U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, alguien said:

But if he were president, he'd be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, and he'd appoint someone who'd overturn Roe v Wade. Like it's great that he said it should be up to individuals but his policies would eliminate that right. 

When is the last time a serious challenge to Roe v Wade even reached the supreme court?

 

i keep hearing stuff like this and it seems utterly nonsensical to me, but I don't pay a lot of attention to this issue.

 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

39 minutes ago, Squab said:

Here's an email showing the DNC helping out the Clinton campaign against Sanders and checking that they are ok with the wording.

It was always going to be a difficult campaign for Sanders against the money and resources of both Clinton and the DNC.

Seems to me like the Sanders campaign was accusing the DNC and Clinton of stuff and the DNC emails were about clarifying the issue from the DNC perspective. I only read about half of the e-mail trail though, but nothing in the top half looked off to me.

[Inigima]

8 minutes ago, alguien said:

But if he were president, he'd be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, and he'd appoint someone who'd overturn Roe v Wade. Like it's great that he said it should be up to individuals but his policies would eliminate that right. 

(along with a whole host of others)

Yeah this is a consistent thing with Johnson. He'd be just appalled if you got fired because you were black, but he wouldn't lift a finger to stop it because government shouldn't tell people what to do. Libertarians are the fucking worst.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

When is the last time a serious challenge to Roe v Wade even reached the supreme court?

Probably 2007, with the partial birth abortion ban being held up without any provision for a woman's health. The most recent one was Texas' law about ultrasounds and admitting privileges, which was earlier this year. So...pretty recently?

 

[Swordfish]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Probably 2007, with the partial birth abortion ban being held up without any provision for a woman's health. The most recent one was Texas' law about ultrasounds and admitting privileges, which was earlier this year. So...pretty recently?

 

You're reaching.  Neither of those even approaches the territory of serious challenges, or as the OP put it, 'overturning roe v wade'.  These are squabbles in the fringes, nothing more.

 

 

 

 

[Maester Drew]

1 minute ago, alguien said:

The collective "they" in this case, which is a pretty common rhetorical device. If your response is going to devolve into nitpicking, then I don't know where we can go from here.

It's not a matter of nitpicking. I simply don't like anyone generalizing an entire group of people.

5 minutes ago, alguien said:

I hope you don't mean you think Stein would pull from Trump?

Depends. She could pull in Sanders supporters that had gone to Trump or even liberal Trump supporters who are dissatisfied with how PC the US has become. And as Kalbear once said, anything's possible in this election. 

 

7 minutes ago, alguien said:

But if he were president, he'd be appointing the next Supreme Court Justice, and he'd appoint someone who'd overturn Roe v Wade.

Really? I thought it was only the Republican candidates during the primary that said they'd nominate such a justice. I'll check out Johnson's stance on a nominee then.

10 minutes ago, alguien said:

In any event, I'm still not hearing from you what more Obama could have done to reach out to the GOP, aside from caving into their demands--which would have made the hard left scream even louder than they have been doing. 

Hmm... maybe he could have made more alliances/friendships with his Republican colleagues during his time as Senator to establish a more solid foundation to work on as president when it came to bipartisan endeavors.

[Squab]

Here's one where Luis is warning that Debbie Wasserman Schultz should not take on Bernie directly plus some ideas on how to handle the Clinton email saga when asked.

It looks as if the DNC was working against Sanders.  They were also aware they couldn't do it openly or overtly.

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As it turns out, decriminalizing all drugs won't do a lot about helping racial inequality or mass incarceration.

The contents of that article dont at all match the headlines.

It's only counting federal drug charges in those who would be released. And there's no notion that any others might be tied to drugs being illegal.

Even if they did, I don't see how Hillary's stance of only some drug decriminalization would help anything while complete decriminalization wouldn't help at all.

[Fez]

Just now, Swordfish said:

You're reaching.  Neither of those even approaches the territory of serious challenges, or as the OP put it, 'overturning roe v wade'.  These are squabbles in the fringes, nothing more.

They were far more than that. The Texas one in particular, if it had held, would've done an enormous amount to limit access to abortions. It already had a huge effect, shutting down something like 2/3rds of all abortion clinics in Texas while the case worked its way up SCOTUS. And over 20 other states had similar laws that were mostly waiting on implementation to see how the Texas case worked out.

The only reason a complete overturn case hadn't gone up yet was because pro-lifers weren't sure how Kennedy stood on the issue. Since it turns out he's clearly not in favor of overturning it, Scalia's seat alone won't decide the issue. But there's a really good chance Ginsburg and/or Breyer will be retiring within the next four years, and if Trump was able to replace either of them; Kennedy wouldn't matter anymore.

[BloodRider]

17 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

When is the last time a serious challenge to Roe v Wade even reached the supreme court?

Last month.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Then I'm sure you could tell me how they went about manipulating the primary.

You'd have to ask the apparently independent journalists who seem to have come to that conclusion and inserted that into the media narrative. I'm certainly not aware of anything that points to it. My point is, the perception seems to be developing into one that the DNC did directly and materially intervene in the primary to ensure an HRC win. The facts seem unlikely to play much of a role in how a large segment of the electorate winds up viewing this whole thing. One expects Fox and its ilk to paint that sort of picture, but when the same picture is being painted by apparently unbiased media and foreign media it seems like perception has overtaken known fact.

[Swordfish]

4 hours ago, aceluby said:

WTF does that even mean?  Hitler was a good leader too if you don't want to go over policy point by point.

