SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

Yep. Yep, yep, yep...and more yep. And this just one miniscule example of the devastating loss of rights the people of the United States have just recently suffered with Roe falling. But people like @tehdang just wanna own the 'libs, ignorantly flailing about a discussion they can't even comprehend, while their Aunt and Cousin die of imminently treatable diseases. He'll have an excuse for that as well. Not that he'll understand it of course.

And 'dang is just the epitome of the GQP voter/supporter. Their blind faith to a religious based political party is based on hate and anger, instead of caring and hope.

And people like @cubby will take an anonymous screenshot alleging that federally owned VA hospitals are impacted by Missouri laws, whose laws allegedly prevent radiation therapy.

There's at least three reasons why this is likely misinformation, but my question would just be why people are so trusting in anonymous internet stories that don't pass the smell test. Is it because you're ready to believe any story that paints a red state in a negative light? This is how misinformation with no corroboration spreads through the internet, and I hope you're happy with your participation.

[Forogil]

*leans into the mic*
WRONG.

most studies on the subject show political attitudes stay the same across people's lifetimes. so again this idea that people who start off liberal/left and become right wing and conservative as they get older, without any additional context is. still. a. myth.

From your link:

In contrast to previous research, however, we also find support for folk wisdom: on those occasions when political attitudes do shift across the life span, liberals are more likely to become conservatives than conservatives are to become liberals, suggesting that folk wisdom has some empirical basis even as it overstates the degree of change.

As I wrote - most people stay the same, but the ones that change mostly become conservative - since they want it to stay the same.

Obviously the idea that everyone in their 20s is left-leaning and everyone in their 60s is right-leaning is clearly an exaggeration; as everyone realized.

And there's more context - some accumulate wealth during their life. Issues may also change; however, even if some parts of society has become more liberal there hasn't been a corresponding consistent economic shift to the left during the last decades.

For abortion polling there's no consistent change - there was a major pro-choice spike during the 90s, but otherwise it was almost the same in 2019 as in 1976 - but has changed after 2019:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

And in terms of age it has also stayed fairly where 50+ have consistently had both sides about even, and 30-49 year old favoring abortion and that has been fairly constant, dispelling the myth that people don't change their opinions as they age
https://news.gallup.com/poll/246206/...rends-age.aspx
(Clearly abortion-polling changing with age is a bit special.)

Also see the spike during the 1990s - it occurred in both of the younger demographics at the same time, it wasn't that people had changed and kept that opinion as they aged.

But finding that is problematic, as few studies ask the same person for that time, and people generally don't always tell the truth if you ask them if they changed their position.

[Magical Mudcrab]

If you are playing the game properly then your time to vote for your preferred candidate in the American system is during the primaries. If your candidate loses you shrug it off and then vote for your team in the Election proper.

However in saying that, there is an enormous amount of frustration being generated when your guy never wins and never will win. There is a dissonance when taking about disenfranchising voters being bad, and then in the same sentence telling people that they will always just have to suck it up and play harm reduction because their preferred candidates will never make it to the final ballot.

Clinton was the worst candidate at the worst time and will forever serve as an example of the Democratic Establishments hubris.

I don't think there's dissonance there at all. You're free to choose who you want to choose, and you're free to subsequently abstain from voting if your candidate does not make it through the primaries; however, if you choose to do that then you have to accept the consequences of that choice. For instance, choosing not to vote in the 2016 presidential election as a means to protest against Clinton, you are acquiescing to whatever Trump was going to do. There's a good quote from Keith Ellison, which I think encompasses this, which is "Not voting is not a Protest. It is a surrender." In this instance, "protesting" against Clinton was the same as surrendering the White House to Trump, and is partially responsible for women losing their right to an abortion in the United States and will be partially responsible for any other repealed rights granted to any minority group.

[Nymrohd]

I keep defending all the voters who did the same as it wasn’t on them to do it.

It’s calling out all the voters who did that of which I was one.

It’s not me defending the voters that’s derailing anymore than blaming all the voters who didn’t vote for her even if they voted down ballot Democrat elsewhere.

Blaming those who voted for Trump is definitely valid and deserving, blaming because you didn’t vote for a candidate because they ran you off is another.

