Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

16 hours ago, Starlord said:

 

If men menstruated, tampons would be fully covered by health insurance.

[TrickstaPriest]

If men... nah, just don't be any kind of woman in Louisiana.  Can't really put it any other way.

[TrickstaPriest]

So you guys understand, I'm actively supporting and comforting female friends of mine, probably going to have to be more than one, because of the devastation this is causing them.  It's terrifying them.  I know friends who've had friends commit suicide over stuff like this, being trapped in a state that wants them to suffer.

 

Louisiana has over 2 million people... so over 1 million women.  Roughly 25% of women have an abortion, and almost half of those are pro-life or highly religious.

 

So are they going to attack 100000s of women?  Or just 'the uppity ones'?  What happens when the police sues for an app's geographic tracking data to find 'murderers'?  Wholesale lawsuit, wholesale prosecution, of thousands of women?

 

The Louisiana government has said they are justifying acting outside of the Supreme Court as "well the other states ignored the Fed to legalize marijuana, so we feel this is fine".  Fighting to destroy hundreds of thousands of women is apparently the same as fighting to give people more rights. 

 

Even though our laws are structured specifically to prevent the argument of 'you are treating those people too nice, you should treat them worse'.  That argument literally cannot exist, legally.  The only argument you can have is 'you treat them nice, so you should treat me nice too'.

 

The Constitution was written to guarantee people's rights regardless of what the Federal Government could declare.  To grant the states limited rights, as well, while deferring to the Fed's rule of law for everything else.  It was the agreement that we shouldn't enter a period of constant inter-state warfare that could last a hundred years.

 

It was not written to guarantee the right of the states to abuse its people.  It's a document to grant these minimum rights, guaranteed no matter where you live within the Union.  Not an abstract set of rules to say 'each state should have control over what rights its people have'.

 

Had I written this earlier today, I would have probably cursed so much I'd have been banned for good.

[assault]

In case it matters, there are many people outside the US who understand exactly what this means.  American women are no more alone than the defenders of Ukraine, and are less alone than the defenders of Palestine. Except we aren't going to send you weapons.

[Lord Liaden]

On the 25th of May, it will be the fourth anniversary of the referendum in Ireland allowing amendment of their constitution to permit abortion. Legislation to that effect was signed into law in September of that year.

[Old Man]

If you're trying to get me to move to Ireland, ...it's already on my short list.

[L. Marcus]

You could join up with Archermoo.

[Joe Walsh]

2 hours ago, Old Man said:

If you're trying to get me to move to Ireland, ...it's already on my short list.

 

Well, there's this to look forward to if you do:

https://twitter.com/socialistdogmom/status/1522641655081361408?s=20&t=zzbK7Nx9LVTXAdCLYHnPbw

 

[unclevlad]

Also a story from ABC News, about the potential ramifications to privacy.

 

The grave concern is that Alito's draft suggests that the only rights under the Constitution are those very specifically enumerated, and some that have longstanding basis.  It rejects the notion of a right to privacy...and that's the basis for any number of things.  We can readily envision a challenge to the legality...not of same-sex marriage, but all same-sex activity, period.  It's not a reach that some would push to make anything but sex between a husband and wife illegal.  (In that very broad context, it probably wouldn't pass, but there numerous, more targeted activities that could.)  If there's no right to privacy, then other policies might become broader.  Most people know there's a sex offender registry, for example...and last week I got a notice from Experian that a sex offender had moved into the area.  I think 'area' is...pretty broad, but I deleted it.  That info is public record;  anyone can search the state database.  The point here, is that...well, why limit it to sex offenders?  How about every violent criminal?  How about EVERY person convicted of a felony?  Personally, I think that's going way, way too far, but I can see it happening.  Gutting the right to privacy is a precursor to moving to a police state.

[Old Man]

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Also a story from ABC News, about the potential ramifications to privacy.

 

The grave concern is that Alito's draft suggests that the only rights under the Constitution are those very specifically enumerated, and some that have longstanding basis.  It rejects the notion of a right to privacy...and that's the basis for any number of things.  We can readily envision a challenge to the legality...not of same-sex marriage, but all same-sex activity, period.  It's not a reach that some would push to make anything but sex between a husband and wife illegal.  (In that very broad context, it probably wouldn't pass, but there numerous, more targeted activities that could.)  If there's no right to privacy, then other policies might become broader.  Most people know there's a sex offender registry, for example...and last week I got a notice from Experian that a sex offender had moved into the area.  I think 'area' is...pretty broad, but I deleted it.  That info is public record;  anyone can search the state database.  The point here, is that...well, why limit it to sex offenders?  How about every violent criminal?  How about EVERY person convicted of a felony?  Personally, I think that's going way, way too far, but I can see it happening.  Gutting the right to privacy is a precursor to moving to a police state.

 

Exactly.  As written this decision threatens not only the right to abortion, but also same sex marriage, same sex relationships, and interracial marriage.  All of these would become felonies, and felons can't vote.

 

None of this is accidental.

[Lord Liaden]

It appears that the GOP, through manipulating SCOTUS appointments, have subverted one of the three branches of government that are supposed to keep each other in check. If they regain a majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, they'll control it all.

