SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[tehdang]

Bullshit, if that's all it was she would have just changed to an Independent. She specifically switched to a party that stands for everything that her constituents voted against. She's only being "forced" to follow the Democractic party line if she's not following the party platform in the first place. Those platforms, just like Republicans, have been pretty consistent over the years.

Going back to the "Democrat's overreaching", how much shit does Joe Manchin get called out on a daily basis from his fellow Democrats? Is he a Republican? Nope, still a Democrat. Kirsten Sinema, who took Manchin's antics to a new level, did leave the Democractic Party...to become an Independent, despite bragging about working with Republicans and being bi-partisan. Not Republican, Independent. Cotham could have switched to an Independent AND DELIBERALY CHOSE NOT TO DO SO. That's a scam and the fact that it's allowed is just an example of how broken our system is.

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely. Something happened, and it aint sudden turncoat syndrome.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

This is the Republican party:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...9dbca4fd&ei=55



No exceptions for rape or incest; just that the parents themselves can't sue someone if their child is pregnant and gets an abortion.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

[Taifuu]

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

The accusations levied against them haven't changed and both continue to go about their daily lives.

Regarding her previous history, she could have been a Democrat previously because her parents were, she could have been radicalized by QANON, she could be getting a payout that yet's to come to light, she could be having a crisis of faith; none of that matters. What matters is that, AFTER she was elected, she decided to not just swerve from the platforms she ran on, but actively join those on the other side. That is not an action taken by someone operating in good faith or out of concerns for their constituents. As a reminder, the current Republican party came from a split with the Democrats over racist policies; so there is precedent for this type of behavior.

Idaho is just the first state, they won't be the last. I assume you'll have a different non-answer when more states follow their lead.

[tehdang]

The accusations levied against them haven't changed and both continue to go about their daily lives.

Regarding her previous history, she could have been a Democrat previously because her parents were, she could have been radicalized by QANON, she could be getting a payout that yet's to come to light, she could be having a crisis of faith; none of that matters.

It matters to me, and I'd like to know. I could accept the scam/fake if she were new to politics or had no history in the Democratic party.

She could have been bullied for not swallowing whole everything the Democrats wanted to push in the state.
She could have been pissed off that none of her policy ideas were even getting a hearing in the caucus.
She could've been threatened with getting primaried next election if she didn't support a particular bill or position that she opposed. Maybe she believed even speaking up was enough to have already doomed her political career.

What matters is that, AFTER she was elected, she decided to not just swerve from the platforms she ran on, but actively join those on the other side.

It remains to be seen how many of the platforms she's swerving into. You just showed you knew about Manchin and Sinema, what makes her mentally incapable of being someone the Republicans view in the same way?

That is not an action taken by someone operating in good faith or out of concerns for their constituents. As a reminder, the current Republican party came from a split with the Democrats over racist policies; so there is precedent for this type of behavior.

As a reminder, I already said I was sympathetic to Democrats complaining, provided she switches positions on core policies like abortion legislation. Also as a reminder, the split from Democrats "over racist policies," then and now can also be because she couldn't in good faith carry on representing her constituents with the demands placed on her by her party apparatus. I assume you'd admit to good faith objections if a Republican left the party and declared them too racist to carry on with that affiliation.

Idaho is just the first state, they won't be the last. I assume you'll have a different non-answer when more states follow their lead.

I don't think Idaho will ever be North Carolina, and I don't think North Carolina's 20week ban will go that strict. Trump by 30.7% and Trump by 1.3% shows different people, different priorities, different states. You're just catastrophizing.

[Taifuu]

It matters to me, and I'd like to know. I could accept the scam/fake if she were new to politics or had no history in the Democratic party.

She could have been bullied for not swallowing whole everything the Democrats wanted to push in the state.
She could have been pissed off that none of her policy ideas were even getting a hearing in the caucus.
She could've been threatened with getting primaried next election if she didn't support a particular bill or position that she opposed. Maybe she believed even speaking up was enough to have already doomed her political career.

It remains to be seen how many of the platforms she's swerving into. You just showed you knew about Manchin and Sinema, what makes her mentally incapable of being someone the Republicans view in the same way?

As a reminder, I already said I was sympathetic to Democrats complaining, provided she switches positions on core policies like abortion legislation. Also as a reminder, the split from Democrats "over racist policies," then and now can also be because she couldn't in good faith carry on representing her constituents with the demands placed on her by her party apparatus. I assume you'd admit to good faith objections if a Republican left the party and declared them too racist to carry on with that affiliation.

