SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[D Luniz]

I don't quite understand what is the point of continuously quoting and engaging with tehdang's disingenuous points. It's not like he's actually interested in properly debating each point and often just resort to disregarding confrontation, or deflection.

Is it just to call out his BS so others don't get misguided?

there's people that view silence as agreement, or at the least, the inability to find flaw in the claim
so ya, sort of have to rebutt it

and Id like to add, wasn't there a party screaming about voting being "one person one vote"?

[tehdang]

No, people who say this believe in the 3/5ths compromise but instead of slaves, it's urban residents. Not that they or their representatives see a difference.

Now, now, we can discuss power sharing between small states, wealthy states, and all that without invoking slavery to cut it off at the knees. We don't actually have a United States of America without the creation of a compromise that allowed small states a vote not drowned out by their larger neighbors (same with the sequestering of votes within districts, and the setting of supermajority requirements for certain actions). I believe in a Senate and a House. If whatever people mean by "worth exactly the same" means the Senate of today violates that rule, then I am in disagreement with them. That's the easy red line for me.

I'll refer back to introducing slavery compromises in regards to EC and Senate power sharing the next time someone brings up "post constructively" and "you're just being disingenuous." If you have to rally black enslavement to find your bravery, then your argument is weak indeed. I read this, and mark the slide from shock at somebody actually disagreeing with cubby's posts, with all their presuppositions, to finding refuge in comparing it to slavery.

But what is the fitting response to a mod saying "they or their representatives [don't] see a difference between a 3/5th compromise [and power sharing/federalism]?" Probably "People that think like this cannot be trusted with power, and are no friend to minorities or political civility." I have more to say on that subject, but this will due.

I don't quite understand what is the point of continuously quoting and engaging with tehdang's disingenuous points. It's not like he's actually interested in properly debating each point and often just resort to disregarding confrontation, or deflection.

Is it just to call out his BS so others don't get misguided?

I gather the debaters realize they engage with equal disingenuity. Or greater. Or maybe your conception of a debate appears as, "You stand for voter suppression and against women's rights, how do you plead?" I disagree with most of the core presuppositions underpinning much of the discussion, including the terms of discussion. I will obviously seek to root out the deepest level of disagreement, if I don't accept much that's based on that foundation. So just get used to people not debating in the box you put them in, and frankly be more tolerant of disagreement.

Seriously, look at cubby's post and my response to it,

and actually write a post about our major fault lines and where you fall.

I'm perfectly fine calling you disingenuous for avoiding this, but if threads were just people calling me disingenuous, and me calling them disingenuous, nothing would really get said. It's a facet of the current left/right divide, and *almost* goes without saying (You're a member of the left/right because you (broadly) believe their policy agenda is best for the country, and the other side is ignorant or evil for not already being on your side)

If you love saying "GQP" and love to prattle on about how every election you lose is from voter suppression (kinda hilarious from this side of the aisle, given Georgia's special attention for suppression and the recent and huge primary turnout), then I wouldn't suggest you take special umbrage in hearing you lose because your ideas are being rejected and your attempts to convince people they're the right ideas are falling short. If you think you've convinced enough people already of the rightness of your ways, and demand to enact it through power, get used to losing and lying to yourself about why you lost. And if you're deeply committed against the EC and Congressional power sharing, be prepared to hear that the existing system is the last thing sorta-kinda holding together the 50 states in a national government. If you're unwilling to accept that system, advocate the larger, more urbanized states leave that system, since your side complains so mightily that they're the ones most disserved.

Also, I do advocate if you're really on the "don't engage" bandwagon, that you show that by practicing what you preach. I also practice that policy for certain posters, and would be a massive hypocrite if I didn't promote that for those who feel to me as I feel for them.

[Rozz]

Now, now, we can discuss power sharing between small states, wealthy states, and all that without invoking slavery to cut it off at the knees. We don't actually have a United States of America without the creation of a compromise that allowed small states a vote not drowned out by their larger neighbors (same with the sequestering of votes within districts, and the setting of supermajority requirements for certain actions). I believe in a Senate and a House. If whatever people mean by "worth exactly the same" means the Senate of today violates that rule, then I am in disagreement with them. That's the easy red line for me.

