US Politics: Rural Southernification… (thanks Zorral)

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

the opinion will be an instruction manual as to what COULD work.  

Seems pretty clear we're passed the point of judicial guidance on how to frame the proper legislation (plus, of course, SB8 is specifically designed to evade judicial review).  Especially considering the court already appears primed to overturn such precedent by taking on Dobbs v. Jackson.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

@DMC

It takes 4 Justices to grant Certiorari not 5.  Therefore it takes 7 Justices voting against Cert. to prevent Cert. from being granted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

[DMC]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It takes 4 Justices to grant Certiorari not 5.

.....I'm aware.  You do realize there's only 9 justices, right?  So if 6 vote against, that means only 3 would vote for - hence, it only takes 6 to block granting cert, not 7.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, DMC said:

.....I'm aware.  You do realize there's only 9 justices, right?  So if 6 vote against, that means only 3 would vote for - hence, it only takes 6 to block granting cert, not 7.

Math… my bane.

[Zorral]

It matters not at all to that stupid fetal heartbeat criteria that the SC is upholding that there is no fetus at 6 weeks, that it is the start of a clump of cells about the size of a grain of rice, and thus an embryo, not a fetus, and thus impossible of having a heart, much less a heartbeat. 

This is what we get when hysterical men run around telling women what they can and can't do -- their ignorance of reproduction, even among the so-called political class -- is worse than shocking.  But they don't care.  They declare and decree and that's what is what.  Even when it's wrong.  Even when it comes to telling their voters to shove horse deworming medication up their arses and going blind instead of getting a vaccination.

Why yes, let us have measured, polite, respectful, rational discussion with Their Ilks about these matters.  But why waste one's own precious time doing so when all the measured, polite, respectful, rationality is on our side, while they shoot and imprison. Also, when the greater objective of this law is to overturn every federal law by anyone in any state.

Just think of how much time and money would stop being squandered if men would just stop trying to force control over women's bodies.  Just think of how much time and treasure has been already squandered in the courts from local to federal over demanding control over women's bodies, instead of women having control of their own bodies, and lordessa, how very much more is going down that toilet hole in the next 10 years.

[Mindwalker]

Came across this older video of Sam Seder discussing a Jordan Peterson appearance on Real Time. It addresses these appeals to Democrats to undertand/ talk to/ etc. trumpists, and where they come from, quite nicely, I think.

 

[Spockydog]

Speaking of older videos....

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Speaking of older videos....

 

Real talk, do you know Sexy Rexy as just a meme lord, or for the fact he outplayed Jordan in a playoff game? 

[Mindwalker]

Cute little ditty:

"Is that why Papa called Tucker Carlson a stupid dickhead?"

"Young man, you know you're forbidden to use those words. Tucker nd Carlson.

[Martell Spy]

In regards to a blue state version of the bounty law. I don't think it will happen.  A Supreme Court that would rule the bounty law constitutional would most definitely have the bad faith to strike down a blue state version. 

[DMC]

55 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

A Supreme Court that would rule the bounty law constitutional would most definitely have the bad faith to strike down a blue state version. 

Yup, most certainly would - at least six votes against anything resembling this horseshit.

[Ivan Tsarevich]

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The conservatives who could be appealed  to have politically nullified within the America in high office.

The conservative base has largely supported the anti-democratic trends.

It’d be nice if the concept of liberal democracy was still respected by the majority Republican Party. 
That  emotional appeals like cops describing their terrror at being nearly over ran by a anti-democratic mob was effective.

If you think there's no common ground to be found, well, then you do. I wouldn't be so willing to write them all off, but that's me.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

And I think it need be acknowledged that that sometimes, no you’re not going to make much progress by appealing to your enemies’ heart and that it is a waste of time and resources to do so. 

At certain point implying that they’re approval on certain matters is integral may simply impede your agenda.

Dialogue between competing factions should be done with the idea something tangible could be gained.

You seem to be thinking of working with the Republican politicians, like McConnell. That was never my point. The reply that prompted this all spoke of polarization of society to such a degree that it cannot function, something I agreed with. That's why the Republicans matter, and that's why I've advocated for an approach reaching unity. Of course you don't need them to win elections and then implement your agenda, if that's your only goal.

