RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Biden should have tried to make more Senators by adding more states, eg Puerto Rico, Washington DC. Maybe split California.

And expand the Supreme Court (let's not kid ourselves, if the court had had a massive Liberal bias Trump or Bush would have expanded its numbers).

Agreed that making DC and Puerto Rico states should have been a priority, but there was never a hope of that the minute the election results came in and it became clear that the Democrats and Biden had fucked it by offering no hope for the future other than being NotTrump. They only scraped the Georgia runoff (solely because of Trump's post-election behaviour) to get 50:50 and that left them vulnerable to the likes of Manchin who enjoys being a kingmaker way more than he enjoys getting things done. 53+ senate seats and they could have undercut the filibuster and actually get shit done. As things stand, they can barely pass a budget without fringe Democrat senators chirping up about this or that being unacceptable.

Puja

Can anyone explain why abortion rights were never made federal law? Roe vs Wade is of course a Supreme Court ruling which was always vulnerable to this. Could the federal government have legislated for this or is it not something the federal government could impose on states?

Sandydragon wrote:Can anyone explain why abortion rights were never made federal law? Roe vs Wade is of course a Supreme Court ruling which was always vulnerable to this. Could the federal government have legislated for this or is it not something the federal government could impose on states?

I believe it was never a priority as it was such a settled issue. It was considered to be not worthwhile doing as there was no real risk - the Supreme Court very rarely goes back on itself like this and no-one much cared about abortion in the electorate until activists started gathering support in the 90s and making it a political issue.

By the time it became a real goal of the extreme right, there'd been the polarisation that happened from Bush, then Obama daring to be a black president, to the extent that neither side would work with each other anymore and so no-one could get the 60 senate votes even if they wanted to.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Can anyone explain why abortion rights were never made federal law? Roe vs Wade is of course a Supreme Court ruling which was always vulnerable to this. Could the federal government have legislated for this or is it not something the federal government could impose on states?

I believe it was never a priority as it was such a settled issue. It was considered to be not worthwhile doing as there was no real risk - the Supreme Court very rarely goes back on itself like this and no-one much cared about abortion in the electorate until activists started gathering support in the 90s and making it a political issue.

By the time it became a real goal of the extreme right, there'd been the polarisation that happened from Bush, then Obama daring to be a black president, to the extent that neither side would work with each other anymore and so no-one could get the 60 senate votes even if they wanted to.

Puja

Makes sense. Although if someone sensible had made the right to abortion part of the constitution then it would have made the situation more secure, but easy to judge in hindsight I guess.

Fuck these cynical weekend Christians. If there were a Nobel prize for being a cunt, it would be dominated by cretins South of the Mason-Dixon Line. Every other category pertaining to the laws of nature would be out of the six-fingered reach of these self-entitled thunder cunts.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Can anyone explain why abortion rights were never made federal law? Roe vs Wade is of course a Supreme Court ruling which was always vulnerable to this. Could the federal government have legislated for this or is it not something the federal government could impose on states?

I believe it was never a priority as it was such a settled issue. It was considered to be not worthwhile doing as there was no real risk - the Supreme Court very rarely goes back on itself like this and no-one much cared about abortion in the electorate until activists started gathering support in the 90s and making it a political issue.

By the time it became a real goal of the extreme right, there'd been the polarisation that happened from Bush, then Obama daring to be a black president, to the extent that neither side would work with each other anymore and so no-one could get the 60 senate votes even if they wanted to.

Puja

Makes sense. Although if someone sensible had made the right to abortion part of the constitution then it would have made the situation more secure, but easy to judge in hindsight I guess.

At the time the constitution was put together, they'd only just got the concept of equality of free men. Women's rights were some way over the intellectual horizon.

Perhaps we should be grateful the constitution doesn't contain the right to beat your wife, to own slaves, or to assemble a lynch mob.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I believe it was never a priority as it was such a settled issue. It was considered to be not worthwhile doing as there was no real risk - the Supreme Court very rarely goes back on itself like this and no-one much cared about abortion in the electorate until activists started gathering support in the 90s and making it a political issue.

By the time it became a real goal of the extreme right, there'd been the polarisation that happened from Bush, then Obama daring to be a black president, to the extent that neither side would work with each other anymore and so no-one could get the 60 senate votes even if they wanted to.