I don't think Idaho will ever be North Carolina, and I don't think North Carolina's 20week ban will go that strict. Trump by 30.7% and Trump by 1.3% shows different people, different priorities, different states. You're just catastrophizing.

There is no reason to switch opposing ideologies if you do not plan upon voting along those ideologies. Otherwise, it is just a pointless publicity stunt, which is also not good.

Your arguments about Idaho are the exact same arguments that were made about the Texas law that made its way to the Supreme Court and was left in place. Pro-choice has been the popular opinion regarding abortion rights for decades, it doesn't change the fact that the Republican party has been trying to repeal Roe v. Wade all this time. It also doesn't change the fact that, regardless of whether or not it goes through, Republicans WANT it to go through.

And yes, I would point out that if a Republican performed the same stunt I would have the same opinion. Deceiving your voters is wrong regardless of who is doing it.

Thank you acknowledging that this is a problem (pending upon her choices in your opinion at least, we can disagree there).

[PosPosPos]

That's a pretty incredible theory, being an elected democrat for fucking 9 years, and then waking up a few years later and deciding to be a scam. I'm going to call bullshit on this being at all likely. Something happened, and it aint sudden turncoat syndrome.

Manchin and Sinema prove that going independent instead of Republican is no safety from the accusations of traitor and fake Democrats.

As I said in my previous post, the big question is if she changes on abortion legislation. Idaho is not the same state as North Carolina.

Not surprised a conservative like you supports the act of defrauding voters for the sake of consolidating power though.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...Clarence Thomas Has Been Illegally Accepting Luxury Gifts and Private Jet Travel for Decades Per Bombshell ProPublica Report

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge appointed by President Bill Clinton. When she was on the bench, Gertner said, she was so cautious about appearances that she wouldn’t mention her title when making dinner reservations: “It was a question of not wanting to use the office for anything other than what it was intended.”

Virginia Canter, a former government ethics lawyer who served in administrations of both parties, said Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

“When a justice’s lifestyle is being subsidized by the rich and famous, it absolutely corrodes public trust,” said Canter, now at the watchdog group CREW. “Quite frankly, it makes my heart sink.”

-------

I'm sure we're all wearing our "surprised face."

[some guy]

And people wonder why trust in the SCOTUS is eroding.

[Taifuu]

Looking forward to some half-assed condemnation from Roberts as his legacy continues to swirl down the drain.

[Edge-]

Looking forward to some half-assed condemnation from Roberts as his legacy continues to swirl down the drain.

I still hope Roberts wakes up in the dead of night sometimes in a cold sweat, the sound of a toilet flushing through a landline haunting him

[Rasulis]

As far as Democrats are concerned, those extreme anti-abortion politicians are A-ok. All you have to do is look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. It's an 11-pts win for a liberal judge in a swing state where elections were usually decided by 1 to 2 pts margins. Suburban counties that used to be GOP strongholds and voted for Trump in 2020 swung left pretty hard. What changed? Roe vs. Wade overturned in 2022 and GOP politicians went bat shit crazy trying to control women's reproductive right. For whatever reasons, they seem to think that's a winning strategy.

[Edge-]

As far as Democrats are concerned, those extreme anti-abortion politicians are A-ok. All you have to do is look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election. It's an 11-pts win for a liberal judge in a swing state where elections were usually decided by 1 to 2 pts margins. Suburban counties that used to be GOP strongholds and voted for Trump in 2020 swung left pretty hard. What changed? Roe vs. Wade overturned in 2022 and GOP politicians went bat shit crazy trying to control women's reproductive right. For whatever reasons, they seem to think that's a winning strategy.

Because their donors do, and so do the parts of their base that they're physically afraid of. Also many of them are simply extremists that view public disapproval of their extremist positions as an obstacle to be overcome and circumvented rather than a hint that they're wildly out of step with even their own voters.

[Rasulis]

Because their donors do, and so do the parts of their base that they're physically afraid of. Also many of them are simply extremists that view public disapproval of their extremist positions as an obstacle to be overcome and circumvented rather than a hint that they're wildly out of step with even their own voters.

The crazier and nuttier the better for 2024 election. After Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Michigan actually expanded abortion access. Whitmer axed a 1931 anti-abortion law. It can't be resurrected in the future.

