Jump to content

US politics: Red Tide Rising


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Really? I must admit, that name had two surprises for me.

One that it is actually a given name. But then again, you Americans have been a lot more open to rather unconventional names. 

The second surprise was that it is a female name. The first thing that comes to my mind, when I hear the name Tudor is Henry VIII with his six wives (Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived). So not really a lucky name for a woman in my book. So yeah, I just assumed Tudor Dixon was a guy. To be fair, the second thought (when IHT used the female pronoun) was, oh, right, his daughter Elizabeth I, first Queen of England. And one of the few actual western female rulers. But then again, the conventional Elizabeth would serve at least as well, if that's the idea. 

So what is your nationality? Tudor would be uncommon as a given name in the USA, but the idea of turning surnames into given names is itself normal in all English-speaking countries, and until recently the American South was the place this was most common for girls as well as boys.  Of course the last thirty years names like Delaney, Mallory, Harper, Darcy, Madison, Paisley, and Piper have become well-used for girls in all English-speaking cultures. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

The first thing that comes to my mind, when I hear the name Tudor is Henry VIII with his six wives (Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived). So not really a lucky name for a woman in my book.

#NotAllTudors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

So what is your nationality? Tudor would be uncommon as a given name in the USA, but the idea of turning surnames into given names is itself normal in all English-speaking countries, and until recently the American South was the place this was most common for girls as well as boys.  Of course the last thirty years names like Delaney, Mallory, Harper, Darcy, Madison, Paisley, and Piper have become well-used for girls in all English-speaking cultures. 

.de

Small anecdote, my best friend and his wife had to jump through a few hoops for the given name of their first born. (An expert opinion that it is actually a real female name is probably an expense, parents in the US will not have to pay for). Of course that caused me joking, that the first thing she will do on her 18th birthday is file for a name change. True story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

.de

Small anecdote, my best friend and his wife had to jump through a few hoops for the given name of their first born. (An expert opinion that it is actually a real female name is probably an expense, parents in the US will not have to pay for). Of course that caused me joking, that the first thing she will do on her 18th birthday is file for a name change. True story.

I will reply to this in my Names Column thread -- we should get this out of US Politics. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tudor is still used as a first name in Wales, and it’s a male name (the surname Tudor would originally have been the patronymic ap Tudor, or Tewdwr or various other spellings)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.npr.org/sections/2022 primary election results/2022/08/02/1108929419/kansas-primary-election-results

First live test of how we, the  people truly feel about abortion and the reversal of Roe vs Wade is in Kansas on the primaries ballot. Do they allow the state legislature to change the state constitution for more restrictions or not?

The question on the ballot of course is misleading. at least to my tired eyes:

Shall the following be adopted?

§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

[ ] Yes

[ ] No[14]

Kansas state constitution never required abortion to be funded by the state to begin with. But it does secure the right to abortion up to 22 weeks as far as I read. Bet many people who vote in the primaries won’t know that since the beginning implies that funding is/may be required, just as the right to abortion is secured, otherwise why adopt that. Perhaps I’m overthinking it and am just a Negative Nancy and the voters will be clear on what they actually vote on and for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/1/2022 at 10:41 AM, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Man, SO much scary shit is happening right now with abortion laws--are we still not allowed to talk about it because @mormont is tired of hearing about people's struggles?

Well if he feels that strongly about it, he can lock this thread as well. But it would be very unusual, as the abortion laws are not only a hot topic in US politics but vital for a very large portion of female population here who’s not prepubescent or post menopausal. It’s now down to the brass tacks on this. No doubt he’s tired as he probably lives in a country that’s much more liberal and wonders at how backwards we are lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TormundsWoman said:

https://www.npr.org/sections/2022 primary election results/2022/08/02/1108929419/kansas-primary-election-results

First live test of how we, the  people truly feel about abortion and the reversal of Roe vs Wade is in Kansas on the primaries ballot. Do they allow the state legislature to change the state constitution for more restrictions or not?