It's a two party system, you fucked up, learn to live with it.

[Fugus]

There, in bold, is where you want to make it all about you, and derail the topic.

That is where it goes off the rails. You deflect from the point, to try and defend your own personal choices. That's the derail. You're doing it right now.

No, that doesn't apply to just me, that's where you guys keep messing up. The derail isn't me explaining to you why you guys are getting it wrong, its you guys repeatedly bringing up blaming the voters for the consequences when that is the minor end of it with the stuff that preceded it being the the problem.

How many times have you seen people blaming the voters and making half-assed excuses that its because "She wasn't progressive enough" as the reason while ignoring the rest?

But saying that she ran people off didn't apply to just me, it applied to many others.

The derail isn't me pointing the stuff out, it was them repeatedly bringing it up while neglecting the points that were pointed out and placing the majority of the blame on the part that was a vast minority of the problems.

Also why I stopped trying to entertain the derail as much and instead of debating the topic they bring up as much I deferred to how the moderation keeps telling them to quit bringing it up and derailing the thread trying to rehash the election.

[Kronik85]

I don't think there's dissonance there at all. You're free to choose who you want to choose, and you're free to subsequently abstain from voting if your candidate does not make it through the primaries; however, if you choose to do that then you have to accept the consequences of that choice. For instance, choosing not to vote in the 2016 presidential election as a means to protest against Clinton, you are acquiescing to whatever Trump was going to do. There's a good quote from Keith Ellison, which I think encompasses this, which is "Not voting is not a Protest. It is a surrender." In this instance, "protesting" against Clinton was the same as surrendering the White House to Trump, and is partially responsible for women losing their right to an abortion in the United States and will be partially responsible for any other repealed rights granted to any minority group.

Suck my dick or I blow your head off isn't a meaningful choice and it's what leftists have to face every election cycle across the Anglosphere.

Which is why I say Clinton was the worst candidate at the worst time. Fronting a full throated Neo Lib at the time when confidence in Neo Liberalism was collapsing to a group of voters who had spent 50 years sucking dick to protect other groups against their own interests was a bold strategy Cotton, the only defence being that the Dem Establishment was so far behind the zeitgeist that they never realised this was the reality on the ground....which isn't a defence, it's an indictment on their incompetence.

This is all irrelevant anyway. Your literally talking about Bernie voters in swing states in significant enough numbers to change the outcome. You are essentially trying to blame the outcome of an election on >1% of voters which I'd need to see some pretty strong data on.

[Fugus]

It's a two party system, you fucked up, learn to live with it.

Nah, I didn't fuck up in the slightest, that honor goes to Hillary Clinton.

Lets say I had a time machine and could go back.

1) I could go back in time and change my singular vote to Hillary Clinton and reward her bad behavior but not really because she still loses by over 100,000 votes spread across key battleground states. So, this is a nonstarter and wouldn't clean up her mess and wouldn't be my fault but....

2) I could go back in time and convince Clinton to show her voters some respect and don't pull what she did with Debbie Shultz at which point she wouldn't have ran off thousands and thousands of voters just like me and including me. THAT might change the results.

2a) I could also tell her to not pull her crap of telling her voters she wasn't going to do anything for them because "I'm winning" isn't going to end that well for her at which point she has a much better chance of winning than me flipping my vote as this would be her not screwing around and running LOTS of voters off. Or.

3) I could go back further and tell Obama and Clinton not to run the least popular candidate that Russia has already got her grave in that election dug and even if she could possibly win against it her ego ends up digging her grave deeper than she can climb out.

But, at the end of the day, I didn't fuck up. But you are fucking up right now trying to blame the voters for not voting for her instead of her and the DNC for all the stuff that preceded that vote. You personally are going down the logic that ends up with a repeat of 2016 because you couldn't understand how things work and that an individual voter out of thousands who were ran off aren't at fault when the politician themselves did stupid stuff to run them off. And no amount of the half-assed "She wasn't progressive enough" lie that you guys spit will change that.

[Nurasu]

No, that doesn't apply to just me, that's where you guys keep messing up. The derail isn't me explaining to you why you guys are getting it wrong, its you guys repeatedly bringing up blaming the voters for the consequences when that is the minor end of it with the stuff that preceded it being the the problem.

