Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tonnot98]

It sucks that the only good, ethical way to fix the system is to somehow get young people like in my generation to actually give a damn. It's hard to think anything works as it should when older generations have left us with such a fucking mess to clean up. But again, the best way is to convince people to actually go out and vote. Republicans/Democrats/whoever can't steal every election. If they do, there'll at least be more breadcrumbs to possibly convict a fool over.

[EuchreJack]

Young people don't realize the fundamental truth that old people fear more than anything:
You're going to outlive all those old people you don't like.  Then they can't stop you anymore, because they're dead and you're alive.

[Frumple]

And McTraveller was right.  Two wrongs don't make right.

I would argue as to the "entirely within the President's Legal Powers" bit.  It's just that the Supreme Court hasn't bothered to stop it, yet.

Which means startlingly little as to whether it would be within the president's legal powers, at this point. Majority of the court are now hacks willing to toss out half a century of precedent for political gain. Their rulings don't particularly mean much of substance anymore, to the extent they ever did.

Any case, "providing reproductive healthcare for areas without access" would be, like... if not the exact opposite of authoritarianism, at least highly orthogonal to it. It'd be harder federalist than we've seen in a while, I think, but not authoritarian.

Not particularly likely to happen, anyway (far as I'm aware no one of note has suggested the possibility in meatspace -- it's circulating a bit online, but that's it), so it's a pretty moot question.

[MrRoboto75]

Arizona congress critters are already talking of a condom and birth control ban against the unmarried.

I'd make a "party of small government" joke but why bother at this rate.

Edit: This is mainly from a not-yet elected candidate, my apologies.

[Cthulhu]

I will remind once again that the supreme court cannot "stop" Biden from doing anything.  They can make judgments and declare things unconstitutional but the supreme court has no enforcement body and relies entirely on decorum and respect for the institution, which should be nonexistent after this latest stunt they've pulled.  They aren't even pretending to be a neutral arbitrating body anymore.  They can tell Biden he's not allowed to take a particular action, and he can laugh and do it anyway.

I don't want to hear this two wrongs don't make a right bullshit, the republicans are pedal to the metal on a strategy to destroy popular sovereignty and set up permanent minority rule. Let's start playing like we want to win.

Besides, providing free medical care to people in oppressive red states is not a "wrong."

[Micro102]

Eh, I actually advocate for changing the GOP from within.

Not going to happen. Liz Cheney got punished for merely voting for the impeachment process for Trump. Note that impeachment isn't a guilty charge, but merely a beginning of an investigation. Meanwhile they will protect MTG and her anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Questioning Trump is worse than Nazi rhetoric in their eyes. They will (and have been) remove anyone who disagrees with them or tries to cause change.

So... what do you want to do about it? Complaining doesn't do much. I mean yes the current GOP and its supporters is going down a path I don't like.  All I can do is discuss with my sphere of influence, vote against the GOP, and give support to non-GOP causes.

I gave a suggestion thats entirely within the president's legal powers and mandate and you said it was creeping authoritarianism

And McTraveller was right.  Two wrongs don't make right.

I would argue as to the "entirely within the President's Legal Powers" bit.  It's just that the Supreme Court hasn't bothered to stop it, yet.

Two wrongs can make a right. Example:

You are playing a game of monopoly. Your opponent is cheating. If you lose, someone is going to die. If you win, no one is. Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, you are morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do.

[Nirur Torir]

Two wrongs don't make right.

Now wait a minute here.

It is not authoritarian for the Supreme Court to allow states to murder their citizens via ectopic pregnancy*, with a decision 70% are against, nor is it authoritarian for states to give the order. States Rights! And they can point to some part of the constitution that they interpret to say this is all fine and legal.

It would be authoritarianism, and thus immoral, for the president to fight the states on this by opening abortion clinics in states via executive order.

That's nearly equivalent to saying I can't jaywalk across the street to stop someone from mugging grandma.
Using executive orders to get things done over congressional gridlock wouldn't even be a new precedent, it's plenty well-established by this point.