The question on the ballot of course is misleading. at least to my tired eyes:

Shall the following be adopted?

§ 22. Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.

[ ] Yes

[ ] No[14]

Kansas state constitution never required abortion to be funded by the state to begin with. But it does secure the right to abortion up to 22 weeks as far as I read. Bet many people who vote in the primaries won’t know that since the beginning implies that funding is/may be required, just as the right to abortion is secured, otherwise why adopt that. Perhaps I’m overthinking it and am just a Negative Nancy and the voters will be clear on what they actually vote on and for.

That is a horribly vague and difficult to parse statement…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TormundsWoman said:

Well if he feels that strongly about it, he can lock this thread as well. But it would be very unusual, as the abortion laws are not only a hot topic in US politics but vital for a very large portion of female population here who’s not prepubescent or post menopausal. It’s now down to the brass tacks on this. No doubt he’s tired as he probably lives in a country that’s much more liberal and wonders at how backwards we are lol

People seem to have some ideas about how I feel about it, but Ormond's statement above is accurate. Nobody ever said that abortion as a political topic couldn't be discussed: that's a conclusion people leapt to on their own. I did ask for a lengthy digression about the religious and philosophical reasons why one particular boarder personally felt abortion was morally wrong to be curtailed. Nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

So not really a lucky name for a woman in my book.

