U.S politics: You got knocked the Warnocked out:

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think it's going to be very difficult for Roe to be as significant as an election issue two years from now,

Ya. Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause. Certainly not when they are trying to get pregnant, hoping to be pregnant, not wanting to be pregnant, when they are pregnant.  O no, never at all.

How many women live in the USA?  Who deal with these issues every single day?  And can't even get the drugs they need to keep them from dying from endometriosis? 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause

Easy friend I think DMC is just recognizes how quickly so many people can grow used to oppression or accept it if people are promising to alleviate other concerns.

Democrats shouldn’t let up on it though.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Such Norms aren’t worth respecting if they get in the way of keeping and obtaining power.

The gop knows this.

That's not what I meant by normatively.  Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.  You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously would ignore any attempts to pressure them anyway.  Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.  This is not like Ginsburg - nor Kennedy or Breyer.  All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations.  If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya. Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause. Certainly not when they are trying to get pregnant, hoping to be pregnant, not wanting to be pregnant, when they are pregnant.  O no, never at all.

.  That wasn't my point at all and you should know that.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.

Yes.

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously

It’s practical for them to step down when they can be easily replaced by progressives.

Admittedly they may prove resilient to any such calls for them to do such. 
I at least want Biden to make an attempt at convincing them to retire.

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme. 

No what’s extreme is this insistence of democracy having to depend  on the health of a select group of elderly people.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is not like Ginsburg -

Yet.

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations

Ginsburg and Breyer should have retired years before under democratic presidents.

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

A progressive 45 year old Supreme Court judge will be preferable to a 62 year old.

 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s practical for them to step down when they can be easily replaced by progressives.

I guarantee you they don't see it that way.  Nor Biden.  Which means nothing you are arguing is "practical."  What you're saying is it would be ideal.  Which, sure!  It certainly would.  But I'm not gonna hold my breath and I'm not gonna call for a 62 year old with no health issue to retire because it's insulting and unfair.

[Martell Spy]

DeSantis calls for grand jury to investigate Covid-19 vaccines
Gov. Ron DeSantis’ announcement was the latest in an ongoing war between his administration and the Biden administration — and the broader medical community — over the pandemic.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/desantis-grand-jury-covid-19-vaccines-00073718

Quote

 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday asked the Florida Supreme Court to empanel a grand jury to investigate “wrongdoing” linked to the Covid-19 vaccines, including spreading false and misleading claims about the efficacy of the doses.

Most of the medical community, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA and Johns Hopkins, have emphasized that the Covid vaccine is safe and effective in preventing the virus and protecting against serious symptoms.

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

guarantee you they don't see it that way. 

Neither did Ruth.

Hopefully you’re wrong

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nor Biden.

Perhaps.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

But I'm not gonna hold my breath and I'm not gonna call for a 62 year old with no health issue to retire because it's insulting and unfair.

Idc if it’s unfair.

[Varysblackfyre321]

I do wish liberals and progressives embrace this idea of armed resistance.

Oh also infiltrate the police and military like the right does—the worst people in society shouldn’t have monopoly on the means to enact violence.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Perhaps.

50/50 odds if 80 year old Biden tried to convince Elena Kagan to step down because of her age she'd laugh in his face.

[Varysblackfyre321]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

50/50 odds if 80 year old Biden tried to convince Elena Kagan to step down because of her age she'd laugh in his face.

That’d be immature and prideful.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

That’d be immature and prideful.

Well, I was joking to make a point, but it's very naive to not understand every SC justice is quite prideful.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

That's not what I meant by normatively.  Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.  You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously would ignore any attempts to pressure them anyway.  Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.  This is not like Ginsburg - nor Kennedy or Breyer.  All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations.  If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

.  That wasn't my point at all and you should know that.

No.  I did not know that.  You should know how easily and quickly men dismiss what matters to women.  It was a lot easier to do of course before voting and women voting.  Which is why voting, and women voting must be stopped NOW.

Evidently that's what the male reich politcos and SCOTUS thought.  History teaches us in these matters male politicos of whatever stripe are no different.

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You should know how easily and quickly men dismiss what matters to women.

And you should know the discussion was about whether or not Roe/abortion will be as significant a boost to Dems' electoral chances in 2024 as it was last month - which as I explained it won't be for the simple fact the Dems aren't going to have to worry about turning out voters in a presidential cycle.

[DMC]

Anyway, in actual news - Top appropriators clinch deal on government funding framework.  Obviously the deal is tentative, but sounds like ECA reform and Ukraine funding will be a part of it:

Quote

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier Tuesday that a revamp of the outdated Electoral Count Act and emergency money for Ukraine will be included in the year-end bill. Other provisions, including tax provisions like an extension of the enhanced Child Tax Credit, are much less certain.

 

[The Anti-Targ]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

And you should know the discussion was about whether or not Roe/abortion will be as significant a boost to Dems' electoral chances in 2024 as it was last month - which as I explained it won't be for the simple fact the Dems aren't going to have to worry about turning out voters in a presidential cycle.

But it's not just about turnout, it's about what is going to motivate the swinging centre in how they cast their vote (and whether it will get the left to line up behind Biden or drift towards a third party who better represents their views). The swinging centre will mostly be sympathetic towards pro-choice policies. But if their focus is dragged across to the economy they might make their choice on the basis of wanting to punish those who are currently in charge regardless of who's responsible and what could have practically been done to prevent or mitigate the economic problems of the day. 

Biden needs to assume the House won't pass any legislation that either he wants or that would be helpful to the country's economic prospects (because such legislation would help him get re-elected, and just move forward with the tools available to the president to do what can be done to keep the middle and low income demographics financially afloat.

Then in 2024 if the economic picture is not favourable the Democratic campaign narrative needs to focus on social justice issues, like RvW.

I predict our Labour party will use RvW for our 2023 election. They will say that just like in the USA where many people were sure RvW was secure the right can't be trusted to leave issues like abortion and gay marriage alone. We had plenty of conservative politicians here tweeting their pleasure at SCOTUS overturning RvW.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But it's not just about turnout, it's about what is going to motivate the swinging centre in how they cast their vote (and whether it will get the left to line up behind Biden or drift towards a third party who better represents their views).

Nope, it's about turnout.  Virtually everybody that turned out in the midterms because of Roe/Dobbs will be voting in a presidential cycle - and will be voting for the Democratic candidate (well, unless they were happy about the decision, obviously).  "Swing voters" may be pro-choice, but that's not what they're gonna vote on.  In large part because "swing voters" are largely uneducated white males - as well as increasingly uneducated latino males.  Hell, if we're looking at this purely irt women voters, the gender gap actually DECREASED from 2020 (57 to 42) to 2022 (53 to 45).

[Starkess]

4 hours ago, DMC said:

No, it's not.  In the US it's about 77 for all Americans, 80 for women.

Further adding that for a woman aged 62, it's actually 85, so really this argument is even stupider.

4 hours ago, DMC said:

Again, it's ridiculous overworrying, not to mention offensive and bordering on ageism.  

Basically. I don't know how anyone can compare Ginsburg, a woman in her 80s who'd already had 2 bouts of cancer, with a 62 year-old woman with no known major health issues. It's absurd.