20 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Again the democrats do not republican support for much of their agenda if they unified.

The few moderates who’ve adopted a more empathic, bipartisanship approach to republicans, have failed to recognize what the party’s ambitions intel. The end of the Democracy to which they hold political power in.

Its not hyperbolic; multiple gop senatores and Trump himself have explicitly derided the concept of Democracy as repugnant with no major backlash from their party.

Uh, I don't think trying to reach for conservatives automatically needs to mean advancing authoritarian agenda.

19 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Vaguely this seems uncontroversial if one doesn’t get into the positions in question as well what compassion within reason entails.

Like asking is it good to give to charity to help a cause really important to millions of people.

The person being asked is pressured to say yes even if the charity in question is for trying to bankroll a politician who says they’d work to end liberal democracy if elected.

The "reason" would be their own.

Otherwise, if this discussion serves a purpose, it has crossed my mind that you might be trying the approach I suggested on me. What you seem to be doing is to prod me realize the reality of the situation over there. If so, thanks for your patience and effort.

Anyway, my point remains the same as it has been since the first reply. Should you deem the approach I suggested ineffective, well, I don't regret putting it out there. I think it holds some value.

[Mindwalker]

What Can Democrats Do to Fight Texas’s Abortion Ban? Lots.

The only question is how far Democrats are willing to go to defend women’s rights.

No matter what fresh lawlessness Republicans commit, or what their legal enablers on the Supreme Court do to support that agenda, you can count on some Democrat or liberal-adjacent person saying, “But what can the Democrats do?” Never mind that Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the entire Executive Branch. They walk around every day like a defeated minority unable to stop Republicans—who lost—from having their way with our country.

There are countless examples of this sad-sack attitude from the last six months. (See: Republican congresspeople giving aid and comfort to white domestic terrorists, and Democrats doing nothing. See also: the GOP passing laws to suppress the right to vote, and Democrats doing nothing.) But let’s pause for a moment to consider the most recent example. (...)

But there is something Democrats can do. They can work around the Texas anti-abortion law. To do this, however, they will need to get creative to protect women’s rights. They will need to be willing to challenge “norms.” They will need to act like Republicans. (...)

So don’t ask me what the Democrats can do, because they can do a lot. The only question is what the Democrats are willing to do. What they are prepared to do. What they are ready to risk doing to uphold and defend their principles.

The answer better not be “nothing.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/texas-abortion-fight/

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

f you think there's no common ground to be found, well, then you do. I wouldn't be so willing to write them all off, but that's me.

The majority of republicans would nominate Donald trump in a heart beat after he attempted to overthrow democracy.

The majority of Republican members of congress immediately after almost getting killed due to Trump sparking a riot to overturn the election voted to impeach.

It’s not a matter of me thinking it’s pointless to try talk to most republicans on certain issues —you know like ending liberal democracy—it’s just realizing yeah it is.

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

You seem to be thinking of working with the Republican politicians, like McConnell. That was never my point.

No, the majority of republican base is more zealous to destroy democracy than McConnell.  if they’re favorite strongman gets in power that’s all that matters.

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

The reply that prompted this all spoke of polarization of society to such a degree that it cannot function, something I agreed with. That's why the Republicans matter, and that's why I've advocated for an approach reaching unity

And you even said you don’t think it’s necessary for liberals to drop everything they believe in to appease conservatives.

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Of course you don't need them to win elections and then implement your agenda, if that's your only goal.

My agenda is to protect democracy and a whole list of of other civil rights(something that also helps keep marginalized groups from being excluded from society).

Conservative or republican  support on any of them is not at this time critical and the extent some types of  “dialogue” may give the illusion  it is.

Protecting democracy takes precedent over trying to get republicans to feel included or not attacked and momentarily polarization

7 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Uh, I don't think trying to reach for conservatives automatically needs to mean advancing authoritarian agenda.

Eh, in some cases it is: take Joe Manchin’s refusal to vote to abolish the filibuster

He cries that he’d not do so as so democrats could work together to do something democrats can do by themselves because bipartisan good.

