fit to be a parent before you get the OK to have a child. So I'm on the other end of the Handmaids Tale. I realize that is in my ideal world.
In reality I think this is a medical decision best left up to a women and her doctor. And to quote Clinton "safe, legal, and rare."
20 -
Well, ok then wrote:
bluh.. wrote:
Yeah, and if the moons of Jupiter were aligned with uranus, this wouldn’t have possibly happened, so it’s all the fault of uranus coming in the way.
It was our constitutional democracy working as designed. The senate has always had the power to not confirm. It’s not a courtesy ornamental event. McConnell is a shrewd bustard, good for the republicans. The dems only wish they had a turtle like him.
The Senate didn't have "the power to not confirm" because McConnell blocked the confirmation process.
Effectively, McConnell assumed a veto power over any Supreme Court appointment by Obama.
We could quibble about whether that action is nothing more than "hardball politics" or is a grave abuse of Constitutional powers, but it isn't democracy in any reasonable sense.
Nothing to quibble about. It’s exactly what the constitution intended. We are a reasonable constitutional democracy (a republic if you prefer to be pedantic).
11
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.