Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 390: Where Uvalde Cowboys Gone?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Is it just me or does the right in America hate the left more than vice versa? I REALLY don't want to demonize people solely for their politics.

is it just me or have you made that same post half a dozen times already

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Is it just me or does the right in America hate the left more than vice versa? I REALLY don't want to demonize people solely for their politics.

No. The left hates the right too.

I definitely hate the right but come on, they're cartoonish bad guys. As evidenced by the last two pages of this topic.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1539420459531485184

really trying to pull the fake phone call trick

https://twitter.com/john_hudson/status/1540026238982672384?s=21&t=Czuou_P3Kx6vouDZi5IjYw

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

any time the government pays for anyone's healthcare it's an absolute win

but still

DoomTheGyarados posted...

any time the government pays for anyone's healthcare it's an absolute win

but still

It's like fast-tracking security for SCOTUS after one guy made a threat towards Kavanaugh (that his existing security caught and prevented). It's shitty to see how insular the government is at giving a shit about people.

Inviso posted...

It's like fast-tracking security for SCOTUS after one guy made a threat towards Kavanaugh (that his existing security caught and prevented). It's shitty to see how insular the government is at giving a shit about people.

It's true

why are you moderate you know these things, you confuse me inviso

For the 2nd time...

The bipartisan increased security for the SCOTUS family happened *BEFORE* the threat to Kavanaugh. It was announced after the leaking if the Roe V Wade draft resolution. The House actually slowed down the process and the article you mentioned about the bipartisan plan was talking about it still working through the house weeks after the plan had already passed the Senate.

It was not made and fast tracked due to the threat to Kavanaugh.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

It's true

why are you moderate you know these things, you confuse me inviso

I agree with a fuckton of progressive policies, more so especially after seeing how broken the system is. The main reason I consider myself a moderate though is that I'm also a realist when it comes to the electorate, and I'd rather see minor, incremental change that at least moves us on the path towards improvement in a way that scorched earth "extreme left" (I know it's not actually extreme, but in the eyes of the vast majority of the electorate, it is) will absolutely never do. It's mainly a strategic thing; I'd love to be an idealist, but idealism doesn't work, so I go moderate because it's the only way of actually standing a chance at progressive policy getting passed at SOME point in the future.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

any time the government pays for anyone's healthcare it's an absolute win

but still

What Inviso said plus Havana Syndrome isnt real, a bunch of random diplomats had stress-induced panic attacks and claimed an impossible cause, now theyre getting fat checks when their healthcare was already covered.

Corrik7 posted...

It was announced after the leaking if the Roe V Wade draft resolution

This is literally the same shit fuck them.

Leafeon13N posted...

This is literally the same shit fuck them.

It was a correct assessment. And New Jersey House representatives slowed down the process.

However, it is not what Chris or Inviso keep saying happened. It was not a response to the threat that backed down and called 911 on himself after talking to his sister.

Corrik7 posted...

It was a correct assessment. And New Jersey House representatives slowed down the process.

However, it is not what Chris or Inviso keep saying happened. It was not a response to the threat that backed down and called 911 on himself after talking to his sister.

Same. Shit.

I mean, that really doesn't make it better, Corrik. If anything, it makes it kind of worse. At least in my incorrect interpretation of events, there was a threat. If you're saying they were already planning this based on the nebulous threat of "left wing violence", then that's pretty bad. I mean, multiple mass shootings in a week and we have to scratch and claw just to get the bare minimum of gun safety legislation passed to protect the American populace, but Lord knows the left wing is the REAL threat that needs to be protected against immediately. I should also point out that January 6th was allowed to happen (largely because of the former President inciting a coup to maintain his position as President), yet for some reason, these kinds of safety measures weren't deemed as critical.

Inviso posted...

I mean, that really doesn't make it better, Corrik. If anything, it makes it kind of worse. At least in my incorrect interpretation of events, there was a threat. If you're saying they were already planning this based on the nebulous threat of "left wing violence", then that's pretty bad. I mean, multiple mass shootings in a week and we have to scratch and claw just to get the bare minimum of gun safety legislation passed to protect the American populace, but Lord knows the left wing is the REAL threat that needs to be protected against immediately. I should also point out that January 6th was allowed to happen (largely because of the former President inciting a coup to maintain his position as President), yet for some reason, these kinds of safety measures weren't deemed as critical.

