Abortion

[Big Papa Paegan]

It was clearly the faults of Trey Parker and Matt Stone for daring to mock Hilldawg by implying her vagina held a nuclear device inside of it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

It's the fault of all liberals**, IYAM. We are here because Evangelicals have proven that they will do the one thing that liberals won't: they will hold their nose and vote for The Guy™, because they care more about winning, than they do about whether their candidate is "likeable," or not. Of course, it's easier to do that when the largest portion of your voting bloc is composed of single-issue voters: there is no single issue that binds enough liberal voters for this to work.


** For brevity's sake, I am defining every single person to the left of a Libertarian as a "liberal," for the purposes of this post, so don't bother trying to nitpick by differentiating between "liberals," "neo-liberals," "leftists," or whatever the fuck. I don't care.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

So, to be clear, it is the fault of people who lean left that a red state passed a restrictive law? That Dems in the Senate didn't argue against voting in 2020 with the same level of conviction that the GOP had at the end of Dem POTUS terms?

Face it, man. Career politicians failed us. Again. Blaming the voting public for the failure of leadership on display is the political equivalent of "look what you made me do" as you smash dinner plates.

 

[tekcop]

Evangelicals weren't holding their nose when they voted for Trump. They fucking loved him.

 

[Gary]

Evangelicals weren't holding their nose when they voted for Trump. They fucking loved him.

I think it's worth pointing out that for some of his fans, who Trump is as a person is irrelevant. When you look at him as a human being, he's a abyss Nietzsche would shudder at. If you ask me, he's actually very boring as a human, as he holds no beliefs-spiritual, political or moral-of any kind and whose only guiding light is the idea that he's the most awesome human being to ever walk the Earth. You couldn't imagine a more milquetoast individual.

What Trump really is for these people is a symbol, not a human being. To love him is an act of rebellion in their eyes. As long as they can use him to thumb their noses at the world and attempt to "own the libs" in some feeble manner. All those shitty articles written by centrists and white liberals asking "why do these people love him?" or (even worse) asking "who is Trump?" were ultimately pointless. The answers where always there, and the best way to actually understand him is that he's the least essential kind of person imaginable. There's nothing there to him or his supporters love of him. The why's and how's are unimportant.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

What Trump really is for these people is a symbol, not a human being. To love him is an act of rebellion in their eyes. As long as they can use him to thumb their noses at the world and attempt to "own the libs" in some feeble manner.

This. Trump would've just been a brief punchline if Dems and other leftists didn't hype him up as the antithesis of what a leader should be. His rise to power was a means to an end, as is currently being demonstrated by his own supporters booing him because he says "get a vaccine."

People with "Trump is Jesus" flags are booing him because he asks them to stay healthy. Think on that.

Then come back to blaming Bernie Sanders for 20 years of people not liking Hillary Clinton.

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

I like to rag on people for voting third party sometimes considering how batshit they are generally but the idea they cost Hillary the election is in no way supported by the facts. And at the end of the day these batshit third parties wouldn't be so attractive to some people if it wasn't for how awful the mainstream parties were.

Also if anyone (other than the actual candidates) deserve blame it is the media for the way they handled trump, white nationalism, etc etc.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

So, to be clear, it is the fault of people who lean left that a red state passed a restrictive law? That Dems in the Senate didn't argue against voting in 2020 with the same level of conviction that the GOP had at the end of Dem POTUS terms?

Face it, man. Career politicians failed us. Again. Blaming the voting public for the failure of leadership on display is the political equivalent of "look what you made me do" as you smash dinner plates.

What difference would it have made if they had argued against voting in 2020? They didn't have the numbers: IIRC, every Democrat in the Senate voted against Barrett, and she got in, anyway. The GOP could get away with blocking Obama's appointment of Garland, because they had the votes.

I look at things differently, I suppose: my life experience has been such that I don't feel like I have the privilege to hold out for better candidates. Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been my choice, if the choice was between Hillary, and somebody to the left of Hillary. But the choice wasn't between Hillary, and somebody to the left of Hillary. The choice was between Hillary and Donald Trump. Nobody else was going to be the forty-fifth president of the United States. Nobody.

I don't consider myself somebody who can afford the luxury of being concerned with how likeable a candidate is, nor do I consider myself somebody who can afford to waste my vote by voting third-party. You have to prove to me that you can win a national election first, then we can talk about how you can win my vote. It's too much on the line for me to throw my vote away on someone who's polling at five percent, or whatever.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

So to earn your vote they need to have already earned your vote? No wonder we're fucked. Good talk.

 

[snuffbox]

I don't think that's what he said. And, look, this and the Afghanistan thread have been fairly busy lately. Both for good reason. In this thread's case, a terrible, misogynist law passed in Texas that could have frightening ripple effects nationwide. It does not, however, actually impact the bodies of anyone posted in this thread. Comments about it, thoughts on causes, and ideas about what to do about it are absolutely not personal attacks against anyone here. 2016 was a very close election, there were myriad reasons for its result (among them 3rd party and protest votes/nonvotes), and that result has had real consequences for a lot of real people; in this case, with 3 SCOTUS choices by the winner of that whole thing.