 

I don't know if you've noticed that at the state level, state Republicans have been campaigning aggressively to replace the Secretaries of State with their preferred candidates. The SOS are the ones who certify elections.

[TrickstaPriest]

3 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I don't know if you've noticed that at the state level, state Republicans have been campaigning aggressively to replace the Secretaries of State with their preferred candidates. The SOS are the ones who certify elections.

 

Yep.  And no one is interested in getting involved...

[DShomshak]

All Things Considered and The Daily has run stories on Sec'y of State candidates who publicly endorse the Big Lie. The push goes down from there to the commissioners who certify local results, and then all the way to people say they want to become poll workers to "prevent/investigate election fraud." The trainer who was interviewed said that when she encounteres people who want to sign up for that reason, she thanks them for their interest but never calls them back. She also takes care to explain to the poll workers she trains that there are people whose jpb it is to investigate election fraud, and it isn't them.

 

Dean Shomshak

[assault]

Sinn Fein's Michelle O'Neill is poised to be named Northern Ireland's First Minister

I normally wouldn't link to the Daily Fail, but this article seems to cover the main points, and isn't paywalled.

 

[wcw43921]

What the Military Records of the Oath Keepers' Leader Actually Say About His Service

[Starlord]

[unclevlad]

On 5/7/2022 at 3:35 PM, wcw43921 said:

What the Military Records of the Oath Keepers' Leader Actually Say About His Service

 

A small point in this story...the guy's lawyer was disbarred.  From Politico:

 

Quote

Details of the bar discipline case against Moseley were not immediately available, but a summary posted on the Virginia State Bar website on Tuesday said the court found that he violated “professional rules that govern safekeeping property; meritorious claims and contentions; candor toward the tribunal; fairness to opposing party and counsel; unauthorized practice of law, multijurisdictional practice of law; bar admission and disciplinary matters … and misconduct.” The decision was effective on April 1.

 

That's a whole lot of slimeball.  Like finds like, eh?

[Ragitsu]

 

[Pariah]

Delaware State is a Historically Black University.

 

Delaware State University 'incensed' after lacrosse team's bus stopped, searched in Georgia

 

Apparently even college women's lacrosse players are criminals and druggies ... if they're Black.

[Ragitsu]

"No abortions, except for cases of rape and incest."

 

This exemption doesn't make sense, if you stop to consider the Anti-Choice "logic"; if all life is sacred, why are potential humans created through rape and/or incest any different? I've found that there are two types of Anti-Choice people: those who want to force a woman to give birth no matter what (the most honest of extremists) and those who would allow the above exemption. If you ask the latter group why it is okay to - in their words - "murder" one group and not the other, you then get to witness a human brain attempt to divide by zero.

[Lord Liaden]

So many of those supporting this position today are immune to logic. Their motivation is emotional, the desire to feel they're one among the righteous, which is important to their sense of identity. Just the suggestion that they might be wrong terrifies them. It's why they react so angrily whenever their positions are questioned -- they feel personally threatened.

[Lord Liaden]

There is something I wanted to get a read about from our American community here. I now read and hear much discussion of how far down the fascist and theocratic path the agenda of the Right in the US may lead if the Republicans regain power, based on what they've done and what they say they want to do, federally and at state level. I wondered whether you hear in your parts of the country, any support being expressed for separating from the rest of the United States if that starts to become reality, rather than submit to regressive policies. Or on the other side of the coin, your region seceding from the Union if federal Republicans are defeated and those policies rolled back.

 

I know there are pretty profound differences in the attitudes of the majority in "red" and "blue" states. Here in Canada there have been periods when the sentiment for breaking up the country has been strong, in the province of Quebec and in the western provinces. Fortunately we're now in a period of relative calm when that prospect appears off the table aside from occasional opportunistic inflammatory political rhetoric; but from our perspective the divisive forces in American society appear intense enough that it seems like a possibility. In your experience is it contemplated much?

[Pattern Ghost]

I think a certain Canadian author kind of laid that out for us, LL.

 

Bad prose habits aside, shockingly prescient.

[Pariah]

I'm far from an expert. As I've said before, I'm not a political scientist, I'm an actual scientist. But I do know that there are people in this country who genuinely believe that they'd be better off without the other half. Blue State people who think all Republicans are reactionary fascists; Red State people who think that all Democrats are New World Order elitists who have lost touch with reality. In each case, the extremists think they're better off without their opposites. There are a lot of people where I live who would be fine to see California go their own way. I've heard similar sentiments from people in other places regarding Texas and Florida.

 

Where I grew up, we had a word for people like this: idiots. Because only an idiot, in my humble opinion, thinks that America would be a better country without diversity of opinion. We've already got countries without diversity of opinion. North Korea. Iran. Saudi Arabia. I don't want our country to be like that. And oh, by the way, the whole "We don't like where the country is going so we're going to split off and form our own country" thing has already been tried. It failed. Spectacularly. And only an idiot, in my humble opinion, would think it would work better now than it did 160 years ago.

 

But as I said, I'm hardly an expert.

[Pariah]

Someone I knew in high school posted a thing on the Book of Face today that said something like this: "They should look at forgiving medical debt for cancer instead of student loans. Education is a choice, cancer is not."

 

It made me want to go back and start working on that app that would deliver a high voltage charge through somebody's phone.