The Biden Presidency - 2020

[GrantDawg]

I bill passed through a GOP lead committee yesterday in Louisiana that would allow charging abortion patience with homicide. They are going all in on attacking women.

[cuervo72]

Caught a little of I think it must have been CNN the other night. They had on Wendy Davis and Mia Love. It was...weird. Love sounded mostly like a pro-choicer, but stood by the verdict. When it was posed what happens to the women who get abortions -- do you charge them? Put them in jail? It's like she shut down for a bit. She said no, but it's like she realized that the answer was going to be yes, and this hadn't really occurred to her until just then. Like she's been arguing for something this whole time and now realizes "wait, this isn't at all what I was arguing for." It was just weird.

[cuervo72]

Ah, here it is. It really doesn't sound like she is...well, I'm not sure where she is.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/.../ac360-videos/

[bronconick]

That's someone who is just realizing that their dog caught the car.

[larrymcg421]

I mean, under the theory that life begins at conception, why wouldn't that be the result? I don't feel that way, but if someone truly believes that, then how could you argue that a woman seeking to end a life shouldn't be charged for it? How can you say it is life, but it isn't murder?

I mean, I know why people like Love and others say that, because they realize how harsh that sounds, but then that tells me they recognize aborting a fetus isn't the same as murdering a child. If that's true, the whole argument against Roe really falls apart.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I mean, under the theory that life begins at conception, why wouldn't that be the result? I don't feel that way, but if someone truly believes that, then how could you argue that a woman seeking to end a life shouldn't be charged for it? How can you say it is life, but it isn't murder?

I mean, I know why people like Love and others say that, because they realize how harsh that sounds, but then that tells me they recognize aborting a fetus isn't the same as murdering a child. If that's true, the whole argument against Roe really falls apart.

If people truly believed that abortion was murdering babies they'd do more than stand outside a clinic praying.

[cuervo72]

I mean...do some people think that w/o Roe v Wade, abortions just magically go away? Every pregnant woman just happily births a child?

(Subset. I know there are some who absolutely want to punish women in any way possible for having any sort of sexual agency.)

[CrimsonFox]

I mean yes it is obvious that abortion is preventing a life from being born. However, who cares. There are too many lives in this world anyway, especially stupid ones.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

If people truly believed that abortion was murdering babies they'd do more than stand outside a clinic praying.

Really? I'd say most people on this forum think people are getting murdered and getting away with it. Ignore the abortion issue for now. How many people here don't think that happens with police violence for example? What are they doing about it?

It's exceptionally rare, relative to the population at large, to find people who are willing to even go so far as stand outside a clinic praying, regardless of what they believe is really going on.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's wild looking back and how that changed everything. Court realizing "uhhh we don't actually need to have a legal reason to do stuff".

That idea predates Bush v. Gore by decades. It's not a modern invention.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Really? I'd say most people on this forum think people are getting murdered and getting away with it. Ignore the abortion issue for now. How many people here don't think that happens with police violence for example? What are they doing about it?

I don't think it's close to an apples to apples comparison. In one case you have police, who on rare occasions, use excessive force that results in the murder of an individual with no way of predicting when, where, or how it may happen. In the other you have buildings with as many as 50+ people staying outside during hours of operation knowing that a woman is entering to have her baby murdered.

[JPhillips]

If our democracy weren't so fucking broken we'd be on the verge of instituting some major changes in SCOTUS.

Politico-Morning Consult poll:

Term limits for SCOTUS justices: 66% approve; 21% disapprove. Net approval: +45

Placing an age cap on justices: 64% approve; 22% disapprove. Net approval: +42

Binding justices to a code of ethics: 73% approve; 11% disapprove. Net approval: +62

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 5, 2022

[stevew]

Thats an age cap and term limits on justices that we don't agree with, I presume.

[thesloppy]

I like to imagine everyone under 60 is tired of being governed by fucking ancients, regardless of affiliation.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't think it's close to an apples to apples comparison. In one case you have police, who on rare occasions, use excessive force that results in the murder of an individual with no way of predicting when, where, or how it may happen. In the other you have buildings with as many as 50+ people staying outside during hours of operation knowing that a woman is entering to have her baby murdered.