And Afghanistan. We were there for almost 20 years. Those were not years well spent, it was not money well allocated, and the human consequences are profoundly tragic. The impacts of that will be felt for generations to come. Unlike abortion, I think our war in Afghanistan did alter the life of someone that posts here. Afghanistan, like SCOTUS and abortion right now, is a topic that probably would have been different had the result of 2000 been different. And 3rd party and protest votes/nonvotes were a major part of that close election as well. Again, not the only cause.

In both cases there are actual villains. That would be Trump, Bush, Cheney, etc. It would not be 3rd party voters or anyone here personally. Those are just instances where people can, if they choose, do something different when given the next opportunity.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

In both cases there are actual villains. That would be Trump, Bush, Cheney, etc. It would not be 3rd party voters or anyone here personally. Those are just instances where people can, if they choose, do something different when given the next opportunity.

"Hey hey hey, I didn't mean to start an argument with my shitty loaded comment, so why don't we just chill."

 

[cobainwasmurdered]

i really just want to see the evidence that third party candidates (and especially protest votes!) had any impact (let along significant impact) on the election.

 

[snuffbox]

GOP senator on Texas abortion law: Supreme Court will ‘swat it away’ when ‘it comes to them in an appropriate manner’

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said on Sunday that he believes the Supreme Court will “swat” away a law in Texas that effectively banned abortions after six weeks of preg…

thehill.com

According to this habitual liar, this isn't a big deal.

 

[tekcop]

The idea that anything would have been different with regard to Afghanistan if Gore had won is really naive.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

The idea that anything would have been different with regard to Afghanistan if Gore had won is really naive.

Yeah. Barbara Lee was the only one who voted against authorization of force after 9/11 and I'm sure a lot of her constituents were pissed.

If 9/11 still happens no matter who is the President, which it probably was then we would've gone to Afghanistan even if Ralph Nader got elected POTUS.

 

[snuffbox]

There's a difference between going to Afghanistan in late 2001 and remaining there for 20 years. I agree that, all other things remaining the same, Gore too would've invaded Afghanistan. But I do not think things would've gone the same after that. I don't think Iraq happens. Etc.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

I agree that, all other things remaining the same, Gore too would've invaded Afghanistan. But I do not think things would've gone the same after that. I don't think Iraq happens. Etc.

I would hope so but the way Obama handled the War on Terror has me skeptical. Until Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, I feel like liberals have been almost as interested in propping up the millitary industry complex as conservatives for at least the past 30 years.

 

[Big Papa Paegan]

I would hope so but the way Obama handled the War on Terror has me skeptical. Until Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, I feel like liberals have been almost as interested in propping up the millitary industry complex as conservatives for at least the past 30 years.

They have. Which is one reason the "they're both the same" argument occurs so frequently, because it doesn't matter which party is in charge if poor people are kept poor and then sent off to die in a fight they didn't start.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Gov. Abbott: Abortion bill won’t force rape victims to have babies, Texas will ‘eliminate’ rapists

Abbott said the law, which is the most restrictive in the U.S., gives rape victims up to six weeks to get abortion and thusly “does not do that [force victims to have their assaulter’s …

www.kxan.com

Good news for people concerned that the TX abortion bill doesn't contain an exception for victims of rape - the state is simply going to eliminate all rapists! Why did nobody think if this before???

“Let’s be clear: rape is a crime,” Abbott said. “And Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets.”

 

[Gary]

“Eliminate all rapists from the streets”

I know what he said afterwards, but that phrase makes it sound like he’s just describing the “Death Wish” movies (only without The Giggler)

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

RIP The Giggler. They shot The Giggler, man.

 

[snuffbox]

Ben Shapiro must be writing Abbott's talking points now.

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439990260885164036

Oh great! Perfect timing to bring this up as a topic of discussion at Thanksgiving dinner this fall.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Very interesting to see how the Supreme Court justices (ACB, Thomas) giving speeches/interviews about how the court isn't partisan rule on a case that should realistically just be "gtfo with this case".

 

[snuffbox]

Give it Douglas-Tyson odds and I'll put a whole dollar on them doing the right thing.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

"We're not partisan hacks!"
*votes partisan hack-ily*

Best case scenario: Roberts doesn't want to preside over the court that overturns Roe and is able to convince either/both of Gorsuch or Kavanaugh (every possible finger crossed here...) to side with him and Kagan/Sotomayor/Breyer, Roe stands & no further restrictions implemented.

Mid case scenario: the best case scenario above, except additional abortion restrictions get implemented, possibly lowering the threshold to 15 weeks and/or states get more leeway in how they can regulate it. Still horrible/horrifying/unacceptable decision, but Roe still stands (for now?) albeit with cut #999 out of "death by 1000 cuts". Blue states strengthen abortion access, Red states fuck over their citizens.

Worst case scenario: Roe falls, (insert Dennis Green "they are who we thought they were" sound bite directed at the partisan hacks).

 

[BruiserBrody]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1444799087098875911

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

Fact of the matter, abortion is only like a small fraction of the services provided by Planned Parenthood. If you put them out of business, you're screwing over a lot of men as well as women. I doubt the GOP cares though since they hate poor people despite exploiting poor-middle class white man rage!

 

[Cackling Co Pilot Kamala]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466099799673950211

(exhales)

I think only silver lining of this is it lights a fire up the left's ass and it shows centrists the consequences of their gutlessness.

 

[AA484]

Edit: nevermind, can't read