Policies matter.

This is what I find so disheartening about this election cycle, almost nobody is willing to actually look at policy, proposals, and actual historical precedence of the candidate; and instead resort to bullshit about 'leadership', 'likeability', and 'trust' that can't be quantified; mostly because those people don't want to quantify and objectively look at the decision.

 

Agreed.  most people don't.

 

2 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Seriously.  I think I sympathize with the moderate Republicans come the rise of the Tea Party a bit more.  I love seeing the Democratic Party move left, rapidly.  I hate seeing some of the people who helped make it happen shoot the rest of the party in the name of ideological purity.

 

What about being shot BY the rest of the party?

 

40 minutes ago, snake said:

With the latest allegations towards Russia from the DNC, Clinton campaign and soon to be government agencies, the latest in quite a string of Russian intelligence coups, I seen this posted on Twitter and thought it was quite amusing.

 

 

I'm sure Clinton's emails were like, totally safe though....

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

The contents of that article dont at all match the headlines.

It's only counting federal drug charges in those who would be released. And there's no notion that any others might be tied to drugs being illegal.

Well, you can't release people from state prisons via federal mandate because those are, ya know, state prisons. 

2 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Even if they did, I don't see how Hillary's stance of only some drug decriminalization would help anything while complete decriminalization wouldn't help at all.

I don't think that legalization of drugs will help a ton, period. Drug crimes - both crimes directly related to doing or selling drugs and crimes related to obtaining them - aren't a major factor in who is jailed. I used to think it was, and it certainly isn't a great thing - but it's not the major factor in stopping racial inequality.

Now, if that's what you really care about period - drug legalization - that's fine. But there's a hell of a lot more to it than legalizing pot or all drugs, and legalizing all drugs has some really nasty aftereffects that we probably don't want to have (namely, opioids are pretty dangerous to be able to simply buy and use on their own). 

[Kalbear]

And if you're really wanting to play, here's a really cool interactive system that lets you cut whatever you want and therefore cut the prison population. 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, you can't release people from state prisons via federal mandate because those are, ya know, state prisons. 

I don't think that legalization of drugs will help a ton, period. Drug crimes - both crimes directly related to doing or selling drugs and crimes related to obtaining them - aren't a major factor in who is jailed.

This is patently false.  Even the article you posted does not support this.

 

Quote

Now, if that's what you really care about period - drug legalization - that's fine. But there's a hell of a lot more to it than legalizing pot or all drugs, and legalizing all drugs has some really nasty aftereffects that we probably don't want to have (namely, opioids are pretty dangerous to be able to simply buy and use on their own). 

So is alcohol, and yet we manage somehow.  And the war on drugs is not preventing these side effects now, so....

It's not like there are not other examples of this happening in other countries.

 

And this is not about just cutting the current prison population.  you likely would not even be able to do that.  The point is keeping people out of prison in the first place, which leads to less recidivism, etc...

 

 

P.S. -  really sorry to hear about your son......

[Fez]

I finally put on the convention coverage, saw the Al Franken and Sarah Silverman bit. I honestly can't tell if during the quiet moments, that's still a Ber-nie chant going or if its a Hill-ary chant going. Its probably the former, but the fact that it sounds so similar is helpful I guess. At least there's no more booing, as far as I can tell.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And if you're really wanting to play, here's a really cool interactive system that lets you cut whatever you want and therefore cut the prison population. 

Quote

That leaves a full 54 percent of state prisoners who are incarcerated for violent crimes, including murder, kidnapping, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault, and armed robbery.

Quote

Only 4 percent are there for drug possession. An additional 12 percent are incarcerated for drug sales, manufacturing, or trafficking. Eleven percent are there for public order offenses such as prostitution or drunk driving, and 19 percent for property crimes such as fraud and car theft, including some property crimes that many consider serious or violent, such as home invasion.

 

Even if you assume that none of these other 54 percent are mitigated at all by ending the war on drugs, whichs eems absurd to me, a 46% reduction is a hell of a start.

I'll take that.  Plenty more work to be done after that of course....

[DunderMifflin]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, you can't release people from state prisons via federal mandate because those are, ya know, state prisons. 

But you can acknowledge that its very incomplete in an article about how much drug legalization would cut down the prison population of the country. Because it's ya know, hypothetical.

And there's nothing in the article about race so I don't even know how race is being connected to it.

To me, the article just looks like an argument to support that CJS needs to soften up on everything rather than an indictment piece against drug legalization.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

But you can include them in an article about how much drug legalization would cut down the prison population of the country. Because it's ya know, hypothetical.

And they did! 625 vs 695. Right at the top!

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

And there's nothing in the article about race so I don't even know how race is being connected to it.

You were the one that wanted her to be for racial justice, and brought up legalization of drugs. I don't know why you brought it up either!

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

To me, the article just looks like an argument to support that CJS needs to soften up on everything rather than an indictment piece against drug legalization.

Possibly. Another alternative is to figure out why there's so much crime, especially violent crime. One hypothesis is that communities don't trust or engage with police and more often than not take matters into their own hands to deal with inequality, and the best way to solve that would be to get communities to actually trust the police.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

Even if you assume that none of these other 54 percent are mitigated at all by ending the war on drugs, whichs eems absurd to me, a 46% reduction is a hell of a start.

I'll take that.  Plenty more work to be done after that of course....

You'd be cool with never putting a car thief in jail? Really? Or not putting drunk drivers in jail? Or not putting in home invasions? Good luck selling that platform.