It was bipartisan in the senate. Democrats tried to slow it down in the House. Yes.

The weirdest thing about that whole SCOTUS security bill was that the Senate passed it just for the justices, the House then went "You know, we should probably protect the clerks and other court employees too" and the Senate GOP threw a tantrum and said they'd refuse to pass that and so the House eventually went "jesus fine you fucking weirdos" and passed the more limited Senate version and saying they'd work on the expanded version later.

Putting aside whether the measure was needed, or the naked hypocrisy and self-serving nature of it all, it was just weird af.

xp1337 posted...

The weirdest thing about that whole SCOTUS security bill was that the Senate passed it just for the justices, the House then went "You know, we should probably protect the clerks and other court employees too" and the Senate GOP threw a tantrum and said they'd refuse to pass that and so the House eventually went "jesus fine you fucking weirdos" and passed the more limited Senate version and saying they'd work on the expanded version later.

Putting aside whether the measure was needed, or the naked hypocrisy and self-serving nature of it all, it was just weird af.

They (the limited House bloc) actually wanted it for every federal judge across the country. Which, just isn't feasible in the scope of the US Marshall's. Difference between adding 9 peoples immediate families and 2700s.

It would have effectively poison pilled it completely.

https://twitter.com/jizzeletbass/status/1540017030497275905?s=21&t=kqo8KWkuIZ4KXmCkN8r1bQ

(censor breaks the link, lol)
Am I allowed to say I told you so about Stacey Abrams?

Obviously better than Brian Kemp, but we live in hell

Honestly I'd be fine with raising pay for police officers if it led to hiring anyone other than the least qualified people imaginable

Kenri posted...

Honestly I'd be fine with raising pay for police officers if it led to hiring anyone other than the least qualified people imaginable

Yeah this. But I will need to see both.

But also it's georgia I don't need a good Democrat I just need any Democrat in the deep south

Funding the police is unfortunately really popular. Not much that can be helped on that route right now.

I think theres an argument to be made that higher quality education would reduce crime more than higher paid cops.

And I dont disagree that better pay, higher requirements, and more training would be a great thing to increase the quality of police, but the thing that gets me is how utterly fucked Democratic priorities are. The Uvalde Police Department was reportedly 40% of the entire city budget, why are we complaining about cops pay now?

Another example is the Biden administration banning Juuls and moving towards banning cigarettes (things that Im fine with and would be great to do if you were in a period of high approval) when the biggest W of all time is just sitting there in the form of marijuana legalization.

my eye-opening Stacey Abrams moment was comparing billionaires buying their way through dem primaries (Bloomberg) to campaigning with a cute dog

Plate of food in January: $5
Same Plate of food in June: $7.50

How on God's green earth do Democrats plan on winning a majority at the federal level before the end of the decade?

XERD_003SS posted...

Plate of food in January: $5
Same Plate of food in June: $7.50

How on God's green earth do Democrats plan on winning a majority at the federal level before the end of the decade?

Majority is pretty much impossible with the way the Senate is constructed. Literally nothing matters on that front.

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1540082258891227137?t=Gfq59DUwSK8lfTkQASWPhg&s=19

0 pardons fuck them all

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The Uvalde Police Department was reportedly 40% of the entire city budget, why are we complaining about cops pay now?

This is technically true but misleading (basically a lot of other things you would assume are in the city budget are in the budgets of other overlapping entities):

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-28/why-police-funding-makes-up-40-uvalde-s-city-budget

In a way, these high percentages can be deceiving, because some small towns and cities arent set up to provide many other services, such as health care, social services or the expensive items that dominate most big-city budgets. Those expenditures are instead left to school districts, counties, states and larger entities with more resources to run those programs efficiently, according to Richard Auxier, a senior policy associate in the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Thats why policing makes up such a huge share of spending.

In a small city it's not uncommon for police to be one of, if not the major thing the government exists for, Auxier said. The reason police is a high share of that city's budget is not because Uvalde is an outlier in its number of police or police spending.

Roe vs Wade (and Casey) overturned.

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1540336880188801026

Pop goes the weasel.

Well

Here we go

So following the logic of this ruling, how many other basic private actions can be logically banned as well?

Dark day in us history

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So following the logic of this ruling, how many other basic private actions can be logically banned as well?

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112?s=21&t=yZC0h09iHwe6b7LmkxC4bA

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

So following the logic of this ruling, how many other basic private actions can be logically banned as well?

