US Politics: Roe v Wade into the quiet part of the stream

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Yeah I remember people on here saying this about McConnell during the debt ceiling fight last fall.  Sure enough, past behavior was a good predictor of exactly what McConnell did. 

I remember also how folks said there was nothing to worry about with respect to peaceful transitions of power.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Anyway, this has always been a really dumb and desperate way to try to shut down an argument.  If we can't use relevant evidence, then why bother even having a discussion?

A better statement is that prior behaviors are not nearly as predictive as they were before, and guidelines like whether something was popular or legal are not actually the surefire rails they had been.

You're welcome to use evidence, but we are also welcome to point out that evidence has very flawed prediction powers, and if your evidence relies on the basis of "the republican party is a normal functioning party in a normal democratic system" that evidence will have some holes. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

McConnell saying that there is a possibility of enacting a national ban feels like him trying to play chicken with the idea

I think that's probably right, but the problem with playing chicken is that when your opponent is willing to crash the car, you always lose.

Republicans have proven repeatedly that they are willing to sacrifice long-term gains in order to satisfy the Trumpanzees and the God Squad and the other troglodytes that comprise their constituency. So I think it is entirely plausible to think that, if a national abortion ban arrives at a GOP-controlled Senate, Republicans would nuke the filibuster to send it to the desk of a Republican president. 

Maybe I'm being Chicken Little here, but when I saw Republicans come within a single vote of stripping health insurance from millions of Americans, I realized that there's nothing that party won't dare.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I remember also how folks said there was nothing to worry about with respect to peaceful transitions of power.

I remember repeatedly saying the concern for violence was very real, but your assertions that the courts or such an uprising would actually be successful in allowing Trump to remain in power were nothing to worry about.

9 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

A better statement is that prior behaviors are not nearly as predictive as they were before, and guidelines like whether something was popular or legal are not actually the surefire rails they had been.

The latter part of this statement doesn't have anything to do with whether McConnell will abolish the filibuster in order to pass an abortion ban.  The former part of this statement is really absurd if it's arguing Mitch McConnell's behavior as Majority Leader under Donald Trump in 2017 can't be used as guidance for Mitch McConnell's behavior as Majority Leader under Donald Trump in 2025.

12 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're welcome to use evidence, but we are also welcome to point out that evidence has very flawed prediction powers, and if your evidence relies on the basis of "the republican party is a normal functioning party in a normal democratic system" that evidence will have some holes. 

First, no one is arguing the republican party is a normal functioning party.  Second, you are certainly welcome to claim any evidence is "flawed," but simply saying "past behavior can't predict the future" is not an argument in and of itself - and usually reveals you don't have much of an argument at all.

[Kalbear]

As I said, a better statement is that prior behaviors are not nearly as predictive as they were. I wouldn't say they can't be predictive, only that they're not as good.

And yes, McConnell in 2017 where he is trying to make Trump behave like a normal republican because he is worried about political ramifications is not predictive of how McConnell will behave in 2025 with a vindictive Trump empowered by an illiberal government and a court that does not care about the law. McConnell is adaptable and stands for nothing but power - why wouldn't his behavior change?

As to the courts allowing Trump to stay in power - please don't say something shouldn't be worried about when it was mitigated successfully. It almost happened; my mistake was assuming more competence. Fortunately they're setting up for a much more successful and competent run in 2025.