USA Politics

Mosh said:
april1.png


The surge from Mayor Pete is really surprising. I’ve even heard rumors that the democratic establishment is looking to get behind him, which isn’t necessarily a bad idea. Not including Joe Biden, I see 5 major players in this race.

If I was to make a prediction (which is a foolish thing to do this early), I’d say Bernie, Beto, Pete, Harris, Warren, Yang, Gabbard make it to Iowa. Yang has no realistic chance but he has a devoted following and has probably has enough money to go into the convention to act as a sort of spoiler. Tulsi’s campaign isn’t going well but she has the most potential of any of the below 5% candidates of increasing her profile after a debate. Warren and Harris drop out after losing MA and California respectively. I kinda think Beto will drop out in time to run for senate again, same with Hickenlooper. The race will ultimately come down to Bernie vs Mayor Pete. The VP will obviously be a woman, either Kamala Harris or maybe even Stacy Abrams.

I’m not mentioning Biden in any of this cause he’s a total wild card. I’m not convinced he’s actually going to run and if he does I don’t think he will be the powerhouse people are expecting. He’s obviously concerned about the toil of a presidential campaign so I don’t expect him to even make it to Iowa unless he has a real shot. He’s polling fine now but that will change when the debates start and the public really gets to know the candidates.
Click to expand...
The last item on the horizontal axis reminds me of this:
CPcXbbLWwAAD3Px.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yet they oppose rape as a war crime, because it supports abortion... And the Un backed down, unbelievable.
 
I'm really upset by the fact that yet another state has passed a bill banning almost all abortions.
Why is this happening? As an outsider, I can't even begin to imagine what those bloody pro-lifers are thinking. It's simply absurd! Rape and incest are not good enough to terminate a pregnancy? WTF? This is how you breed mental disorders and abandoned babies, well done!
So I'm asking the Americans here - is the pro-life movement so strong? Is there a possibility that bans get imposed on a wide scale? How come bills violating human rights get passed?

Sorry about the tone, but this is really upsetting for me.
 
Ariana said:
So I'm asking the Americans here - is the pro-life movement so strong?
Click to expand...
It’s regional. The more rural areas are hotbeds for religious fundamentalism, so that’s where you see these kinds of big moves.

Ariana said:
Is there a possibility that bans get imposed on a wide scale?
Click to expand...
Any state could theoretically attempt it, but only a fraction might seriously consider it.

Ariana said:
How come bills violating human rights get passed?
Click to expand...
Because legislatures can pass anything they want. If those new laws violate pre-existing ones, or the constitution itself, then the court system is where those contradictions get resolved. Typically if someone brings a case that has merit about an issue like this, enforcement of the new law will be suspended until the court battle is resolved, but not always.

The calculation now is that the Supreme Court might be conservative enough to let more onerous restrictions stand, so Alabama wants to test the waters.

The southern and more rural states have generally been more socially conservative than the rest of the country because they’re more monocultural. The U.S. is also littered with the offspring of religious zealots who fled Europe in pursuit of religious freedom, so we’ve got a lot of true believers of different stripes here.

The worst case scenario would be that abortion rights could vary wildly by state, with some outright banning it and others being much more free with it. As I understand it, that was more or less the situation before the Roe v Wade decision.
 
Jer said:
It’s regional. The more rural areas are hotbeds for religious fundamentalism, so that’s where you see these kinds of big moves.


Any state could theoretically attempt it, but only a fraction might seriously consider it.


Because legislatures can pass anything they want. If those new laws violate pre-existing ones, or the constitution itself, then the court system is where those contradictions get resolved. Typically if someone brings a case that has merit about an issue like this, enforcement of the new law will be suspended until the court battle is resolved, but not always.

The calculation now is that the Supreme Court might be conservative enough to let more onerous restrictions stand, so Alabama wants to test the waters.

The southern and more rural states have generally been more socially conservative than the rest of the country because they’re more monocultural. The U.S. is also littered with the offspring of religious zealots who fled Europe in pursuit of religious freedom, so we’ve got a lot of true believers of different stripes here.

