American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[the_only_turek_fan]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/04/fed-...inflation.html

The Fed has raised rates by 0.5 pts to fight the "transitory" inflation.

Looks like Larry Summers was right all along.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are incorrect about Person C being morally accepting of abortion.

Person C just believes that the state can’t dictate the outcome due to bodily autonomy. They can hold that a person choosing to abort has prevented life from from existing and therefore committed an immoral act but also recognize that the state cannot intervene in bodily automany. I don’t understand how you think this position is not possible.

Because it's internally self-contradictory. Your position is inherently illogical. You might as well be saying that 1+1 is 3. Specifically, this statement makes zero sense:

It simply states that you rights to bodily antimony supersede the rights of the appendage inside of you but if you choose to cause that appendage to not exist you have committed an immoral act.

These are, simply put, incompatible positions. It's "X and not X". If your rights to bodily autonomy supersede the rights of the appendage inside of you, you are by definition not acting immorally when you act in a preference to the former set of rights. That is what "supersede" means.

There are all kinds of acts that various individuals believe are immoral that those same individuals do not believe should be banned by the state.

This is true. For example, I might think lying is immoral in certain situations, but I don't think there should be a law against it. There are plenty of examples. But we're talking about ending the life of a human being here - i.e., killing babies. If you don't think that abortion is ending the life of a human being, then you have no reason to think abortion is immoral ab initio. No logical inconsistency arises.

But if you do think that it's ending the life of a human person, then saying "I think this is ending the life of a person, and I think that's a moral evil, but I don't think the state should be able to interfere with your ability to take this particular type of human life" is a position for which you have yet to provide any good rational argument for that anyone would accept.

If you do, I'm all ears. Maybe you have some concept whereby people who don't have fully developed brains have less of a right to life than other people, for example - that would at least be a rational position, even though it would result in having to accept some moral outcomes that you may not be able to stomach.

Am I misinterpreting your position?

No, you're failing to appreciate the inescapable logical conclusion of your own. The only way out of this is if you have some reason to think that abortion is immoral while simultaneously NOT believing that the reason it's immoral is that it's taking the life of a human person with a right to not be killed. If you have an explanation for another reason why it's immoral, maybe there's somewhere to go, but I haven't heard one from any pro-lifer I've ever talked to.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think abortion is morally wrong, but should be legally permitted, because practically speaking the consequences of forbidding it are worse than the consequences of allowing it.

This, as I mentioned above, fails to appreciate the distinction between a right to do something and a failure to prohibit it. I don't know what consequences you're specifically referring to, but this statement necessarily implies that if there was a way to get around those consequences (some future development in society or technology or medical advancement), you would want the state to take advantage of that development and prohibit abortion at that time. It is an objection to the means by which the state is trying to prohibit the thing you think is wrong, not an objection to the prohibition in principle. That is incompatible with the statement that someone should have a legal right to abortion that the state should not be permitted to violate.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or teach & provide proper birth control? Provide condoms? Abortion rates have fallen the past 40 years because of those policies, no? And isn't that the goal? Reduce even the need for needing an abortion to begin with? I feel it often gets lost in the conversation.

You think abortion ends this? birth control is next my friend, along with mixed race marriages and obviously anything remotely gay, Rosa Parks can get her arse to the back of the bus again, this allows the states to do almost anything they want

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

How does the history of supporting anti-choice members within your own party affect the lack of federal legislation protecting abortion rights? Is this a serious question?

Its serious. Unless you are naive, you know you need to control the house and/or senate to get anything done.

You can live in fantasy land and want pristine candidates who fit 100% in your ideals or you can live in the real world and pick the candidates who can win.

Joe Manchin in the litmus test. You may not like him and he may hold up you achieving even 50% of your goals. But he's also the only guy who is going to win you a senate seat in West Virginia. So your choice is to accept Joe Manchin and get 50% of what you want done or pick Jimmy Progressive, lose West Virginia by 30 points and get 0% done.

[photon]

Joe Manchin's approval in West Virginia is 69% among Republicans.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You think abortion ends this? birth control is next my friend, along with mixed race marriages and obviously anything remotely gay, Rosa Parks can get her arse to the back of the bus again, this allows the states to do almost anything they want

I could be wrong, I guess, but I really don't think they're going to take a run at interracial marriage or birth control. Those things aren't really in the crosshairs of the Republican culture warriors on talk radio or Fox News.

Gay marriage, though? Yeah, that warrants a Ralph Wiggum "I'm in danger" meme.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

You think abortion ends this? birth control is next my friend, along with mixed race marriages and obviously anything remotely gay, Rosa Parks can get her arse to the back of the bus again, this allows the states to do almost anything they want

They’ll never try to ban birth control, especially, and mixed-race marriages. Anything remotely gay, I can see that.

[ResAlien]

So West Virginia and Manchin become the most powerful place in the US. Smart. There are many other options to your silly scenario. Win seats in purple states. Energize voter bases by following through on promises. Hell even flip a seat somewhere.