How many times have you seen people blaming the voters and making half-assed excuses that its because "She wasn't progressive enough" as the reason while ignoring the rest?

But saying that she ran people off didn't apply to just me, it applied to many others.

The derail isn't me pointing the stuff out, it was them repeatedly bringing it up while neglecting the points that were pointed out and placing the majority of the blame on the part that was a vast minority of the problems.

Also why I stopped trying to entertain the derail as much and instead of debating the topic they bring up as much I deferred to how the moderation keeps telling them to quit bringing it up and derailing the thread trying to rehash the election.

Biden is the least appealing candidate I have ever voted for in my life. He is objectively worse than Hillary in a lot of important categories, but I don't see you making the same excuses for him about being a bad candidate. The people who wrote in or didn't vote for whatever reason overturned Roe. It's just not that complicated. There is just no logical world where Hillary can "run you off" as a liberal/leftist/moderate where Trump wouldn't "run you off" even more, necessitating a vote for Hillary.

[Fugus]

Biden is the least appealing candidate I have ever voted for in my life. He is objectively worse than Hillary in a lot of important categories, but I don't see you making the same excuses for him about being a bad candidate. The people who wrote in or didn't vote for whatever reason overturned Roe. It's just not that complicated. There is just no logical world where Hillary can "run you off" as a liberal/leftist/moderate where Trump wouldn't "run you off" even more, necessitating a vote for Hillary.

I voted for Biden too, Biden didn't run off voters telling them he won't do anything for them because he was winning, he didn't have his party head step down in disgrace with a massive image of cheating to help him only for him to turn around and snatch them into his campaign on the same day like she did either.

As you just said, it's not that complicated. Not sure why you hold Clinton to a lower standard than you hold Republican politicians on this.

Now, I am not going to go any further on this derail. Got to go AFK anyways and you guys are turning into tehdang with your obsession with blaming the voters instead of the problem.

[unfilteredJW]

But my feeeeeelings were hurt!

[Nurasu]

I voted for Biden too, Biden didn't run off voters telling them he won't do anything for them because he was winning, he didn't have his party head step down in disgrace with a massive image of cheating to help him only for him to turn around and snatch them into his campaign on the same day like she did either.

As you just said, it's not that complicated. Not sure why you hold Clinton to a lower standard than you hold Republican politicians on this.

Now, I am not going to go any further on this derail. Got to go AFK anyways and you guys are turning into tehdang with your obsession with blaming the voters instead of the problem.

He just literally bribed Pete Buttigieg to step out; if only he would have had a fabricated scandal instead.

- - - Updated - - -

Stop asking if she was entitled to your vote.

Start asking if we're entitled to abortion access. If we're entitled to religious freedom. If we're entitled to a clean environment. If we're entitled to privacy in our bedrooms. And if we are, vote for whoever won't fucking take all that away.

[Nymrohd]

Nah, I didn't fuck up in the slightest, that honor goes to Hillary Clinton.

Lets say I had a time machine and could go back.

1) I could go back in time and change my singular vote to Hillary Clinton and reward her bad behavior but not really because she still loses by over 100,000 votes spread across key battleground states. So, this is a nonstarter and wouldn't clean up her mess and wouldn't be my fault but....

2) I could go back in time and convince Clinton to show her voters some respect and don't pull what she did with Debbie Shultz at which point she wouldn't have ran off thousands and thousands of voters just like me and including me. THAT might change the results.

2a) I could also tell her to not pull her crap of telling her voters she wasn't going to do anything for them because "I'm winning" isn't going to end that well for her at which point she has a much better chance of winning than me flipping my vote as this would be her not screwing around and running LOTS of voters off. Or.

3) I could go back further and tell Obama and Clinton not to run the least popular candidate that Russia has already got her grave in that election dug and even if she could possibly win against it her ego ends up digging her grave deeper than she can climb out.