[Edge-]

The crazier and nuttier the better for 2024 election. After Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Michigan actually expanded abortion access. Whitmer axed a 1931 anti-abortion law. It can't be resurrected in the future.

I just hope Democrats don't play with fire by helping extremist candidates win in the hopes that it will improve their odds in the general. They did it once before and were lucky enough not to get burned, but I'd rather not tempt lady fortuna.

[Fugus]

I just hope Democrats don't play with fire by helping extremist candidates win in the hopes that it will improve their odds in the general. They did it once before and were lucky enough not to get burned, but I'd rather not tempt lady fortuna.

Actually they did that twice and got burned the first time. It was how we got Trump to begin with.

Remember the Clinton campaign was asking to have Trump elevated because they thought he was the most damaged candidate to run against and gave her the best chance of winning. Then she lost to her own patsy.

They tried that tactic again later and it worked out though. But the first time they tried it helped Trump to win the primaries and then had her losing to him.

[Fugus]

I could be wrong, but I think Edge- was talking about the push to have Trump as the GOP nominee, and it worked out poorly, but I am not super well versed on american political history so it could have been about someone else in a state level or what not.

Not quite, he mentioned not getting burned.

Trump was the first attempt and the DNC and the nation got burned hard for it.

Then, the last election the Democrats were pushing all the hardcore MAGA candidates they could in the primaries for the same reason, because they saw them as damaged and extreme and would run off the voters. The Democrats actually succeeded and got what they wanted with that attempt because Trump had turned those talking points and attitudes so toxic it actually drove turn out against them higher.

[Edge-]

I could be wrong, but I think Edge- was talking about the push to have Trump as the GOP nominee, and it worked out poorly, but I am not super well versed on american political history so it could have been about someone else in a state level or what not.

No, I'm referencing the Democratic Governors group that was throwing their support behind more extremist/fringe candidates the last election. It paid off, but it was a huge risk. Fugus is right in that while it wasn't quite the same kind of concerted effort, this did blow up in Democrats faces in 2016 with Trump.

[Rasulis]

I just hope Democrats don't play with fire by helping extremist candidates win in the hopes that it will improve their odds in the general. They did it once before and were lucky enough not to get burned, but I'd rather not tempt lady fortuna.

Not my preferred tactic. Some interesting numbers. Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016. Biden won them back in 2020. Trump won Wisconsin by 20k votes in 2016. Biden won it by 20k in 2020. Protasiewicz won by 200,000 votes. We saw formerly GOP suburban counties voting for her. She managed to get close in several white working class counties. Which was nuts.

It appears, at least yesterday, Democrats wedge issue - abortion trumps all of GOP wedge issues combined - crime & economy & wokeness.

[Fugus]

Ah, I thought you meant long-term as in yeah trump won but the ship got righted, good to know, albeit I REALLY wish this wasn't an avenue gone down, you are gambling so much on the table for not a huge gain politically.

Apologies @Fugus.

It's fine, you were genuinely talking in good faith with no insults or any of that. No apology needed.

[Edge-]

Not my preferred tactic. Some interesting numbers. Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2016. Biden won them back in 2020. Trump won Wisconsin by 20k votes in 2016. Biden won it by 20k in 2020. Protasiewicz won by 200,000 votes. We saw formerly GOP suburban counties voting for her. She managed to get close in several white working class counties. Which was nuts.

It appears, at least yesterday, Democrats wedge issue - abortion trumps all of GOP wedge issues combined - crime & economy.

Yeah. If Republicans want to keep campaigning on this issue, have at it. It's been fairly disastrous for them overall. I just don't want Democrats egging them on given the risks associated with losing any one of those bets.

And hope that voters see that the Republican position on this issue is largely the same as their positions on a lot of other issues and start wondering why they used to vote for them.

[Rasulis]

Yeah. If Republicans want to keep campaigning on this issue, have at it. It's been fairly disastrous for them overall. I just don't want Democrats egging them on given the risks associated with losing any one of those bets.

And hope that voters see that the Republican position on this issue is largely the same as their positions on a lot of other issues and start wondering why they used to vote for them.

There are other signs of trouble for the GOP during the Wisconsin election. Dan Knodl (R) barely defeated his opponent Jodi Habush Sinykin (D) 50.9% to 49.1% in a special election. That's a heavily gerrymandered district with 83.6% white population.