Print

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

[Rolan7]

Fakedit:  Yeah I think most of us know that Roe V Wade is technically about privacy, which is only 90% related to bodily autonomy. 

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.

...I hope I'm missing something, because it looks like you're attacking the concept of a reasonable Executive Order by inventing a really weird and outlandish one?
That's not... convincing.

I am sympathetic to concerns over the growing overreach of the executive branch.  I'm anti-faauthoritarian, and became an adult under Bush W.  I would choose to empower Congress if it was up to me.

I'm even a big critic of Obama for his part in the "war on terror", he doesn't get a pass.  He's another war criminal in a long line of US presidents.

Look...  Whatever you think of abortion, and I agree that it's sad: The federal government forcing states to allow something isn't authoritarian.
If Biden declared that murder was legal, that would not be authoritarian.  It would be really dumb, but it wouldn't be authoritarian.

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?

Frankly, it's a flawed institution under any side.  It's meant to impartially interpret the Constitution, which is very obviously out the window.  Everyone knew the new Justices were lying in their hearings, and Obama's pick was denied on literally only partisan grounds.  But even the Constitution is an extremely flawed document which (pragmatically) can no longer be updated as it was INTENDED to be.

If we were still passing amendments, that would go a long way to restoring my faith in the American Constitution.  But that would mean democracy.

[Lord Shonus]

If we were still passing amendments, that would go a long way to restoring my faith in the American Constitution.  But that would mean democracy.

Democracy means that there's a good chance those amendments would not be what you want them to be.

[Rolan7]

If we were still passing amendments, that would go a long way to restoring my faith in the American Constitution.  But that would mean democracy.

Democracy means that there's a good chance those amendments would not be what you want them to be.

I accept that.  Friends of mine give me crap for it all the time, but I kinda believe in electoralism.
I am very used to making compromises for incremental change.  The right has took a completely indecent fecal dump on me in return.

Edit:  And while I wouldn't get everything I want under a democracy, let's be clear:  Pregnancies would not be forced on people.  Ending criminalizing abortion is a very unpopular take.

[Lord Shonus]

No, but a "no abortions for any reason past the first trimester" is.

It wasn't that long ago that "Gays aren't people" was a popular take. "Muslims aren't people" is an increasingly popular take in Europe, even if it's died down a lot here. "Popular" and "really fucking bad" are not mutually exclusive.

[EuchreJack]

Look...  Whatever you think of abortion, and I agree that it's sad: The federal government forcing states to allow something isn't authoritarian.
If Biden declared that murder was legal, that would not be authoritarian.  It would be really dumb, but it wouldn't be authoritarian.

That is actually a really good point.  It is reminiscent of several actions done by the Federal Government to assist the Civil Rights Movement.  It even has parallels in the Federal Government mostly telling the Southern States to stop oppressing their citizens.
I'm reminded of Lyndon_B._Johnson.

[Rolan7]

I was expecting the Little Rock Nine under Eisenhower.

Lyndon B Johnson...  I didn't know about his civil rights measures.

[Micro102]

...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.

Well this was just suppose to be a demonstration how two wrongs can make a right, but sure. let's go over this other thing you are wrong about.

Republicans aren't trying to ban abortion because they want to stop death. If they did, they wouldn't criminalize abortions of ectopic pregnancies. They would want affordable healthcare for pregnant women and children. They wouldn't ban contraceptives. They wouldn't vote against giving children meals at school or through welfare. They wouldn't be fighting global warming They wouldn't be helping spread covid. They wouldn't be trying to remove the ACA with no replacement.

All their actions point away from "we must save lives" and point to "you should suffer and die". Your problem is that you take their blatant lies as truth. They shit all over the law and protect criminals and install corrupt people into our highest court through hypocritical, illegal means, and then use them to take away the rights of others for religious reasons (also illegal), and you just go "well they SAY that they do it for a good cause so their actions are just as valid as our attempt to undo their actions". No they fucking aren't. That's like saying that the Allies were as imperialist as the Axis because they took land back and killed German soldiers despite Hitler's assurance that they were doing what is right...

[Starver]

I mean, if Biden is so great, why not let HIM be President-For-Life?

Well, he's old enough that this might practically be the case, even if otherwise he's entitled to up to two full terms... 

[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.

NO. You DO NOT get to quote just me, without your words also being repeated.

Your words: "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."

YOU SAID THE ABOVE

Amy Barrett is playing monopoly.  Her opponent is cheating.  If she loses, unborn children are going to die.  If she wins, the unborn children will not die.  Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, she is morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do.

YOUR WORDS APPLIED TO THE MOST RECENT SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.

[MrRoboto75]

Those children will probably die anyway since the gop vehemently hates poor people getting healthcare and hates covid masking and vaccinations.

[Frumple]

If she wins, the unborn children will not die. 

This... isn't true, though. If she wins, somewhere between a similar number and more unborn children will die, and so will more mothers and more actual children.

Some of the folks her and her ilk are swindling may be able to truthfully say they're legitimately and unwillfully unaware of that, but a SCOTUS judge doesn't get to make that excuse. No leader or person particularly invested in the issue does, as they have the time or resources to do the research.

[McTraveller]

Topic shift:

I think people too often have the "religion of government" - they either put all their faith in the government to fix their problems, or they blame all the woes on the government (like a dissatisfied deity).  It's a nice "other" on which to place hopes and fears.

[EuchreJack]

Topic shift:

I think people too often have the "religion of government" - they either put all their faith in the government to fix their problems, AND they blame all the woes on the government (like a dissatisfied deity).  It's a nice "other" on which to place hopes and fears.

Fixed that for you 

[Micro102]

NO. You DO NOT get to quote just me, without your words also being repeated.

Your words: "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."

YOU SAID THE ABOVE

Amy Barrett is playing monopoly.  Her opponent is cheating.  If she loses, unborn children are going to die.  If she wins, the unborn children will not die.  Therefore cheating in the same way is good even though it's a "wrong". In fact, she is morally obligated to cheat. Not cheating would be the wrong thing to do.

YOUR WORDS APPLIED TO THE MOST RECENT SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.

So you are just going to ignore what I said? Ok, I guess you think Hitler had good reasons. That's all it takes, right? They say they think it's for a good cause and we don't have to pay attention to their actions, right?

[hector13]

No, EJ is saying your monopoly analogy was shite, which it was.

Don’t be projecting onto him. I might disagree with his positions, might sometimes also disagree with the way he argues, but don’t be putting words into his mouth he didn’t say.