I'll refer back to introducing slavery compromises in regards to EC and Senate power sharing the next time someone brings up "post constructively" and "you're just being disingenuous." If you have to rally black enslavement to find your bravery, then your argument is weak indeed. I read this, and mark the slide from shock at somebody actually disagreeing with cubby's posts, with all their presuppositions, to finding refuge in comparing it to slavery.

But what is the fitting response to a mod saying "they or their representatives [don't] see a difference between a 3/5th compromise [and power sharing/federalism]?" Probably "People that think like this cannot be trusted with power, and are no friend to minorities or political civility." I have more to say on that subject, but this will due.

So I reference an actual argument presented within this country in regards to voting "equivalents" between two groups---because that is exactly the point of what you were doing when you said urban centers were trying to do this to rural populations--to point out how the hypocrisy of the statement since that isn't the reality of how it works---

And all you can do is mention I'm a mod and that I'm not a friend to a group I belong to and that I lack political civility??

"Rozz is a moderator who is pointing out that rural demographics claim they want to protect the weight of their vote in fear of tyranny, when in many states they in fact are doing that exact thing in the present against urban centers that are only able to manage due to their own generated revenue---so she's an enemy to non-whites, the poor, disabled, etc and is unable to discuss things civily"

Do you read your own posts???

[Endus]

I'll refer back to introducing slavery compromises in regards to EC and Senate power sharing the next time someone brings up "post constructively" and "you're just being disingenuous." If you have to rally black enslavement to find your bravery, then your argument is weak indeed. I read this, and mark the slide from shock at somebody actually disagreeing with cubby's posts, with all their presuppositions, to finding refuge in comparing it to slavery.

And yet, you wouldn't be able to make a rational argument for the EC's structure on its own merits, as it stands today. And you don't even try. You always reference that it's been that way all along and that's enough for you.

I gather the debaters realize they engage with equal disingenuity. Or greater.

Wherein you tacitly admit your own bad faith. While projecting the same onto the rest of us, as a demonstration of that bad faith.

Sorry, no. I don't waste my time lying about shit on the Internet. Everything I post I can back up with reasoning and/or evidence, as required by the type of claim, or it's something deliberately silly I'm posting as a joke, or it's a personal anecdote that I don't expect to serve as anything but a personal anecdotal example or counterpoint and not an overarching general truth.

Or maybe your conception of a debate appears as, "You stand for voter suppression and against women's rights, how do you plead?"

As a for-instance, the abortion debate is categorically about women's rights. If you seek to limit/oppose abortion rights, you stand against women's basic human rights. That's not up for debate, it's just a fact pro-lifers don't like admitting to, because it exposes their malice.

That's not a "debate". That's an axiomatic statement that's used as a premise in a debate.

It's a facet of the current left/right divide, and *almost* goes without saying (You're a member of the left/right because you (broadly) believe their policy agenda is best for the country, and the other side is ignorant or evil for not already being on your side)

It's always entertaining when American right-wingers try and make it about their internal political divides even when their critics are not American.

And if you're deeply committed against the EC and Congressional power sharing, be prepared to hear that the existing system is the last thing sorta-kinda holding together the 50 states in a national government. If you're unwilling to accept that system, advocate the larger, more urbanized states leave that system, since your side complains so mightily that they're the ones most disserved.

Are you suggesting rural voters would stage a successful civil war if the EC were amended/abolished?

Because if not, it's ridiculous to argue that the EC is "holding together the 50 States in a national government". There's no legal basis for a State to secede from the Union. Texas v. White (1869). States can't unilaterally secede from the USA, no matter how unhappy they are with the federal government.