But, at the end of the day, I didn't fuck up. But you are fucking up right now trying to blame the voters for not voting for her instead of her and the DNC for all the stuff that preceded that vote. You personally are going down the logic that ends up with a repeat of 2016 because you couldn't understand how things work and that an individual voter out of thousands who were ran off aren't at fault when the politician themselves did stupid stuff to run them off. And no amount of the half-assed "She wasn't progressive enough" lie that you guys spit will change that.

I said it back in 2015. Stop the GOP from taking this election or you will lose the SCOTUS and women's right. I saw this very specific thing happening seven years ago and now here it is. In a two party system you are voting against someone as much as you vote for someone. And yeah sure, you stuck it to hillary for failing to inspire you. Pat yourself in the back. Enjoy your country going fully conservative. And if you think it is just women's rights . . . I read they already voted to scale back EPA's authority to set carbon targets. I am not there, I don't get to vote in your country but we will all suffer because of you people. But you are a hopeless cause who prefers to complain than vote lunatics out of office. Every person who did not vote got this result exactly as much as everyone who voted GOP. Heck depending on state and county you may have contributed more to the mess than actual voters.

[PACOX]

I don't think it is, tbh. While it goes back further than 2016, that election was a bit of a turning point which lead to a knock-on effect, bringing the US to where it is now. Yes, Democrats can do, and should have done, a whole lot more than they have. Especially when the sum total of preparation over even just the last couple of months is to read a fucking poem. So while they do share quite a lot of blame in all this, some of that blame still falls on people that voted certain ways in 2016, if they bothered to vote at all.

I said people who didn't vote share a portion of the blame. My argument is that their portion is a small fraction of everything else. If someone can say "well the Democrats never codified RvW because SCOTUS had otherwise upheld it", giving the benefit of the doubt to PhDs who know law and politics like the back of their hands, the everyman how decided not to vote because they didnt like either candidate should be able to catch a break for not being able to read the future or understand the broader picture. Its not everyman even sees anything about SCOTUS on the ballot and should assume that SCOTUS would have upheld RvW like people who know far more about politics claim as their reason for sitting on their hands.

Blame the 2016 fence sitter. Make sure you blame those actually in power first, though.

[Nymrohd]

I said people who didn't vote share a portion of the blame. My argument is that their portion is a small fraction of everything else. If someone can say "well the Democrats never codified RvW because SCOTUS had otherwise upheld it", giving the benefit of the doubt to PhDs who know law and politics like the back of their hands, the everyman how decided not to vote because they didnt like either candidate should be able to catch a break for not being able to read the future or understand the broader picture. Its not everyman even sees anything about SCOTUS on the ballot and should assume that SCOTUS would have upheld RvW like people who know far more about politics claim as their reason for sitting on their hands.

Blame the 2016 fence sitter. Make sure you blame those actually in power first, though.

Except you know, people called this happening before those elections. It was not farfetched. Their intentions were never unclear. Just a lot of people thought they'd never do it.
And my understanding is, to codify a law, they'd need a majority in the Senate? When did they last have it?
I knew they'd do it when their candidate for vice president paraded pictures of an opponent on a crosshair, only for that opponent to be shot. And it didn't even make a bleep. The state of the GOP, the level of ruthlessness and casual evil was clear as day back then, well before Trump was in the picture.

[Shadowferal]

You guy gotta get offa de-rail.
Past mistakes notwithstanding, is there ANY question of who NOT to vote for in '24?

[Nymrohd]

You guy gotta get offa de-rail.
Past mistakes notwithstanding, is there ANY question of who NOT to vote for in '24?

I think the point people were making was to actually vote. Who not to vote for apparently is not enough.

[Rasulis]

Google Says It Will Delete Location Data When Users Visit Abortion Clinics

Google said on Friday that it would delete abortion clinic visits from the location history of its users, in the company’s first effort to address how it will handle sensitive data in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

The location data change will take place in the coming weeks, Jen Fitzpatrick, a Google senior vice president, wrote in a blog post. The policy will also apply to trips to fertility clinics, domestic violence shelters, addiction treatment facilities and other sensitive locations.

The Alphabet Workers Union, a group representing more than 800 people who work for Google’s parent company, Alphabet, demanded on Tuesday that the search giant delete any personal data that law enforcement could try to use to prosecute those who are getting abortions.