To believe suckling at Manchin’s teat because he’s the lynchpin to democratic power is a good way for democrats to become increasingly irrelevant. He’s literally doing campaign spots for republicans in WV right now. Dems ostensibly have the house, the senate, and the presidency and still roe v wade is gonna get nuked. “Vote for us or else” they said so we did and “or else” is still happening.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I could be wrong, I guess, but I really don't think they're going to take a run at interracial marriage or birth control. Those things aren't really in the crosshairs of the Republican culture warriors on talk radio or Fox News.

Gay marriage, though? Yeah, that warrants a Ralph Wiggum "I'm in danger" meme.

No in the deep south they will go for all of it and fast, they have been itching to turn the clock back, in many ways segregation has never ended there, its just been unofficial, this allows them to go back to what they have always wanted

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

So West Virginia and Manchin become the most powerful place in the US. Smart. There are many other options to your silly scenario. Win seats in purple states. Energize voter bases by following through on promises. Hell even flip a seat somewhere.

To believe suckling at Manchin’s teat because he’s the lynchpin to democratic power is a good way for democrats to become increasingly irrelevant. He’s literally doing campaign spots for republicans in WV right now. They ostensibly have both the house, the senate, and the presidency and still roe v wade is gonna get nuked. “Vote for us or else” they said so we did and “or else” is still happening.

Obviously winning other seats would be ideal. But guess what - it didn't happen. So you lose Manchin - you lose the senate.

And who's over-turning Roe vs Wade? The Supreme Court - which has 6 conservative judges with lifetime appointments.

[AltaGuy]

The attack on female contraception will take the form of disallowing anything that could be used for abortions, which includes the pill. It's actually a familiar refrain/tactic by the lunatics. It won't be about contraception per se, as it's mostly about controlling women.

Abstinence, people.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Obviously winning other seats would be ideal. But guess what - it didn't happen. So you lose Manchin - you lose the senate.

And who's over-turning Roe vs Wade? The Supreme Court - which has 6 conservative judges with lifetime appointments.

If only the Democrats had had a supermajority at some point in the last two decades, during which they could have codified Roe v. Wade via legislation. And if only that supermajority occurred directly after they campaigned on doing just that.

Oh well. Just voting harder will surely fix the issue next time.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If only the Democrats had had a supermajority at some point in the last two decades, during which they could have codified Roe v. Wade via legislation. And if only that supermajority occurred directly after they campaigned on doing just that.

Oh well. Just voting harder will surely fix the issue next time.

Look at the states they had when they won that super majority.

Arkansas (2)
Alaska (1)
Indiana (1)
Iowa (1)
Louisiana (1)
Missouri (1)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (1)
North Dakota (2)
South Dakota (1)
West Virginia (2)

Now they will lose all of those states by about 15 points. But hey - at least they are a purer group now.

EDIT - this is the wrong senate - they won 58 seats in 2012 for Obama.

[PeteMoss]

There is nothing wrong with wanting an NDP like left in the US. But just know they will never win anything country-wide there.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If only the Democrats had had a supermajority at some point in the last two decades, during which they could have codified Roe v. Wade via legislation. And if only that supermajority occurred directly after they campaigned on doing just that.

Oh well. Just voting harder will surely fix the issue next time.

the vast majority of Black Democratic voters are older and very religeous, running on a 'pro abortion' ticket would have been a death sentence with them, that is precisely why it had to be a supreme court ruling to make abortion legal

[Cappy]

I think it's ridiculous that everyone isn't pro-abortion regardless of gestation time.

It should be up to the arborist, regardless of the age of the tree!

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the vast majority of Black Democratic voters are older and very religeous, running on a 'pro abortion' ticket would have been a death sentence with them, that is precisely why it had to be a supreme court ruling to make abortion legal

You sure about that?

https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/what-...ic-debate.html

Democrats have attempted to codify the right to abortion before. In 2007, Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood that “the first thing I’d do as president” would be to codify Roe v. Wade by singing the Freedom of Choice Act, but it fell by the wayside in 2009, when he said it was not his “highest legislative priority.”

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Look at the states they had when they won that super majority.

Arkansas (2)
Alaska (1)
Indiana (1)
Iowa (1)
Louisiana (1)
Missouri (1)
Montana (2)
Nebraska (1)
North Dakota (2)
South Dakota (1)
West Virginia (2)

Now they will lose all of those states by about 15 points. But hey - at least they are a purer group now.

EDIT - this is the wrong senate - they won 58 seats in 2012 for Obama.

What is your argument here? Did they or did they not have a supermajority, which they could have used to codify Roe v. Wade in 2009, just as Obama had promised during his campaign?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You sure about that?

https://www.thecut.com/2019/10/what-...ic-debate.html

Yes I'm absolutely sure, I am not saying they wouldnt do it if they had the votes but they will never run on it as it would cost them any chance of winning seats in the south