*No, they're not always lethal if allowed to grow until they start rupturing organs, but it's a much higher mortality rate for nothing, so the point still stands. There is nothing good about banning early treatment of ectopic pregnancy even if you think babies have souls at conception that burn forever if aborted, and thanks to this new decision, that's where we can now draw the line for arguments. The abortion discussion is no longer about "When are embryos alive," or "do we need to save them," things have moved to "saving women from ectopic pregnancies is illegal, and also just for fun, miscarrying is murder."

**I realize nobody's really arguing these. I'm not really arguing against anyone with most of this. I started to, then I shifted into shouting into the void against generic rhetoric to vent my own frustrations.

[Lord Shonus]

The bigger issue is that a precedent of "fuck the Supreme Court" has serious long-term problems. SCOTUS shot down a lot of Trump's bullshit over the last term, amd that worked because everybody was used to following their decisions.

<politician you like> will not win every election ever. Any expansion of executive power to rule by fiat will later be used to impose <policy you hate>.

The biggest issue here is that most people don't want Roe overtured, and only a tiny minority support a total ban, but polls show they also favor restricting abortion earlier than Roe allows. Most polls I've seen (from all political points) suggest that if you put the Mississippi 15 week law that started this to a national vote, it woukd pass. Overwhelmingly. That's why comstant challenges are even possible.

This is less of a concern with the feared downstream consequences. Very close to a supermajority of Republican voters support keeping gay marriage legal, and that's the most popular of the feared fallout attacks. Reviving miscegnation and sodomy bans is so unpopular that it comes close to the error margin.

[EuchreJack]

Eh, I actually advocate for changing the GOP from within.

Not going to happen. Liz Cheney got punished for merely voting for the impeachment process for Trump. Note that impeachment isn't a guilty charge, but merely a beginning of an investigation. Meanwhile they will protect MTG and her anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Questioning Trump is worse than Nazi rhetoric in their eyes. They will (and have been) remove anyone who disagrees with them or tries to cause change.

So... what do you want to do about it? Complaining doesn't do much. I mean yes the current GOP and its supporters is going down a path I don't like.  All I can do is discuss with my sphere of influence, vote against the GOP, and give support to non-GOP causes.

I gave a suggestion thats entirely within the president's legal powers and mandate and you said it was creeping authoritarianism

And McTraveller was right.  Two wrongs don't make right.

I would argue as to the "entirely within the President's Legal Powers" bit.  It's just that the Supreme Court hasn't bothered to stop it, yet.

Two wrongs can make a right. Example:

You are playing a game of monopoly. Your opponent is cheating. If you lose, someone is going to die. If you win, no one is. Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, you are morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do.

...and you just justified the Catholic Conservative Supreme Court Justices lying about not wanting to overturning Roe vs. Wade. Good job.

To clarify, under their religion, Abortion is Murder. So they cheated to get Abortion banned, and prevent Murder. By your own logic, they did nothing wrong.
...I would be downright amazed if you actually got this point.

[EuchreJack]

Maybe it would help to, you know, actually define Authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism, is NOT people doing things you don't like. In fact, historically Authoritarian figures justified their consolidation of power by doing exactly what people LIKED.
Look up the Roman Empire and Bread & Circuses.

Authoritarianism is the consolidation of power away from the people and into the hands of the few/the one. It is calling upon One Great Leader to "Save" us, by taking away our democratic institutions. I mean, if Biden is so great, why not let HIM be President-For-Life?

[Cthulhu]

I think we're getting in the weeds over terms and labels like "authoritarianism" and "wrong" when what it really comes down to is one side has goals I'm extremely opposed to and does not feel beholden to any of the rules or norms of government except to the extent that they help them achieve those goals.  Stick whatever labels you want on me, I want them as far from the levers of power as possible and I'm not gonna be picky on the tactics it takes to get them out.  They certainly aren't.

Once again, play like you want to win, a loser with a clear conscience is still a loser.