- - - Updated - - -

So I reference an actual argument presented within this country in regards to voting "equivalents" between two groups---because that is exactly the point of what you were doing when you said urban centers were trying to do this to rural populations--to point out how the hypocrisy of the statement since that isn't the reality of how it works---

And all you can do is mention I'm a mod and that I'm not a friend to a group I belong to and that I lack political civility??

"Rozz is a moderator who is pointing out that rural demographics claim they want to protect the weight of their vote in fear of tyranny, when in many states they in fact are doing that exact thing in the present against urban centers that are only able to manage due to their own generated revenue---so she's an enemy to non-whites, the poor, disabled, etc and is unable to discuss things civily"

Do you read your own posts???

You're a mod, so therefore, you're wildly biased and a bad person and have doodoo for brains and it's totally unfair you can, like, have opinions and stuff, especially when you don't agree with them (though they'll gloat and brag the moment anyone they don't like earns an infraction for poor conduct).

You've really gotta try to not take it seriously. Speaking as someone who knows.

[uuuhname]

I don't see how it's racist; people of all races are entirely free to move out to less-populated states to increase their personal voting power.

A) that's not what I'm talking about here.

B) even if it was, this argument is steeped in privilege and laziness to think even a plurality of the US population has the means of doing that.

C) again this argument that the US has to be a patchwork of states in order to enshrine white supremacy in some states is uhhhhh.... care to fill in the blank?

- - - Updated - - -

Something is inherently hard to grasp about the diverse interests of Americans in small states and rural areas

lol yes, the diverse politics of rural America where assholes fight each other over who owns this uninhabited spit of a river. on this chunk of who gives a fuck pasture that's used for cattle grazing anyway. maybe the big town conservative is as out of touch with rural America as he claims liberals are.

you know, at the very least the left wants legislation and polices that benefit everyone no matter where they live. it's only conservatives that make it into an argument that boils down to rank misanthropy and greed.

[Endus]

lol yes, the diverse politics of rural America where assholes fight each other over who owns this uninhabited spit of a river. on this chunk of who gives a fuck pasture that's used for cattle grazing anyway.

That kind of crack's a little uncalled-for.

I'm quite possibly one of the only people posting in this thread who's actually worked with rural communities to try and draft legislation to protect and support their interests; one of the projects I led was developing new agri-business policy for a rural county government, and it involved a lot of talking to interest groups and farmers and the like to ensure we both knew what those interests were, and what that population felt they needed in terms of support. Everything from high-end small-batch distilleries producing fine ciders from heritage apple species to multi-million-dollar Mennonite laser-cutting facilities to environmental protections as anything impacting the environment inevitably impacted directly and nigh-immediately on farmers, and so on, off the top of my head. "Rural" doesn't mean "poor" or "ignorant". Your average family farmer's probably a multi-millionaire, between land value and their equipment.

I'm not in any way against having rural voices heard in national politics. I'm just opposed to the idea that their voices have more value than anyone else's. They deserve the same representation and support as any other interest group.

[Rozz]

You're a mod, so therefore, you're wildly biased and a bad person and have doodoo for brains and it's totally unfair you can, like, have opinions and stuff, especially when you don't agree with them (though they'll gloat and brag the moment anyone they don't like earns an infraction for poor conduct).

You've really gotta try to not take it seriously. Speaking as someone who knows.

Oh no, I know. But there is a point to be made when someone is requesting a "politically civil" discussion but avoids that themselves to try and score points as they condemn others for trying to score points.

If he actually wanted a conversation about compromise to re-evaluate how the way voting currently works, then he'd do that instead of inventing hyperbolic what-ifs and getting offended when people respond the same way but closer to the reality of what we see occurring.

[uuuhname]

That kind of crack's a little uncalled-for.

I live here, I see it, sorry I'm not inclined to care about these people's feelings. as I said, I'm more than happy to give them all the benefits a decent society should provide to all of it's citizens. but the politics these people have is not diverse, at all, it swings from far right reactionary to right of center liberal, at best.

"Rural" doesn't mean "poor" or "ignorant". Your average family farmer's probably a multi-millionaire, between land value and their equipment.

exactly, which is why they all have the same reactionary politics.

