USA Politics

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.
 
zekj5rykz8711.jpg
 
So I'm asking the Americans here - is the pro-life movement so strong?
It’s regional. The more rural areas are hotbeds for religious fundamentalism, so that’s where you see these kinds of big moves.

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

How come bills violating human rights get passed?
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.
 
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.


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
 
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
5-4 with Roberts siding with the liberals.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
So I'm asking the Americans here - is the pro-life movement so strong?
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.
 
With the first debate a couple week and Joe Biden officially in, we're starting to get a clearer picture of who the eventual nominee may be. I know that seems kinda ridiculous when the first primary is still about half a year away, but 'Murica.

Even though there are a ton of candidates, there are really only 5 serious candidates: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete, Kamala Harris. I really don't see anyone else having a real shot.

Before Biden entered the race, I made a couple predictions and said this about Biden:
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.

His polling had a huge surge when he entered, but it is already starting to taper off, while others are improving in polls (mostly Bernie, Warren, Mayor Pete). I still stand by what I said. So far he is running a really poor campaign. He is really going out of his way to sell himself as Republican-lite, which isn't going to cut it. Right now he is doing fine in polls because most people don't know him for anything other than the Obama association. He seems electable and the closest thing to a third Obama term, but I'm certain that once there are debates and his platform becomes more widely known, he will drop further.

Meanwhile, Warren has really picked up some ground after a shaky (to say the least) start. She's really starting to grow on me as a candidate and I could see her taking the progressive vote from Bernie (Bernie is still a favorite though). I like her more than Bernie, personally. I hope that, when a clear frontrunner between them emerges, they join forces in some form.

The boost Mayor Pete saw a couple months ago seems to be legit. If you're an establishment dem, this is the guy you should be getting behind. Not Biden. I hope the establishment realizes this and migrates toward Mayor Pete. I don't think it's far out of the realm of possibility either.

Kamala Harris has had a few moments but isn't really getting the same coverage as other candidates. It could be sexism, it could be something else. I personally think she is the most qualified of the bunch and maybe that will be more apparent on the debate stage. Hard to say at this point.

I don't see a dramatic change in polling, at least in terms of who the frontrunners are. I think these low polling candidates have the potential to surge after the first debate: Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Cory Booker. Yang has a ton of charisma and is running on only one issue (UBI) that nobody else is talking about. He isn't going to become formidable, but I think he is going to get his ideas into the DNC platform and will probably end up with a job in the administration of whoever the nominee is. Tulsi Gabbard is kind of similar, probably gunning for a secretary of defense type of position. They both have small but cultish fanbases, not unlike Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina. That won't translate to a primary win, but they will be more impactful than pretty much every other candidate in their position. Cory Booker is pretty boring on policy but charismatic and a skilled politician. I think he will look good on the debate stage. Everyone else is wasting everybody's time and should drop out/run for a different office. Beto's campaign in particular is turning into a joke. He used to have appeal for being young and charismatic, but Mayor Pete has all those qualities and does it better/is also more qualified.

A big part of this is also that there will be two debates to account for the large crowd. This is honestly the biggest problem with the primary field size. We really should be seeing the frontrunners together, but the DNC isn't going to do that because they don't want to come off as if they are meddling in the process. Seeing Joe Biden debate a bunch of no-names with no chance is a waste of time and not good for the process. Unfortunately, who is on which debate stage is going to be totally random.
 
Back
Top