The only reason people still remember 'enery 8 is because his daughter is Elizabeth Tudor -- Elizabeth I -- and her incredibly successful reign.

~~~~~~~~

As for mistaking what Mormont (and DMC) wrote here at that moment, the opening words were on the order of 'this isn't of much interest to me,' or, 'this isn't of interest to me' -- which then were construed as to why the abortion discussion was being told shut down or requested to be shut down. Whatever.  But what we all know for certain is that abortion > politics in the USA isn't going to irrelevant for the next 50 years anymore than it hasn't been irrelevant for the last 50.  Or, OTOH, in a few years elections will be a thing of the past and this will be an opus dei white supremacist nationalist state, so enjoy while we can.

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mormont said:

Nobody ever said that abortion as a political topic couldn't be discussed: that's a conclusion people leapt to on their own.

Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t go back to the other thread to see what you didn’t agree to but I did think it would be unusual to not allow discussion on the politics of it and impact in the economic and social life. 
 

Now… which one of you jinxed it and wanted the red states to put their tax code where their abortion laws are?! Cause I KNOW one of you did. Because Mlle. Zabzie wouldn’t have needed to nerd out on the IRS Tax code otherwise in the last thread. There you are. Georgia: because they can:


https://dor.georgia.gov/press-releases/2022-08-01/guidance-related-house-bill-481-living-infants-and-fairness-equality-life

for those who like a succinct sentence:

 

<<As such, on individual income tax returns filed for Tax Year 2022 where, at any time on or after July 20, 2022, and  through December 31, 2022, a taxpayer has an unborn child (or children) with a detectable human heartbeat (which may occur as early as six weeks’ gestation), the taxpayer may claim a dependent personal exemption as provided for under O.C.G.A § 48-7-26(a) and (b)(3) in the amount of $3,000.00 for each unborn child.  For Tax Year 2022, the deduction for dependent unborn children will be a subtraction on Line 12, “Other Adjustments,” of Form 500 Schedule 1.>>
 

note: no effect on the federal taxes. Still. Weird and weirder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

So what is your nationality? Tudor would be uncommon as a given name in the USA, but the idea of turning surnames into given names is itself normal in all English-speaking countries, and until recently the American South was the place this was most common for girls as well as boys.  Of course the last thirty years names like Delaney, Mallory, Harper, Darcy, Madison, Paisley, and Piper have become well-used for girls in all English-speaking cultures. 

One interesting surname turned given name I've recently come across is Smitha, as a girl's name. I clocked it mostly because it's a surname in my family tree, which I imagine is the case for quite a few people. Possibly not among the more recently popular surnames-turned-given-name. The person attached to the name was not born this century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

One interesting surname turned given name I've recently come across is Smitha, as a girl's name. I clocked it mostly because it's a surname in my family tree, which I imagine is the case for quite a few people. Possibly not among the more recently popular surnames-turned-given-name. The person attached to the name was not born this century.

Ugh. Waddathey, wannabe Romans?

Do they have a Smitha the Younger and a Smitha the Elder? What about Smitha the Fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TormundsWoman said:

Thank you for clarifying. I didn’t go back to the other thread to see what you didn’t agree to but I did think it would be unusual to not allow discussion on the politics of it and impact in the economic and social life. 
 

Now… which one of you jinxed it and wanted the red states to put their tax code where their abortion laws are?! Cause I KNOW one of you did. Because Mlle. Zabzie wouldn’t have needed to nerd out on the IRS Tax code otherwise in the last thread. There you are. Georgia: because they can:


https://dor.georgia.gov/press-releases/2022-08-01/guidance-related-house-bill-481-living-infants-and-fairness-equality-life

for those who like a succinct sentence:

 

<<As such, on individual income tax returns filed for Tax Year 2022 where, at any time on or after July 20, 2022, and  through December 31, 2022, a taxpayer has an unborn child (or children) with a detectable human heartbeat (which may occur as early as six weeks’ gestation), the taxpayer may claim a dependent personal exemption as provided for under O.C.G.A § 48-7-26(a) and (b)(3) in the amount of $3,000.00 for each unborn child.  For Tax Year 2022, the deduction for dependent unborn children will be a subtraction on Line 12, “Other Adjustments,” of Form 500 Schedule 1.>>
 

note: no effect on the federal taxes. Still. Weird and weirder.

I mean no one has thought about exactly how to document that - maybe you must file your sonogram? What if you lose the pregnancy? What if you lose three pregnancies during a taxable year (9,000 ftw!)?  What about those poor people who conceive and give birth all in one year?!?  They lose out.  Child doesn’t and can’t have a SSN, so this is quite interesting in terms of how to substantiate the deduction.  If GA wants rampant tax fraud, well, bless their HEARTS, this is a fantastic way to erode their tax base, I would think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

As for mistaking what Mormont (and DMC) wrote here at that moment, the opening words were on the order of 'this isn't of much interest to me,' or, 'this isn't of interest to me'

WTF?  No clue why you're bringing me into this, although FWIW I thought mormont's original request was clear and understandable and obviously had nothing to do with talking about abortion news on these threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ormond said:

So what is your nationality? Tudor would be uncommon as a given name in the USA, but the idea of turning surnames into given names is itself normal in all English-speaking countries, and until recently the American South was the place this was most common for girls as well as boys.  Of course the last thirty years names like Delaney, Mallory, Harper, Darcy, Madison, Paisley, and Piper have become well-used for girls in all English-speaking cultures. 

There was a longtime northern England/Scotland tradition of using a maternal family name, often the mother but could be a grandmother or w/e as the given name. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kansas primary voting numbers are through the roof. Typically it barely hits 30$, but the SoS seems to think it could tap out at 50%. As to what that means for the abortion measure, no idea. I read somewhere that it ranks higher (near second) as an important driver for Democrats, but if you look at it on a state-by-state case, not sure where Kansas falls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

People seem to have some ideas about how I feel about it, but Ormond's statement above is accurate. Nobody ever said that abortion as a political topic couldn't be discussed: that's a conclusion people leapt to on their own. I did ask for a lengthy digression about the religious and philosophical reasons why one particular boarder personally felt abortion was morally wrong to be curtailed. Nothing more.

To be clear, probably just a turn of phrase, but religion explicitly had nothing to do with my objection, in that I hold no religious beliefs. Moral, ethical, philosophical reasons could all be applied. The only reason religion was even mentioned was with regards to my belief that it’s a terrible reason to oppose abortion. 

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...