Jump to content

US Politics: What will the InJustice League do next?


Recommended Posts

 

 

24 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

In other news, Candace Owens said there were no abortions when "we" (sic) had slaves.(Didn't she get the memo btw? Shouldn't that be "when we kindly relocated folks"?)

Ya, I immediately thought if They, following Reagan's precedent of changing the names of things as the way to make unpleasant information disappear, are calling it relocation -- remember when They decided to call the people who arrived via the Middle Passage, work immigrants? -- from now on we call anti-reproductive reichists, forced birthers.

I would bet a million dollars this ignoramus never read a slave narrative, one of the great bodies of work in American Literature (which surely are not allowed in the curriculum as They devise it). The women knew they were subjected to rape and forced birth.  Some of them had knowledge and ways. Mary Gaffney, from TX, among those who were born into US slavery, was interviewed in the Federal Writers Project of the 1930's. She forthrightly spoke of chewing cotton root so he couldn't get any babies from her.  He whipped her, even, because she wasn't reproducing -- she knocked out a fellow slave he'd sent in to force her into sex -- but that made her all the more determined to never ever reproduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

It's good to see, with all of the problems in the world, Covid, inflation, a potential recession, war in Europe, Republicans are focusing on the real issues... like LGBTQ+ people existing, abortion, books saying mean things about the US, and slavery happening. They have no actual solutions for any actual real problems so they spend their time doing culture war bullshit. I'm surprised they haven't done an early War on Christmas yet.

And the sad fact is, these oafish, fascicst, chucklefucks will likely win in November, all because the Dems can't tie their shoes without checking with Manchin to see if that might offend his coal-huffing ass.

"Are they coal-powered shoes? No? Well then fuck off, I'll just sit in the corner and pout while Democracy dies."

Meanwhile the rest of the Dems link back to their slime pools and tweet #resistance poems like that fucking does anything.

Fuck these useless fuckers.

Jesus Christ, the United States should be the top of Trump's shithole country list now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mindwalker said:

Are you saying he should do stuff himself, limited as what he can do may be, even if it may be reversed by SCOTUS, instead of delegating and vaguely supporting abolishing the filibuster for this? Now that's just crazy talk. Honestly, that's why people hate progressives and love pro-gun, anti-abortion moderates who are being investigated for corruption. You know, if Dems lose in November, it'll be your fault!

 

Ah, /s, right? At first I read that as a straight criticism of progressive, lol.

Edited by Centrist Simon Steele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KalVsWade said:

The census is one of the few things that is explicitly required by the constitution. While it can be fucked over - and was this last period - it will not be explicitly removed. 

 

Doesn't this assume the Constitution will even matter after the full rise of the authoritarian rise of a returned Republican to the White House...?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Doesn't this assume the Constitution will even matter after the full rise of the authoritarian rise of a returned Republican to the White House...?  

Oh don't you worry. The Supreme Court will protect us from any fascist overreach by the Republicans, and if they don't, the Democrats will tut-tut and wag their fingers noisily from the sidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Doesn't this assume the Constitution will even matter after the full rise of the authoritarian rise of a returned Republican to the White House...?  

I think for a while the constitution will matter to at least give it some lip service. There will be parts that will be effectively neutered or ignored, but people will still point to it and if you're doing something totally against it I think they'll likely stop.

Plus, as long as they're getting what they want I don't think they need to remove it and would rather have the semblance of legitimacy that it provides. Same reason that Russia has elections, even though they're functionally meaningless. And in the case of the census it can be valuable for a bunch of reasons to just keep doing it - it costs a lot so you can send money to companies you want to use, it can be used to reallocate money to states that you want to support and punish states that you want to punish, it can be used to spin all sorts of lies and fabrications. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Good lawd, I really need to get off twitter. It's just crazy.

Speaking of aunts and uncles...

 

Based on previous experience that all right wing criticism is projection, I regret to inform everyone that right wingers are 1000% imprisoning children and collecting fetuses to harvest adrenochromes. I have never been so sure of a conspiracy before in my entire life.

I'm sure Ginni Roberts has it on draft.

Edited by Week
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

as long as they're getting what they want I don't think they need to remove it and would rather have the semblance of legitimacy that it provides.