I'm not in any way against having rural voices heard in national politics. I'm just opposed to the idea that their voices have more value than anyone else's. They deserve the same representation and support as any other interest group.

they certainly could treat the people living in their states better, which they aren't interested in.

[Rozz]

That kind of crack's a little uncalled-for.

I'm quite possibly one of the only people posting in this thread who's actually worked with rural communities to try and draft legislation to protect and support their interests; one of the projects I led was developing new agri-business policy for a rural county government, and it involved a lot of talking to interest groups and farmers and the like to ensure we both knew what those interests were, and what that population felt they needed in terms of support. Everything from high-end small-batch distilleries producing fine ciders from heritage apple species to multi-million-dollar Mennonite laser-cutting facilities to environmental protections as anything impacting the environment inevitably impacted directly and nigh-immediately on farmers, and so on, off the top of my head. "Rural" doesn't mean "poor" or "ignorant". Your average family farmer's probably a multi-millionaire, between land value and their equipment.

I'm not in any way against having rural voices heard in national politics. I'm just opposed to the idea that their voices have more value than anyone else's. They deserve the same representation and support as any other interest group.

I'm generally of the same mind since I do live in a rural area in Missouri. But the area has also become steadily more blue with people leaving the city more. What results is conservatives (more often than not) moving to other locations and advocating for redistricting that limits these changes as much as possible. We all know Dems will do the same (before anyone starts w/ the both sides crap that ignores the point) -- but the issue is the ease of doing so and the repercussions of it. In relevance to the thread, it's about our reproductive freedoms.

I don't like the fact that when it comes to personal rights and liberties, a minority of the population has just as much if not more sway than the rest of us. It's even worse considering that the demographics worse affected by this legislation are also the least likely to vote or contact their representatives (young, poor, etc). When the current system can flippantly hurt millions of people who weren't in favor, yes we should talk about change and compromise. It is still important to protect the voting value of small populations, but when their situation is being used to determine personal rights/freedoms we need to go back to the drawing board. (And I know I said I'm rural but didn't include myself in this, because since my area is blue the republicans don't really consider us a part of their group anymore lol. Rural but not red enough to be part of their plans)

[Ivanstone]

(kinda hilarious from this side of the aisle, given Georgia's special attention for suppression and the recent and huge primary turnout),

And by huge you mean:
It was about 2/3 of Kemps 2018 vote total and 1/3 of the total gubernatorial vote total.
It was about 1/2 Trumps 2020 total and 1/4 of the total Georgia turnout.

Not really impressive? All it shows is the Georgia election system is capable of handling a mediocre amount of people.

[Glorious Leader]

And yet, you wouldn't be able to make a rational argument for the EC's structure on its own merits, as it stands today. And you don't even try. You always reference that it's been that way all along.

Its the same argument from tradition crap that alito wrote. A convenient way to justify and excuse whatever bullshit they like. Roe V Wade was also settled law for 40 years at this point but thats not established for alito or thedang evidently.

[Fugus]

Its the same argument from tradition crap that alito wrote. A convenient way to justify and excuse whatever bullshit they like. Roe V Wade was also settled law for 40 years at this point but thats not established for alito or thedang evidently.

The strange part is “what exactly do they expect to happen from a ruling like this?”

Mexico and Canada have offered to admit Americans to do the procedure, countless other states will gladly do it, countless employers have stated they are willing to pay for the trips, the army and air force are talking about moving soldiers out of these places and you can bet virtually every drug dealer within these states will start stocking up on morning after pills.

Even if they tried to outlaw it at a federal level it would be DOA as the dealers would still do it, Canada and Mexico will still do it and you have a good chance of many states respecting this as much as they do the federal laws on pot.

It’s not going to accomplish anything short of killing the support for their people.

[Kaleredar]

The strange part is “what exactly do they expect to happen from a ruling like this?”

