US Politics: Roe, Roe, Roe you’re gone? (Hope not)

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Would anyone else agree that primaries as they have existed since the 1970s have increased polarization in the United States in a bad way?

While it's true that the nationalization of primaries approximately coincided with the rise in polarization, it's very difficult to establish the former as a causal factor.  First, the big problem is - by and large - the rules of primary contests have remained constant since this time while polarization continues to increase.  Second, the alternatives do not promise to elicit less polarized candidates.  It's been awhile, but from what I recall it's difficult to find any discernible difference between nominees produced by closed, semi-closed, or open primaries that wasn't just noise.

Then you have the jungle primary or similar variants in Louisiana, California, and Washington.  Other than maaybe Feinstein in 2018, it's very difficult to see how California's adoption has changed anything at all in terms of who eventually gets elected.  Same story with Washington's Top 2 system as far as I'm aware.  And it's very difficult to say Louisiana has avoided electing more extremist candidates than the rest of the country.  Hell, you could even add Georgia's runoff system as an effort to ensure the more "moderate" nominee will be elected due to the 50% threshold, but that doesn't seem to be reflected at all either.

There are many factors that caused the increase in polarization, but primaries are decidedly low on that list.  It may be a syllogism, but the parties are nominating more extreme candidates simply because the parties are becoming more extreme (and frankly I don't think this is much of a problem at all with the Dems whereas it's demonstrably hurt the GOP in the recent past).

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t recall the Republicans having anything like “superdelegates” to act as a moderating influence on primaries.

While the advent of superdelegates was an overreaction to the nationalization of primaries leading to McGovern being nominated, they never actually had any impact in the history of their existence.  OTOH, Republican presidential primaries have many more "winner take all" contests when it comes to delegate allocation, which should favor the more "establishment" front-running candidate as opposed to the insurgent extremist.  That didn't work out too well in 2016.  Anyway, looking only at presidential primaries - unless you're disaggregating by state - isn't gonna tell you much simply because the sample is only 13 cycles since 1972.

[DireWolfSpirit]

So regarding this school shooting story from the previous thread.

'Try him as an adult and remove him as a threat to society for the foreseeable future."

 

Investigators reveal concerns about behavior of Michigan high school shooting suspect leading up to the tragedy

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/02/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-thursday/index.html

Apparently they are trying him as an adult under some terrorism provision.

Also this is the 32nd such school attack since August 1st.

That bares repeating to wrap ones mind around-

From the article, 

the 32nd on such a campus since August 1.

[sologdin]

trying juveniles as adults is deplorable.

[TrackerNeil]

15 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

And when you don't care particularly about generally being popular and can count on winning with 40% minorities, the threat of things being unpopular becomes less important than the threat of it being unpopular with those who decide primaries. 

This cannot be overstated. The transformation of the GOP from a political party into a proto-fascist, white-supremacist gang of troglodytes makes terrible laws not only possible but likely. Everyone in the party is trying to be Righter Than Thou, which these days means trying to out-Trump Trump. 

I grew up in the 80s with the ever-present fear of nuclear annihilation, survived the AIDS crisis, and made it through the madness of 9/11 hysteria, but I have never been more pessimistic about the future of this nation.

[DireWolfSpirit]

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

trying juveniles as adults is deplorable.

Prison is going to be one of his safer options currently. He could get some protective custody, out free in that area I'm thinking a very high chance of vigilante end to his existence.

I think he's in quite a bit of danger wherever they decide to put him.

[Larry of the Lawn]

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Prison is going to be one of his safer options currently. He could get some protective custody, out free in that area I'm thinking a very high chance of vigilante end to his existence.

I think he's in quite a bit of danger wherever they decide to put him.

If you think prison is a "safer" place for a 15 year old to be I don't know what to tell you.

eta: you're certainly not going to eliminate the vigilante factor there.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 minute ago, 1066 Larry said:

If you think prison is a "safer" place for a 15 year old to be I don't know what to tell you.

eta: you're certainly not going to eliminate the vigilante factor there.

I think he would be under threat incarcerated, but at least he has guards monitoring him with suicide watch in that setting.

He's in greater danger the moment he's not in a locked down setting. I don't think he will be free from threat anytime soon wherever he ends up.