But the inevitable strongest (white) man of all shall arrive, like Napoleon, and scrap the whole thing, in favor of his own Napoleonic Code. At least it got rid of the feudal, aristo system for good, supposedly, except for him and his over all of it authority, as the emperor. Think of some of those books of Orson Scott Card's, in which the inevitable (white) Amurikan reformer for the better tyrant does the same. In detail  Very detailed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I think for a while the constitution will matter to at least give it some lip service. There will be parts that will be effectively neutered or ignored, but people will still point to it and if you're doing something totally against it I think they'll likely stop.

Plus, as long as they're getting what they want I don't think they need to remove it and would rather have the semblance of legitimacy that it provides. Same reason that Russia has elections, even though they're functionally meaningless. And in the case of the census it can be valuable for a bunch of reasons to just keep doing it - it costs a lot so you can send money to companies you want to use, it can be used to reallocate money to states that you want to support and punish states that you want to punish, it can be used to spin all sorts of lies and fabrications. 

Hmmm...I suppose even Caesar called for the occasional census...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Ah, /s, right? At first I read that as a straight criticism of progressive, lol.

Sorry! Yes, / s.

 

Circling back to the Biden deal for a sec... Does that mean he doesn't even have Sinema and Manchin onboard for nominations?! I mean, the deal is terrible regardless, but wtf...

 

Speaking of Sinema, she's announced she won't support a carveout for the filibuster. Girlie's totes women's rights otherwise...

 

Edited by Mindwalker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Circling back to the Biden deal for a sec... Does that mean he doesn't even have Sinema and Manchin onboard for nominations?!

No.  I haven't payed much attention to the deal, but I'm pretty sure neither has still ever voted against a Biden judicial nominee -- although I think Manchin has conveniently missed a couple of the votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

Mary Gaffney, from TX, among those who were born into US slavery, was interviewed in the Federal Writers Project of the 1930's. She forthrightly spoke of chewing cotton root so he couldn't get any babies from her.  He whipped her, even, because she wasn't reproducing -- she knocked out a fellow slave he'd sent in to force her into sex -- but that made her all the more determined to never ever reproduce.

I'm glad you told us that story.  Women finding ways to prevent or abort pregnancies is as old as time.  Dimbulbs like Owens, does she think abortion only started with Roe, so how could enslaved women abort?  I guess every enslaved female on the forced labor camps new better.  Even at the risk of their health and suffering cruel punishments, they knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really need to watch the local news more because I am dying with laughter. Here in MN apparently the Republican controlled Senate passed a bill without realizing they just legalized recreational edibles and beverages containing THC. There's some amount restrictions, but that really doesn't matter. You'll just have to eat two gummies to get the same impact as one sold in CA or CO. They're officially legal to purchase tomorrow if you're over 21. Nice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It feels like so much of this started as a joke to piss liberals off, but has spun disastrously out of control and now they're deadly serious, no matter how outlandish something is.

It always only a joke, a troll, until they got power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion: Why codifying Roe will land right back at the Supreme Court

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/30/opinions/codifying-roe-scotus-abortion-nourse/index.html

Quote

 

Some might say this is fine: If Congress cannot codify Roe, it cannot impose a national abortion ban. But that does not follow from existing Supreme Court precedents. It is possible, depending upon how the laws are drafted, for the court to strike down a Roe codification and uphold a national abortion ban. How?

The Supreme Court could strike down a Roe codification because the court gets to decide constitutional questions. Meanwhile, if the national ban is written in the right way, it could survive that attack and find an easy home within the commerce clause. Such a ban would focus on commercial transactions -- barring payment for abortion or uncompensated abortion services. The law would be more narrowly focused on commerce than the current Roe codification bill.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dredd Scott still remains the worst SCOTUS ruling of all time, but at least they were not smart enough to ban abolitionist parties from ever governing against afterwards.

Seems like they won't be making that mistake again this time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Here in MN apparently the Republican controlled Senate passed a bill without realizing they just legalized recreational edibles and beverages containing THC.

Quote

Sen. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, who chairs the Senate Human Services Reform Finance and Policy Committee, said he didn't realize the new law would legalize edibles containing delta-9 THC before it passed. He thought the law would only regulate delta-8 THC products.

"I thought we were doing a technical fix, and it winded up having a broader impact than I expected," Abeler said, adding that the Legislature should consider rolling the new law back.

"It doesn't count -- I was high!:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...