SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Gestopft]

Abortion rights "should" have been codified, but they weren't. Protect what you have. Stop going pie-in-the-sky like so much of the left does. Where they won't accept gradual progress, they need rapid, radical progress RIGHT NOW or they won't be happy. That's contributing to this country going into the shitter.

Can't agree with this, because there are very few, if any, "pie in the sky" people actually in Congress.

Edit: Yes I agree abortion rights should have been codified. I don't think "pie in the sky" is anywhere NEAR a problem from an institutional standpoint with the Dems.

- - - Updated - - -

Look at all the side effects of the new laws being passed by each state.

Pray you do not get breast cancer or need hormones in certain states, because you're fucked.

Holy cow; I know a children's oncologist in Missouri; I'll have to ask her how this will affect children that have...uh...actually been born

[DarkTZeratul]

I was trying to give the idiots the benefit of the doubt even though RBG was serving from the hospital for a long time. I felt they deserved at least a little credit for being ignorant of the 2 seats that needed filling imminently.

Honestly, I think Justice Kennedy's retirement was a much bigger surprise than RBG's death. You may not remember, but that happened a full year into Trump's presidency. It was hardly imminent in 2016.

[Specialka]

The point you make about getting older and becoming more conservative is a myth.

Just the current crop of boomers are awful.

Nah, it is not that a myth. It is a trend quite easily observable. It happens in most election, and the same was right before the "boomer generation".

[VMSmith]

I feel it's worth pointing out that the Democratic leadership vocally endorsed and supported an anti-choice candidate in Texas against a pro-choice challenger, who ended up being narrowly defeated by the "Democrat" who was in favor of overturning RvW.

But keep blaming Bernie supporters, it's totally not the Democratic Party not really giving a shit about abortion rights other than as a fundraiser.

[Flarelaine]

Oh, I know who he is, I have a good memory and typically remember all the absolute shitters that exist on this forum.

I always marvel at regulars who don't.

[Flarelaine]

I REALLY hope that they find something on Manchin that points to illegal levels of corruption over this and he gets his ass nailed to the wall.

And then you'd get someone in his seat who is not even pretending to be a Democrat.

[Shadowferal]

And then you'd get someone in his seat who is not even pretending to be a Democrat.

That's a double edge. And yea, it cuts worse the other way. But the more honest edge may suck harder but...damn.

[david0925]

snip

It's not beyond lazy. It's identifying a problem that can directly be solved by the voters, for issues that will directly affect the voters. The Conservatives, whom a lot of liberals deem as "stupid", actually see the bigger picture here. Do they know or care that they are voting their own interest in a lot of areas? No, they don't. But as long as Republicans talk about Bible, Guns, and pro-life, they get their votes to put SC judges to make sure these things get done, and so far they got at least one of these things done.

Some of us seem to focus on 2016 because it is the year that had the biggest impact as far as SC goes, but pro-liberal people either don't know, or don't care (I will voter blame every single election on people that don't go out; but more damage is done in certain years than others, and that's exactly what 2016 was). If they don't get their ideal candidate they give you the finger by staying home, which is basically half a vote for the opposite party. Yes, you definitely voiced your opinion that you don't like the Democratic candidate; you showed them. What did you get out of it? Did any of Republican policy in 2016-2020 benefit you more than Democrat's counterpart, while they are doing actual harm elsewhere.

People had a chance here to pick between Mcdonalds and poison, and the entire population have to eat one of them. You don't get to walk out and go to a different store. They choose to abstain because their favorite organic keto vegan carnivore diet wasn't selected over Mcdonalds. Well, is poison better now?

I sincerely hope those that abstained aren't part of the LGBTQ group because you are about to be directly affected next, and you only have yourself to blame for it.

[Katchii]

"Pro life" btw

LOL!

Anyone who unironically calls themselves Pro-Life while supporting these policies and all the other ones that prevent or outright deny services to people in need, need to lose their job, their money, their property and their rich family (no one die, just get cut off) and end up in the same situations as the ones their affecting.

These people need to experience the hell they're supporting creating.

The ones who HAVE been there and understand and STILL support those policies, especially the ones in power? I can't say it here, so I'll just say make sure they can't spread their bullshit or do any more damage EVER again.

[VMSmith]

The reality is that they absolutely deserve some of the blame, depending on how they behaved. No getting away from that fact.

The reality is that they deserve no "blame", at all. How do you blame the voter for the candidate failing to appeal to them? That's the candidate's singular job. You are supposed to choose the candidate that will appeal to enough people to win the vote.

The Democratic party choose poorly in Clinton and then Clinton, herself, performed poorly in her choices on how to campaign. It's no one's "fault" but their own that they lost. She was never owed a single vote from anyone.

If Hillary Clinton failed to appeal to someone who otherwise preferred Bernie Sanders, that is not on the person who preferred Bernie Sanders. The enemy of the enemy is not necessarily my friend, you dig? Why do you folk not recognize the reality that some people, specifically some of those who preferred Sanders, might have looked at Clinton and Trump and honestly preferred Trump?

The reality is that the Democratic Party, and Hillary Clinton, do not support the policies that Bernie Sanders supporters wish to see enacted. So why would those supporters be required to vote for her? Because you think she's "not as bad"? Well, that's your opinion.

But, rather than recognize that you need to reach out to these voters on the issues that matter to them, there's this contingent of Clinton supporters that would rather browbeat and shame people for not giving her what they believe she deserved. Democrats won't change their policies to appeal to these people, only hoping that if they scream at them enough about how awful they were for not bending the knee to Clinton that maybe that'll get them to come around. Baffling.

[DarkTZeratul]

The Democratic party choose poorly in Clinton and then Clinton, herself, performed poorly in her choices on how to campaign. It's no one's "fault" but their own that they lost. She was never owed a single vote from anyone.