Puja

Makes sense. Although if someone sensible had made the right to abortion part of the constitution then it would have made the situation more secure, but easy to judge in hindsight I guess.

At the time the constitution was put together, they'd only just got the concept of equality of free men. Women's rights were some way over the intellectual horizon.

Perhaps we should be grateful the constitution doesn't contain the right to beat your wife, to own slaves, or to assemble a lynch mob.

I'm quite surprised it doesn't, although I was thinking more of an amendment rather than an original part.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Makes sense. Although if someone sensible had made the right to abortion part of the constitution then it would have made the situation more secure, but easy to judge in hindsight I guess.

At the time the constitution was put together, they'd only just got the concept of equality of free men. Women's rights were some way over the intellectual horizon.

Perhaps we should be grateful the constitution doesn't contain the right to beat your wife, to own slaves, or to assemble a lynch mob.

I'm quite surprised it doesn't, although I was thinking more of an amendment rather than an original part.

Fair point.

... although (after a quick google) the requirements to make an amendment are beyond the wildest dreams of any pro-choicer:
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Yeah, that would have been well out of reach.

Apparently Obama missed the perfect chance to fix Roe vs Wade in statute, and other vital things in his first 2 years:

When Obama took office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In the states, Democrats controlled more legislatures than Republicans did; more states had a Democratic trifecta (Democratic governors plus both state legislative bodies) than a Republican one. There was a brief moment here to get a lot done in the name of both democracy and women’s rights: get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College; codify Roe; rescind the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid dollars from funding abortions for poor women, and the Helms Amendment, which bars US funding from paying for abortions for women overseas. Advocates asked the Obama administration to do all of that; they did none.

If there is one moment that portended all of what we’re seeing today, it was Bush v. Gore in 2001. Democrats had a chance to correct it. They had a base that was livid about what had happened, and a country primed to accept a “one person, one vote” rule for elections. And despite a huge win in 2008, they did absolutely nothing to prevent such an undemocratic result from happening again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... roe-v-wade

Obviously he had his hands full with the Credit Crunch and Obamacare (if I recall correctly), but missing the chance to get rid of the Electoral College was catastrophic.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Apparently Obama missed the perfect chance to fix Roe vs Wade in statute, and other vital things in his first 2 years:

When Obama took office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In the states, Democrats controlled more legislatures than Republicans did; more states had a Democratic trifecta (Democratic governors plus both state legislative bodies) than a Republican one. There was a brief moment here to get a lot done in the name of both democracy and women’s rights: get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College; codify Roe; rescind the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid dollars from funding abortions for poor women, and the Helms Amendment, which bars US funding from paying for abortions for women overseas. Advocates asked the Obama administration to do all of that; they did none.

If there is one moment that portended all of what we’re seeing today, it was Bush v. Gore in 2001. Democrats had a chance to correct it. They had a base that was livid about what had happened, and a country primed to accept a “one person, one vote” rule for elections. And despite a huge win in 2008, they did absolutely nothing to prevent such an undemocratic result from happening again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... roe-v-wade

Obviously he had his hands full with the Credit Crunch and Obamacare (if I recall correctly), but missing the chance to get rid of the Electoral College was catastrophic.

Yeah, Obama used all of his political power attempting to fix the American healthcare system (I think I read somewhere that he only had 42 days available when he had a supermajority (enough to pass even with a filibuster) with various senators being off sick, etc). Which was laudable and has no doubt made a huge difference to the American quality of life, but in hindsight wasn't the best use of it. If he had gone hard on the electoral system - removing the electoral college, making DC and Puerto Rico states, he would've earned himself lasting enmity and would've faced accusations of "It's not fair, he's using power to tilt future elections toward the Democrats!", but he would have levelled the playing field quite substatially and eased the path, not only to his own re-election, but to future progressive changes. There might not have been Obamacare in 2008, but there wouldn't've been a President Trump in 2016 through the electoral college, so swings and roundabouts.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing though - many would've regarded such actions as "playing dirty" back then, with no idea of the amount of dirtiness that Republicans would be willing to stoop to in order to keep power.