With Friday’s announcement, while Google will delete some location data, it did not commit to automatically deleting search records about abortions, which may also become sought after. Users must individually opt to delete their search history.

Google has been sued by the state of Texas, accused of continuing to track users even when they use the Chrome web browsers’ supposedly private Incognito Mode — which may further erode confidence that the company will purge all data when people try to browse privately.

Google also made no commitments about changing the way it handles government data requests.

“We remain committed to protecting our users against improper government demands for data, and we will continue to oppose demands that are overly broad or otherwise legally objectionable,” Ms. Fitzpatrick wrote.

The company also said that users will soon be able to more quickly delete multiple menstruation logs stored on Fitbit, a health-tracking company owned by Google, rather than one at a time. The company also reminded users to employ existing settings options on Google to improve their online privacy.

[VMSmith]

Makes it sound like you did go from Bernie to Trump, though. If so, I have to ask; why? How do you reconcile that choice with what is currently happening in the US?

This is what you folk always assume of anyone who doesn't agree that voting for Clinton was the only real choice.

No, I voted for Clinton. And Biden, too. In fact, I finally convinced my wife how important voting was so we both voted for them. I actually brought a non-voter into the game, effectively doubling my vote.

And we've both agreed that we won't be voting this year. Probably not in 2024, either. We have our reasons, which I'm sure you don't care about because every single one of you insists that anyone that isn't pro-Trump must vote for whoever the Democrats spit up or the end of the world is all our fault.

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that people are monolithic blocs that all behave as a hivemind. This entire concept of "If you liked Bernie's policies then you MUST vote Clinton because she's closer in some way to them than Trump" is patently in error. People have a multitude of reasons why they choose what they choose, and just because you think Trump would be worse for a voter who preferred Bernie does not mean that that voter thinks so as well. Clearly, some didn't.

You all keep trying to rob voters of their own agency and demand that they accede to what you think is the correct and proper choice. The Democrats are doing the exact same thing ... how's it working out for you and them?

The Democratic party, and you, need to stop trying to demand that people do what you want and start listening to what those voters actually want and start making an effort to give it to them. That's what Republicans do, and it works. If you want Sanders voters to vote for your candidate when he loses the primary then you have to take those voters' concerns on board in a serious manner. Democrats refuse to do this because, at the heart of it, they also reject Sanders's policies.

[Belize]

Google Says It Will Delete Location Data When Users Visit Abortion Clinics

Maybe Google, should just like... Not harvest all our data in the first place...

[Magical Mudcrab]

Suck my dick or I blow your head off isn't a meaningful choice and it's what leftists have to face every election cycle across the Anglosphere.

Which is why I say Clinton was the worst candidate at the worst time. Fronting a full throated Neo Lib at the time when confidence in Neo Liberalism was collapsing to a group of voters who had spent 50 years sucking dick to protect other groups against their own interests was a bold strategy Cotton, the only defence being that the Dem Establishment was so far behind the zeitgeist that they never realised this was the reality on the ground....which isn't a defence, it's an indictment on their incompetence.

Again, that's great, but if people refused to vote for her or voted without tact and there's now consequences because of that, that is their fault. You cannot just throw everything on the DNC and handwave the actions of the voting public.

This is all irrelevant anyway. Your literally talking about Bernie voters in swing states in significant enough numbers to change the outcome. You are essentially trying to blame the outcome of an election on >1% of voters which I'd need to see some pretty strong data on.

No, this is not the case. The post you initially replied to what in regards to someone's statements about voting or not voting for a candidate and any potential blame for subsequent events. I would refer you back to the start of the reply thread. This was not and is not a holistic examination of the 2016 election, but a condemnation of a flawed perspective. The downfall of the Democrats in the 2016 election was multifaceted, which included the sexist portrayal of Clinton's leadership skills by Trump's campaign and online shills, and the white working class electorate buying into Trump's racism. Moreover, even if we did go into the weeds about the Sanders voters, your over-simplification of "[you] are essentially trying to blame the outcome of an election on >1% of voters" hints at you likely not understanding the issue very well. The problem isn't just Sander's voters in that context, rather it is the campaign run by Sanders and his team that actively attacked Clinton and would go on to be leveraged by Trump's campaign.