This is kind of a dumb line of thought coming from this, because if you start with the premise that the fetus is a person at the time of abortion, you could just as easily make the argument that legalizing abortion is the same as legalizing infanticide.

I think trying to go down the path that abortion is banned so sodomy can also be banned is just as much of a strawman as that because abortion is such a unique issue where the crux of it is the unanswerable question of when life begins.

(For the record I'm in the life starts at viability camp which is at least 3 months and no fatal health defects)

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/fordm/status/1540338064324698112?s=21&t=yZC0h09iHwe6b7LmkxC4bA

Note that this is a concurring opinion, so even the other conservative justices think this is nonsense

That jakyl/plum back to back is perfect

FFDragon posted...

That jakyl/plum back to back is perfect

Clarence Thomas is insane. More at 11

masterplum posted...

This is kind of a dumb line of thought coming from this, because if you start with the premise that the fetus is a person at the time of abortion, you could just as easily make the argument that legalizing abortion is the same as legalizing infanticide.

I think trying to go down the path that abortion is banned so sodomy can also be banned is just as much of a strawman as that because abortion is such a unique issue where the crux of it is the unanswerable question of when life begins.

(For the record I'm in the life starts at viability camp which is at least 3 months and no fatal health defects)

You realize that this has nothing to do with the procedural reasons for the decision

Jakyl25 posted...

You realize that this has nothing to do with the procedural reasons for the decision

I don't think the court is driven by procedure any more. (Which is a different and probably more frightening issue)

Those Bernie Sanders voters have done it again

as I understand it there are a lot of bodily autonomy issues that kinda use Roe as a basis, so this could (and will, depending on who you talk to) be the start of a lot of things

They are not making the legal case that abortion is murder. They are making the legal case that the Constitution cannot be interpreted to protect the right to an abortion

There are a lot of decisions that protect actions like same sex marriage that originalists like the 5 non-Roberts conservative judges could reasonably argue the same thing about

America: Where the state can force you to be pregnant for 9 months, can ban contraception, can ban two legal adults from getting married, but NOT put any sort of restriction whatsoever on weapons of war.

masterplum posted...

I don't think the court is driven by procedure any more. (Which is a different and probably more frightening issue)

So your theory is that the 6 that overturned Roe and Casey here:

1.) Believe that abortion is murder
2.) Contrived an unrelated originalist reason to repeal Roe and Casey to further that belief, a line of reasoning that could be copy/pasted to lots of decisions
3.) Dont believe that those decisions are immoral enough to be worth repealing

Just making sure that this is where your argument stands

masterplum posted...

This is kind of a dumb line of thought coming from this, because if you start with the premise that the fetus is a person at the time of abortion, you could just as easily make the argument that legalizing abortion is the same as legalizing infanticide.

I think trying to go down the path that abortion is banned so sodomy can also be banned is just as much of a strawman as that because abortion is such a unique issue where the crux of it is the unanswerable question of when life begins.

(For the record I'm in the life starts at viability camp which is at least 3 months and no fatal health defects)

Bro I know youre smarter than this.

They didnt rule that abortion is murder, they didnt say fetuses have rights, they literally ruled that the constitution doesnt specifically protect this, which logically means a million other private actions are not protected.

Thomas is off on his own island here. Notice how he cites his own concurrences - not a past majority opinion. Thomas has maintained for many years that the entire area of substantive due process is error. I didn't remember that at first and did a bit of a double take on reading it. At first it seemed like there was a grammatical error but then I realized he meant that no application of substantive due process is ever correct, not that substantive due process cases needed to be looked at again to see if they applied it correctly.

I'm reading the opinion (haven't gotten to the concurrences and dissent yet) because I hate myself and jesus this is so disgusting.

I'm basically live reacting on discord but it it dismisses the idea that anti-abortion lawmakers enacted laws based on hostility to women and then in the next breath goes (Lightly paraphrased because I'm not scrolling back up; but I stress 'lightly' here) "Lots of people say abortion is a scheme to kill black babies. And black women do get more abortions per demographics. But we do not question the motives of those who support or oppose abortion"

Then it compares its overturning of Roe to the Brown v Board of Ed. overturning "separate but equal"

There are also some light jabs at the other right-to-privacy-adjacent rulings like Griswold, Obergefell, and Loving among others - and I'm not even at Thomas's open "let's get those too" concurrence - I mean the majority opinion.