Puja

If you had asked his supporters what was more important though, they would have gone for Obamacare. Its a balance and I do agree with you both that in hindsight (wonderful thing) he went for the wrong option, but I also wonder how many of his Democrat congressmen and women and senators would have supported major constitutional change if he didn't have it as an election manifesto item?

Dunno, but a feasible opportunity missed.

Sandydragon wrote:If you had asked his supporters what was more important though, they would have gone for Obamacare. Its a balance and I do agree with you both that in hindsight (wonderful thing) he went for the wrong option, but I also wonder how many of his Democrat congressmen and women and senators would have supported major constitutional change if he didn't have it as an election manifesto item?

Dunno, but a feasible opportunity missed.

They were terrified of motivating a mob. All this current lot learned their dirt from the Tea Party nutters. They managed to stop a legit recount in Miami in the 2000 general election by mobbing the polling station and physically preventing workers from doing their job (thanks Roger Stone). Can you imagine the reaction if a Black man attempted to redraw the electoral college, which is itself a direct result of appeasement of the Confederacy at the end of the Civl war? It's a dangerous fucking landscape out there. I agree though, some young shit kickers need to prioritise fixing this system that holds the country hostage to a handful of crackers that want a theocracy/fuedal system.

morepork wrote:I agree though, some young shit kickers need to prioritise fixing this system that holds the country hostage to a handful of crackers that want a theocracy/fuedal system.

I think the word you're looking for is "Christofascists"

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:If you had asked his supporters what was more important though, they would have gone for Obamacare. Its a balance and I do agree with you both that in hindsight (wonderful thing) he went for the wrong option, but I also wonder how many of his Democrat congressmen and women and senators would have supported major constitutional change if he didn't have it as an election manifesto item?

Dunno, but a feasible opportunity missed.

They were terrified of motivating a mob. All this current lot learned their dirt from the Tea Party nutters. They managed to stop a legit recount in Miami in the 2000 general election by mobbing the polling station and physically preventing workers from doing their job (thanks Roger Stone). Can you imagine the reaction if a Black man attempted to redraw the electoral college, which is itself a direct result of appeasement of the Confederacy at the end of the Civl war? It's a dangerous fucking landscape out there. I agree though, some young shit kickers need to prioritise fixing this system that holds the country hostage to a handful of crackers that want a theocracy/fuedal system.

Obamacare raised enough issues so thats a fair point.

Interesting, not remotely surprising



Sent from my CPH2195 using Tapatalk

You can’t put a value on freedom.

If anyone needs a good news story, Alex Jones (right wing nutter conspiracy theorist dickhole) is being sued for defamation by the parents of some of the children murdered in the Sandy Hook shooting, because Jones spent years using his radio show to claim that Sandy Hook was a hoax, never happened, the children weren't real, and the parents were paid "crisis actors". He is one of the worst people on the planet and has been dicking his way through his trial until this happened: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 37543.html

https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fb ... n=scwspmo1

His lawyers screwed up and accidentally sent a copy of his phone, including 2 years of text messages, to the prosecution lawyer. The look on his face when it's explained to him is excellent (especially since the prosecution lawyer draws the explanation out slowly with malicious (and justifiable) glee).

That copy of his phone is now being subpoenaed by the January 6th committee as well. Should be fun to see what they get out of it.

Puja

That cunt is one of the worst of the worst.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... side-video

Video shows train hitting Colorado police car with person handcuffed inside

Yareni Rios-Gonzales hospitalized after officers fail to pull her from car they had parked on tracks
...
ARTICLE CONTINUES

I am NOT posting the video itself here

Wasn’t sure where to put this but this is quite the thread

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 2:57 pm Wasn’t sure where to put this but this is quite the thread

that is massive, not just for china

I am cautiously optimistic about the American election results so far. Admittedly, "Didn't elect quite enough fascists that have openly boasted they will rig all forthcoming elections, to completely and irrevocably ruin the democratic process, but only enough that it's still a massive problem," is a very low bar for success, but it's the one that they appear to be getting over despite predictions that they wouldn't, so kudos to the Yanks.

Exit polls suggest it's the kids wot did it - much larger than expected turnout of 20-30s quashing the red wave.

Puja