[mormont]

5 hours ago, Gorn said:

Only if you consider a multiparty democracy to be a bad thing. These extreme candidates are people who, in France for example, would be members of the Communist Party or Le Pen's National Rally.

Their voters always existed, they merely weren't politically represented before. And I would argue that it is a good thing they are now represented, since the alternative to participation in a democratic society is political violence.

The troubling development in the US is surely the number of those voters prepared to opt for both.

[HoodedCrow]

His parents are still responsible and can be sued.. I do wonder if the kid was on “ anti depressants” like Eric Harris was. They can be agitating and disinhibiting.

[Kalbear]

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

GIven the polling data DMC has presented, wouldn't that make pro-choice laws a prime target for being passed by referenda in states where that is an option? It's very clear that there are a lot of people out there quite willing to vote in favor of raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana while still voting for Republican candidates for office. So wouldn't that happen with abortion in purplish or red states where getting a question about it on the ballot by petition is possible?

Until SCOTUS rules that they violate fetal rights, sure! (and to be clear, this appears to be what at least 3 people on SCOTUS currently want (Alito, Thomas and apparently Gorsuch, which makes me extra sad). 

[DMC]

30 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

Alito, Thomas and apparently Gorsuch, which makes me extra sad

What indication do you have that Gorsuch wants this?  Other than generally being aligned with Thomas and Alito - as opposed to the Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett bloc - I'm not aware of any. 

[DMC]

I love how the idiots threatening a shutdown are demanding an up or down vote...

Ok fuckface, what up or down vote are you willing to give the Dems in exchange?

[Centrist Simon Steele]

1 hour ago, HoodedCrow said:

His parents are still responsible and can be sued.. I do wonder if the kid was on “ anti depressants” like Eric Harris was. They can be agitating and disinhibiting.

Please cite any sources you have that would explain why you think bringing up antidepressants and school shootings is at all worthwhile.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

What indication do you have that Gorsuch wants this?  Other than generally being aligned with Thomas and Alito - as opposed to the Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett bloc - I'm not aware of any. 

Read about it in a few places yesterday. I'll see if I can find them. I was kinda surprised - but per analysis of arguments made Gorsuch appeared more in alignment on this with Alito and Thomas. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Kalsandra said:

Read about it in a few places yesterday. I'll see if I can find them. I was kinda surprised - but per analysis of arguments made Gorsuch appeared more in alignment on this with Alito and Thomas. 

I've read quite a few summaries on the oral arguments yesterday, and all I've seen reported from Gorsuch's questioning focuses on this:

Quote

Gorsuch asked Rikelman to respond to Mississippi’s argument that Casey’s “undue burden” standard, which courts apply to abortion regulations before viability, “has proved difficult to administer.” Under stare decisis principles, that could weigh in favor of overruling Roe and Casey, Gorsuch said. And he asked both Rikelman and Prelogar whether the court could apply the undue-burden standard to prohibitions on abortion before viability. Rikelman responded that it would not be a workable standard, later telling Alito that it “would be the equivalent of overruling Roe and Casey because the viability line is the central holding of those cases.”

Which certainly indicates he's prepared to overrule Roe but that's not surprising.  As for prior opinions on abortion, definitely haven't seen any indication he's any different than, say, Kavanaugh or even Roberts.

[HoodedCrow]

Look it up Simon. There are kids put on drugs that shouldn’t be on them. More than one.one school shooter that have been on them. I personally know someone who put their 14 year old son on SSRIs. He needed extra care, but when I pointed out potential problems with sexual development, she told me that “it’s okay, he’s not dating”, and then wanted to have more kids instead. These drugs are not benign. They can cause blunting of emotions, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and agitation. A child must rely on adults to make good decisions. 
An adult friend told me that Prozac made her suicidal. She was not so, before or afterwards. The 14 year old son of a different friend was on Prozac and opened up the door of a moving car, in order to die.The science shows increased suicidal behavior, but let’s ignore that! Anti depressants are just called that, without a lot of evidence that they work, and not very much on adolescents. 
 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

https://mobile.twitter.com/terriermanUSA/status/1466385394539409409/photo/1
 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