Also republicans filibustering keeps down some progressive agendas that Manchin’s donors.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

That's why the Republicans matter, and that's why I've advocated for an approach reaching unity. 

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Like I said before, you do not understand today's Republican party at all. There can be no unity with a party that has largely turned to fascism.

[Mindwalker]

For everyone seeking insight into the psyche of one person who votes for fascist bullies, I recommend this video.  They are NOT talking politics, just about this man and his life. No debate, no set-up. It's fascinating and sad and I bet it won't change anything.

 

[A True Kaniggit]

30 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

For everyone seeking insight into the psyche of one person who votes for fascist bullies, I recommend this video.  They are NOT talking politics, just about this man and his life. No debate, no set-up. It's fascinating and sad and I bet it won't change anything.

 

A man down the street has that exact same “Fuck Biden” flag he tries to fly next to the street every now and then.

What are the odds?

[Zorral]

There is no common ground between the rest of us and those who are actively working to overthrow the US government, and will do it by every violent means at their disposal.  You saw how successfully negotiation via 'common ground' revealed itself to be between those who came with automatic weapons, gallows, knives, handcuffs, and other death dealing instruments, who violented broke windows and doors to enter the Capitol, who slithered throughout calling for Nanceeeee and AOC to 'come out and play,' with the intention, at the very least, to terrify the women, and certainly have them believe torture, rape and murder were the goal.  And the rethuglicans in the congress did nothing and even threatened them too.

You see how much successful negotiation there can be between lynch mobs having a good holiday torturing, killing and burning African Americans, which Their Ilks have been doing since the 17th century.  You see how much useful negotiation there is when cops break into a sleeping person's bedroom and shoot him / her.  Such happy negotiation between people who come to an LGBT dance club and shoot people down randomly in cold blood, with, by golly the intent to shoot to kill. And on and on and on.

What sort of arrogance afflicts a person, who names him/her/their self half after autocratic torturing Russian rulers and half after the designation of the CSA army, fighting to universalize slavery, who further claims not to be a citizen of the USA, that such an Ilk feels entitled to whine about mean liburrrrels/dems who don't kindly and compassionately give their time to the violent, cruel, treasonous rethuglicans? 

 These 'arguments' for respect and sympathy to rethuglicans  are consciously made in bad faith, and everyone knows it, because the proof is there, in the newspapers, every single day.

 

[Week]

18 minutes ago, Zorral said:

There is no common ground between the rest of us and those who are actively working to overthrow the US government, and will do it by every violent means at their disposal.  You saw how successfully negotiation via 'common ground' revealed itself to be between those who came with automatic weapons, gallows, knives, handcuffs, and other death dealing instruments, who violented broke windows and doors to enter the Capitol, who slithered throughout calling for Nanceeeee and AOC to 'come out and play,' with the intention, at the very least, to terrify the women, and certainly have them believe torture, rape and murder were the goal.  And the rethuglicans in the congress did nothing and even threatened them too.

100% -- from yesterday -- a domestic terrorist group

 

[Fragile Bird]

This is just a wild guess, but I am going to assume the lax gun laws and the open carry were passed in Texas so that if there was social unrest in the streets and people got gunned down, Abbott and his ilk could just throw their hands up in the air and say “we never thought the good folk of Texas could do such a thing” or “the good folk of Texas were just protecting themselves”, depending on the circumstances. And they’ll say it with a straight face.

Years ago on this board (I joined 10 years ago and spent the first year north of the wall, so maybe 8 or 9 years ago) I said in a Gen Chat post that I was afraid to drive in the US because I had an deep fear that if I made a mistake I might get shot. I was laughed at and sneered at. Told I was crazy. I have now reached the point where a vacation in the US post-pandemic is almost completely out of the question ever again. I know I’m not a typical Canadian, people who go to Florida or Arizona for the winter still went this past winter with a pandemic going on. Or maybe they’re the weird ones.

It’s like I always had concerns before, but Trump opened this Pandora’s box and let out horrible things that had been kept under lock and key before. Well, at least Pandora had hope still at the bottom of the box.