Mexico and Canada have offered to admit Americans to do the procedure, countless other states will gladly do it, countless employers have stated they are willing to pay for the trips, the army and air force are talking about moving soldiers out of these places and you can bet virtually every drug dealer within these states will start stocking up on morning after pills.

Even if they tried to outlaw it at a federal level it would be DOA as the dealers would still do it, Canada and Mexico will still do it and you have a good chance of many states respecting this as much as they do the federal laws on pot.

It’s not going to accomplish anything short of killing the support for their people.

Even if the net reduction in abortions was zero, they wouldn't care. These people operate on Joker politics and legislation: "It's not about the money stopping the abortions/immigrants/vaccinations/gay marriage, it's about sending a message."

[Fugus]

Even if the net reduction in abortions was zero, they wouldn't care. These people operate on Joker politics and legislation: "It's not about the money stopping the abortions/immigrants/vaccinations/gay marriage, it's about sending a message."

Agreed, that’s are the same people who pushed for messed up laws with the exact intention being they are selectively applied to cause suffering of those they don’t like and then complain about them hurting “the wrong people” when they are applied fairly.

[cubby]

Yes, we'll firmly disagree on how to characterize your failure to achieve power. I am aware that this is how you see things.

Committed to not being able to win through the method used to select presidents for the last two hundred years, progressives turn to bemoaning the fact that dense metros can't decide things for the rest of the country.

I have rephrased your actual post in terms that reflect my interpretation of your thinking and its true effects. I've seen enough piss-poor attempts to explain what the other side thinks and why, that y'all need an actual opponent's perspective.

And people like cubby "have been indoctrinated to believe" that it's a United Metros of America, and anything else comprises an argument that "land should have voting rights." Something is inherently hard to grasp about the diverse interests of Americans in small states and rural areas, not to mention suburbs and exurbs, having value to be reflected not just in proportion to their mere population.

Not to say I'm overly piqued by such indoctrination. We have a system of power sharing that is well established and defrays the calls for centralization, however imperfectly enforced. Each fit of "land shouldn't vote" or "your voting laws are voter suppression" and "the Supreme Court doesn't legislate my policies anymore" is a reflection of denied power to people least deserving to wield it. A good system gives its losers the ability to bemoan whatever they believe stands in the way of their will.

Your entire argument is based on land having the right to vote. Let us know when you come up out of your ridiculous reality. The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the EC is because it's the only way the GQP can win presidential elections.

p.s. - those "metro areas" are call people. tell us again why each vote shouldn't count the same?

[Xyonai]

Even if the net reduction in abortions was zero, they wouldn't care. These people operate on Joker politics and legislation: "It's not about the money stopping the abortions/immigrants/vaccinations/gay marriage, it's about sending a message."

The republican platform for the last two decades really hasn't been about solving problems, since solving problems means they have less of a platform to run on, so instead they just go with bullshit.

Economy Experiencing Inflation? Must be Welfare's fault and not corporations pinching and filching as much as they can. Increase in Depression and Suicidal thoughts among young men? Can't be the crushing economy or general poor state of our future, it'd gotta be all them Minorities making the good ol' Cis White Kids ashamed of existing. Job market experiencing cracks? Can't be the ultra wealthy downsizing as much as they can to cut costs, it's the Mexicans' fault (and not the fault of those wealthy people hiring all them mexicans)! Increased violence and shootings? Well it's obviously not the rise of the white nationalism we've been stoking with all this rhetoric, it's obviously a lack of Jesus in our schools and the the lack of Nuclear Families! etc etc...

It's almost surgically precise how well they can take actual, legitimate problems with tangible solutions and B-line the discussion into absolute fucking nonsense instead; because proposing actual solutions would upset their Big Money and Big Fascist overlords.

[tehdang]

So I reference an actual argument presented within this country in regards to voting "equivalents" between two groups---because that is exactly the point of what you were doing when you said urban centers were trying to do this to rural populations--to point out how the hypocrisy of the statement since that isn't the reality of how it works---

And all you can do is mention I'm a mod and that I'm not a friend to a group I belong to and that I lack political civility??