[Frumple]

Authoritarianism is the consolidation of power away from the people and into the hands of the few/the one. It is calling upon One Great Leader to "Save" us, by taking away our democratic institutions. I mean, if Biden is so great, why not let HIM be President-For-Life?

... by that definition the SCOTUS decision would be wildly more authoritarian than an EO seeking to mitigate its repercussions, though, since the former is seeking to strip power from somewhere approaching half the country's population and put it in the hands of a handful of people (and to an extent their enforcers) and the latter would be seeking to reverse or mitigate that. Biden making such an order would be explicitly anti-authoritarian under that definition. He'd be doing an end-run around state governments seeking to take away all sorts of powers from its population, particularly over their own health, explicitly in order to return that power to the country's people.

Nevermind that by that, the SCOTUS is a flat out authoritarian edifice. It's not a particularly democratic institution to begin with, it especially hasn't been for a while now, and it regularly takes power out of the hands of the country's people. This wouldn't be a discussion of two wrongs to begin with, it'd be a discussion of one tremendous one and a possible way to reduce its severity.

[MaxTheFox]

The reason I fencesit on abortion is that I honestly don't know. There's no agenda in it for me, religious or political, purely a personal moral dilemma.

[EuchreJack]

Authoritarianism is the consolidation of power away from the people and into the hands of the few/the one. It is calling upon One Great Leader to "Save" us, by taking away our democratic institutions. I mean, if Biden is so great, why not let HIM be President-For-Life?

... by that definition the SCOTUS decision would be wildly more authoritarian than an EO seeking to mitigate its repercussions, though, since the former is seeking to strip power from somewhere approaching half the country's population and put it in the hands of a handful of people (and to an extent their enforcers) and the latter would be seeking to reverse or mitigate that. Biden making such an order would be explicitly anti-authoritarian under that definition. He'd be doing an end-run around state governments seeking to take away all sorts of powers from its population, particularly over their own health, explicitly in order to return that power to the country's people.

Nevermind that by that, the SCOTUS is a flat out authoritarian edifice. It's not a particularly democratic institution to begin with, it especially hasn't been for a while now, and it regularly takes power out of the hands of the country's people. This wouldn't be a discussion of two wrongs to begin with, it'd be a discussion of one tremendous one and a possible way to reduce its severity.

GOOD NEWS: President Biden just passed an Executive Order mandating that all States allow Abortions to Continue!  He also requested 10 fresh virgin males under the age of 20 be presented to the White House for...inspection.  Per week.  They will not be returned.  All Hail the Executive Order!

The question is not which body is MORE authoritarian.  The question is how to fix ALL the government.  Not making one stronger because you don't like the other one.

The bigger issue is that a precedent of "fuck the Supreme Court" has serious long-term problems. SCOTUS shot down a lot of Trump's bullshit over the last term, amd that worked because everybody was used to following their decisions.

<politician you like> will not win every election ever. Any expansion of executive power to rule by fiat will later be used to impose <policy you hate>.

The biggest issue here is that most people don't want Roe overtured, and only a tiny minority support a total ban, but polls show they also favor restricting abortion earlier than Roe allows. Most polls I've seen (from all political points) suggest that if you put the Mississippi 15 week law that started this to a national vote, it woukd pass. Overwhelmingly. That's why comstant challenges are even possible.

This is less of a concern with the feared downstream consequences. Very close to a supermajority of Republican voters support keeping gay marriage legal, and that's the most popular of the feared fallout attacks. Reviving miscegnation and sodomy bans is so unpopular that it comes close to the error margin.

Maybe I should have let this sit, as it is 100% correct.  Even the Supreme Court may someday be more Liberals than Conservatives.  What then, huh?

[EuchreJack]

More relevant, the decision that the Supreme Court is looking to overturn

It is actually quite tragic when you see how hard it was to actually get the Court to hear the case.  The first few pages give you a glimpse on how hard an issue this was to bring before the Highest Court of the Land.