Look it up Simon. There are kids put on drugs that shouldn’t be on them. More than one.one school shooter that have been on them. I personally know someone who put their 14 year old son on SSRIs. He needed extra care, but when I pointed out potential problems with sexual development, she told me that “it’s okay, he’s not dating”, and then wanted to have more kids instead. These drugs are not benign. They can cause blunting of emotions, weight gain, sexual dysfunction, and agitation. A child must rely on adults to make good decisions. 
An adult friend told me that Prozac made her suicidal. She was not so, before or afterwards. The 14 year old son of a different friend was on Prozac and opened up the door of a moving car, in order to die.The science shows increased suicidal behavior, but let’s ignore that! Anti depressants are just called that, without a lot of evidence that they work, and not very much on adolescents. 
 

 

This is an area of research for me. The problem is, there is NO evidence that supports this. It's not supported by any data. So, if you have something refuting the science, please show me. Antidepressants, like any treatment, can have negative effects on a small population of the people taking them, but there is absolute zero link between antidepressants and school shootings.

Some antidepressants have had a suicidal effect on a percentage of those who take them (a small, but still statistically significant percentage), but this is far different than murdering others.

There is only one research report that I've ever seen make a causal link between shootings and antidepressants, and that was funded by scientologists. Here's a generalized overview to show that science doesn't support the claim: PolitiFact | What’s behind the dubious claim that psychiatric drugs fuel mass shootings?

[ThinkerX]

9 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

This is an area of research for me. The problem is, there is NO evidence that supports this. It's not supported by any data. So, if you have something refuting the science, please show me. Antidepressants, like any treatment, can have negative effects on a small population of the people taking them, but there is absolute zero link between antidepressants and school shootings.

Some antidepressants have had a suicidal effect on a percentage of those who take them (a small, but still statistically significant percentage), but this is far different than murdering others.

There is only one research report that I've ever seen make a causal link between shootings and antidepressants, and that was funded by scientologists. Here's a generalized overview to show that science doesn't support the claim: PolitiFact | What’s behind the dubious claim that psychiatric drugs fuel mass shootings?

Many years ago, my brothers common law wife started taking the Ritalin that was issued to her pre-teen kids. An assortment of hallucinations followed. The ones that stand out...

'The Bear Incident.' She called up my dad, (homestead across the highway from my brothers place) and told him that there were some men being attacked by a bear. Well, this is rural Alaska, and things like that do happen here. So, dad grabs a rifle (again, rural Alaska) hops in his truck, and heads on over. Looks around.  Doesn't see anything. Doesn't hear anything, but his ears don't work that well anymore. She comes barreling out of my brothers place, points to a not so distant tree. 'They're right there! The bear is killing them! Shoot it!' But there's nothing.

'I'm going to kill him.' Dad gets a late evening phone call from the brothers wife. She say's she has a gun pointed at my brothers head and will pull the trigger unless he leaves their place right now. Dad puts down the phone and looks at my brother, who is sitting right next to him.

Lots of other incidents, hallucinations about surveillance devices (she literally trashed the places interior twice looking for them) little green men stepping out of the appliances, that sort of thing. She eventually broke up with my brother and lost custody of the kids.  The hallucinations stopped a few weeks or months after she stopped taking the Ritalin.

[HoodedCrow]

Kip Kinkel, Eric Harris, Klebald,  Virginia tech shooter, and probably more. Simon, I stopped working with kids because I couldn’t stand drugs for kids. Antidepressants as they are called, supposedly work on a Theorized connection with Serotonin.( not proven, but much overstated) But first you get your kid diagnosed ( a depressed emotional adolescent?…it’s pretty much standard) and then they probably will be prescribed drugs, even if their effects as reported by marketers are very close or no better than placebo. The side effects are way underreported. Even the ones that “ work”, have costs. One kid that we had took Ritalin, he was marginally calmer during the day, but would wake up at night and smear faeces.  It effects sleeping and eating. Neutering is not the solution.

My friends had a horrible time getting off of Effexor. It’s highly, rapidly addictive, but people are not told of the grim side effects, the potential for mania, the brain zaps and nausea. It is not very effective for depression, so now it has new uses like for night sweats.