The worst case scenario would be that abortion rights could vary wildly by state, with some outright banning it and others being much more free with it. As I understand it, that was more or less the situation before the Roe v Wade decision.
Click to expand...


I think this is all dead on .. but I really not see the court overturning Roe with the current court. But if it were overturned, it would be exactly what you said, different states would have different rules as was the case pre-Roe
 
bearfan said:
I think this is all dead on .. but I really not see the court overturning Roe with the current court. But if it were overturned, it would be exactly what you said, different states would have different rules as was the case pre-Roe
Click to expand...
5-4 with Roberts siding with the liberals.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think we can be sure that Thomas and Alito will vote against. Don't know enough about Gorsuch or Kavanaugh, but I think a 5-4 is more likely.
Click to expand...

Both Gorusch and Kavanaugh have enough opinions so far and votes that make me think either/or would vote against ... and I am not even really sure about Alito and Thomas .. morally they are opposed to it, but in some unexpected areas, they have not been in favor of overturning precedent over the years.
 
I mean, a 9-0 "we do not see the need to overturn precedent" decision would be pretty wonderful on this subject. But I don't see it happening. Anyway this stuff is destined for the SCOTUS so we'll see soon enough.
 
LooseCannon said:
I mean, a 9-0 "we do not see the need to overturn precedent" decision would be pretty wonderful on this subject. But I don't see it happening. Anyway this stuff is destined for the SCOTUS so we'll see soon enough.
Click to expand...

It would seem to be, but nothing this term and so far nothing next term
 
What was that thing the US did to countries that violate human rights?
 
Ariana said:
So I'm asking the Americans here - is the pro-life movement so strong?
Click to expand...
Yeah. If you want a country that’s almost completely split down the middle, it’s the US. You’re either right or left, and if for whatever reason you try to remain independent or centrist, you’re gonna get murdered in the process.

The pro-life movement hinges on the idea that fetuses are human being that deserve rights. I dunno, I really don’t trust anyone that wants to save you in the womb, doesn’t give a fuck for 18 years and then suddenly returns to shove you in the military where you can get shipped away and killed because you’re completely disposable. As far as I’m concerned, it’s better to focus on living human beings than a fetus that doesn’t yet know anything. It’s completely ridiculous, but that’s the US for ya.
 
9-0 decision would establish a stronger precedent for abortion rights than what we have now.

I could see Gorsuch or Kavanaugh siding with the liberals, along with Roberts.

I don’t think it will be them striking down the laws entirely though. The Late term abortion ban will probably be upheld. Ultimately the decision will give a lot more restrictive power to the states with some of the more egregious elements being struck down (the entire thing is egregious to me but I digress).

There’s a fair amount of political calculation happening too. I imagine the legislatures that wrote these laws did so with the expectation that they would partially be struck down in court. Especially in a state like Georgia that is slowly becoming purple, this is really good for the republicans politically. They can show that they are taking action on abortion while also giving incentive to single issue pro life voters in the next election (as opposed to if these laws were upheld and abortion was essentially banned outright in those states). It’s a good campaign issue for Trump in 2020 as well for those who vote because of the Supreme Court. He can make the case that a 5-4 majority isn’t enough and will almost certainly get two more picks in a second term.

As for the question of the pro life movement’s strength. A lot of it is propaganda. Around the 70s/80s, The Republican Party saw an opening for appealing to evangelical voters primarily through taking an anti abortion position. Donald Trump clearly didn’t care about democrats “killing babies” until he decided to run. When you look at the actual position of many pro lifers, you’ll find a variety of opinions as to what, if any, exceptions exist. But you have politicians (including Trump) publicly framing it as if the democrat position is that if you decide you don’t want the baby anymore after you’ve had it, the mother can decide to kill it. Obviously this isn’t what actually happens, but you can’t have a reasonable discussion about this if one side is deliberately arguing in bad faith.
 
Hi folks, hope you’re all doing well! Brad Mehldau (one of today’s most respected jazz pianists) has got a new track + video out, and it reminded me of this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top