"Rozz is a moderator who is pointing out that rural demographics claim they want to protect the weight of their vote in fear of tyranny, when in many states they in fact are doing that exact thing in the present against urban centers that are only able to manage due to their own generated revenue---so she's an enemy to non-whites, the poor, disabled, etc and is unable to discuss things civily"

Do you read your own posts???

The 3/5th compromise involved representatives from the south wanting to count slaves as population for the purposes of representation, and also denying them citizenship and voting. The anti-slavery position was to not count slaves at all. It's backwards to the current discussion. So, no, people on my side don't believe in the "3/5ths compromise but instead of slaves, it's urban residents." I stand by my post in decrying it as non-constructive and absolutely disingenuous. If you want to talk about existing compromises between small and large states, and federal devolvement, bringing up slavery and 3/5ths marks you as juvenile.

And by huge you mean:
It was about 2/3 of Kemps 2018 vote total and 1/3 of the total gubernatorial vote total.
It was about 1/2 Trumps 2020 total and 1/4 of the total Georgia turnout.

Not really impressive? All it shows is the Georgia election system is capable of handling a mediocre amount of people.

Voter suppression narratives revolved around evil Republicans conspired to hurt early voting. 2018->2022 it's up from 299,347 to 857,401. Huge. 212% more than 2020. Among black voters (Biden claims Republicans were targeting them), its up 102,056 compared to 2018.

One 70-year-old Black retiree, Patsy Reid, told The Post that she was surprised she hadn’t encountered problems when she voted early. “I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any way possible,” Reid said. “To go in there and vote as easily as I did and to be treated with the respect that I knew I deserved as an American citizen — I was really thrown back.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-biden-claims/

Your entire argument is based on land having the right to vote.

Repeating it doesn't make it more persuasive than the first time.

[cubby]

Repeating it doesn't make it more persuasive than the first time.

So you're adding persuasive communication to the litany of things you don't understand? Interesting place to do that. Have you found any talking points on that subject at GQP headquarters. It's ironic that someone like you is literally arguing with Goebbels.

Your entire argument is based on land having rights. While it's certainly the rule of the land right now, it's antiquated, unfair, and still the only way the GQP can win modern presidential races.

Tell us again why some votes should count more than others?

[Rozz]

The 3/5th compromise involved representatives from the south wanting to count slaves as population for the purposes of representation, and also denying them citizenship and voting. The anti-slavery position was to not count slaves at all. It's backwards to the current discussion. So, no, people on my side don't believe in the "3/5ths compromise but instead of slaves, it's urban residents." I stand by my post in decrying it as non-constructive and absolutely disingenuous. If you want to talk about existing compromises between small and large states, and federal devolvement, bringing up slavery and 3/5ths marks you as juvenile.

Voter suppression narratives revolved around evil Republicans conspired to hurt early voting. 2018->2022 it's up from 299,347 to 857,401. Huge. 212% more than 2020. Among black voters (Biden claims Republicans were targeting them), its up 102,056 compared to 2018.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...-biden-claims/

Repeating it doesn't make it more persuasive than the first time.

Tehdang, your entire argument is disingenuous on its face, and instead of trying to defend it in any legitimate way you call me juvenile despite never making much effort to engage in a manner that you request in others.

Consider that. Or ignore everything else I and others posted and continue to claim no one is making the effort.

[uuuhname]

If you want to talk about existing compromises between small and large states, and federal devolvement, bringing up slavery and 3/5ths marks you as juvenile.

you're just butthurt people make the incredibly easy observation that your side does in fact not want to treat people living in urban areas equally to rural voters, because it's obvious why, it benefits you. this isn't some deep, philosophical discussion about latent truth's of the universe, this is about politics that have tangible effects in the world. you, are not capable of participating in that area. because you're a partisan agent who thinks they can gaslight the rest of the forum into thinking you're anything besides a partisan agent.

also really cute how you circle away from arguing that there is no such thing as the united states and now talking about states compromising on the federal level as if you are interested in that in the slightest. hilarious.