This is an intentionally dishonest strawman. The only people I've ever heard frame it in terms of Clinton "deserving" or being "owed" votes were the people who refused to vote for her out of misplaced idealism.

Here's the thing: elections are, in the end, not about getting exactly the candidate you want. Once all the primaries have concluded and the nominations are set, the election is about choosing the best of the available options. "None of the above" is not a valid choice. Refusing to vote does not "punish" the party, or "show them" a damn thing, except that you are an unreliable voter at best and they shouldn't waste their time pandering to you.

Why do you folk not recognize the reality that some people, specifically some of those who preferred Sanders, might have looked at Clinton and Trump and honestly preferred Trump?

Because on literally every metric that Sanders' supporters vocally lambasted her for, Trump was even worse. I cannot fathom how anyone who genuinely desired Sanders' progressive policies could look at Trump and say "yes, the narcissistic, misogynistic, emotionally unstable, warmongering, spiteful, greedy, racist, asshole television host who is the literal embodiment of all the worst traits of a corporate asshole businessman would benefit progressives more than a bog-standard career politician."

[Nurasu]

Why do you folk not recognize the reality that some people, specifically some of those who preferred Sanders, might have looked at Clinton and Trump and honestly preferred Trump?.

I highly doubt there was anyone who was going to vote for Bernie who preferred Trump. There were many of them who said "burn it down then" when they didn't get their way. That in no way means Trump was a good candidate for them.

[Glorious Leader]

This is the major difference in the parties, really. Republicans are effectively a hivemind, imo; they all want the same thing, so they have a unified approach to getting what they want. Whereas Democrats are the definitely of a "big tent" party, in that they have members that, generally, have a very wide range of different opinions on things. So their messaging tends to not be consistent.

This is only partially true. Remember their were never trumpers. Their is disagreement within the republican party. The key difference is that mitch mconnel is an effective leader and for all those differences when it comes time to exercise power the Republicans move in lock stop despite differences.

[Gestopft]

Because on literally every metric that Sanders' supporters vocally lambasted her for, Trump was even worse. I cannot fathom how anyone who genuinely desired Sanders' progressive policies could look at Trump and say "yes, the narcissistic, misogynistic, emotionally unstable, warmongering, spiteful, greedy, racist, asshole television host who is the literal embodiment of all the worst traits of a corporate asshole businessman would benefit progressives more than a bog-standard career politician."

Which is why it should be noted that after the 2016 primary, Sanders voters were more likely to vote for Clinton than Clinton's voters in the 2008 primary were to vote for Obama- at least those that voted. Not having Sanders as the nominee may have turned some voters off, but the ones that did vote massively went for Clinton.

[RadasNoir]

Why do you folk not recognize the reality that some people, specifically some of those who preferred Sanders, might have looked at Clinton and Trump and honestly preferred Trump?

Anyone who was planning to vote for Sanders, but voted for Trump instead, was either acting like a petulant child or is a straight-up moron. Sanders and Trump have even less in common than Sanders and Clinton.

Nobody was asking you to kneel and worship Clinton, or whatever ridiculous narrative you've concocted. We just wanted people to recognize and pick the lesser evil. Again, the recent Supreme Court ruling is proof of why that was so important.

But I'm sure the women and other minorities that are going to suffer as a result of the conservative-stuffed Supreme Court will take some small comfort in the fact that ya'll stuck to your ideals and didn't bend the knee.

[OnlineSamantha]

It's appalling that this was allowed to happen, and make no mistake, it was allowed to happen. Obama campaigned in part in 2008 on codifying Roe v Wade into law, but when it came down to it, he was too much of a piss-ant to do it. The Republicans started campaigning to overturn Roe before the decision was even handed down 50 years ago, and the Democrat Establishment absolutely allowed it to happen, only caring about it in the sense of fundraising.

The reality of the situation is that the Democrats as a whole deserve way more blame than either Bernie Bros or Clinton as a candidate. They decided to do nothing, they had plenty of opportunity to. And if you say, "Well they never had the supermajority that they would need" or whatever, that has never stopped the Republicans because they can effectively whip people to vote their way. That power just does not exist within the Democratic Party, apparently. What an absolute shitshow the United States is currently, and has been for a long time now.

[Ivanstone]

Sanders and Trump have even less in common than Sanders and Clinton.

Both are cantankerous old white dudes who like to shout. That’s the only part that matters.

Having said that, I’m still 95% sure that the Bernie Bros were just concern trolls who were always going to vote for Trump regardless of what they say.

[OnlineSamantha]

This is an intentionally dishonest strawman. The only people I've ever heard frame it in terms of Clinton "deserving" or being "owed" votes were the people who refused to vote for her out of misplaced idealism.

I cannot tell if you truly don't remember or just wish to ignore it, but there were many liberals that cried "It's her turn!" when things got adversarial. Yes, that is saying she was owed or deserved the nomination and, later, the win.

[Ivanstone]

It's appalling that this was allowed to happen, and make no mistake, it was allowed to happen. Obama campaigned in part in 2008 on codifying Roe v Wade into law, but when it came down to it, he was too much of a piss-ant to do it.

Or his 60 senator supermajority in the Senate had multiple Manchin clones who were going to torpedo Obamacare because some provisions might have been used for abortions.

[OnlineSamantha]

Or his 60 senator supermajority in the Senate had multiple Manchin clones who were going to torpedo Obamacare because some provisions might have been used for abortions.

There's literally video footage of Obama saying it was no longer his highest priority as soon as he got in office. And I do not care about Manchin clones. That is what a fucking house whip is for, whipping your party into line to get the votes necessary. Politics is not just campaigning, a large part is backroom deals and doing what is necessary to get an agenda through. An agenda that he campaigned on and got votes on.