You can pick almost any other aspect of society if you like. Take the pandemic, in which a great many people who thought the actions of their fellow citizens were killing other fellow citizens generally complained loudly at the most. There are all sorts of deaths that we could prevent and choose not to. In general as a society we simply tolerate horrible things happen because it's simply better than the alternative (revolution/anarchy at best, even assuming we have a better plan for ordering society which we generally don't). We care more about our own prosperity as a culture than we do about the fate of others.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I like to imagine everyone under 60 is tired of being governed by fucking ancients, regardless of affiliation.

The candidates we vote for in president primaries would seem to indicate rather overwhelmingly otherwhise.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

If our democracy weren't so fucking broken we'd be on the verge of instituting some major changes in SCOTUS.

Politico-Morning Consult poll:

Term limits for SCOTUS justices: 66% approve; 21% disapprove. Net approval: +45

Placing an age cap on justices: 64% approve; 22% disapprove. Net approval: +42

Binding justices to a code of ethics: 73% approve; 11% disapprove. Net approval: +62

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 5, 2022

l have to disagree for a couple reasons.

I don't really care about popular opinion when it comes to SCOTUS. They are supposed to be insulated for good reason.

I'm not sure what the age cap is going to do? The three youngest current justices will all be voting to overturn Roe. The oldest is sure to be pretty fiery in dissent.

These are outcome-based reform proposals. If conservatives pushed for this after Obergfell, for example, we'd be rightly ridiculing them.

Anyways the top two require Constitutional Amendments and the third would is there's any punishment for justices who fail to follow it.

[larrymcg421]

dola

I do agree with adding two justices via court packing (which wouldn't require an Amendment) specifically to deal with a structural norms violation with the Garland fiasco.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The candidates we vote for in president primaries would seem to indicate rather overwhelmingly otherwhise.

I would imagine that the people who vote in presidential primaries also skew relatively ancient.

[thesloppy]

FWIW

[Brian Swartz]

Right, younger generations don't vote as much as older ones. Which says they are ok with whoever being in charge.

[thesloppy]

I think that's quite the leap.

[Brian Swartz]

Really? How does 'tired of being governed by fucking ancients' comport with 'can't be bothered to vote when you have a chance to choose who the nominees for who you are governed by of your party are chosen'?

Also worth noting is, eyeballing the chart you cited which is quite useful, the <60 crowd appears to comprise about 65% of Democrats and over 60% of Republicans. In other words, we have predominantly <60 voters choosing >60 candidates to represent them. I would say that demonstrates the opposite of the original assertion.

Ageism does not appear to be in style with regard to choosing our government, at least not yet.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Right, younger generations don't vote as much as older ones. Which says they are ok with whoever being in charge.

They probably don't vote because there is noone they care to vote for. The system is setup so that it is very hard to get candidates who would appeal to younger voters.

[thesloppy]

Faced with a poll saying that Americans overwhelmingly support term and age limits on their governors, you have decided to pivot to an argument that young people not voting is ackshually an indicator of support?


You're a clown, dude.

[Brian Swartz]

Huh? The poll was about Supreme Court Justices that people don't even vote directly for, not governors.

I also didn't argue at all that young people not voting is an indicator of support. It's an indicator of apathy. Who they vote for is the clearest indicator there could possibly be of what they support. Since most of the electorate is younger than the fairly arbitrary age 60 cut off mentioned, it's simply a fact that if people of that age were bothered by the fact that older people represent them, that trend would stop immediately.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They probably don't vote because there is noone they care to vote for. The system is setup so that it is very hard to get candidates who would appeal to younger voters.

Seriously? At the start of the primary cycle when there isn't an incumbent you've got 15-20 presidential candidates. And there's nothing about the system stopping there from being more. You're telling me people are looking at all of them with the wide variety available and saying 'they're all the same, I don't care who wins'? I mean if that's the case it surely can't be true that it's important to them at all to have a younger nominee, because there's a spectrum of ages represented. But it's just absurd on it's face to claim that these people are being disenfranchised in a system where it's actually quite easy to get on the ballot.

[Qwikshot]

I don't think any of this really matters anymore.

We're seeing a cycle of Republicanism from the 80's only more extreme.

There's going to be a lock down on rights for anyone who isn't a white Christian male.

The sheer vindictiveness on minorities, gays and women will be sharp. There will also be a drive to break apart the schools so you know any child with developmental, mental, or physical issues will be shunted to empty rooms.

There will be a drive to privatize schools or force online schooling which will water down any sort of consistent knowledge base. Colleges will become either more selective institutions for the elite or paper mills for jobs that don't exist but will lay heavy debt on loans to their students.

In about 10 years, with the courts owned by extreme conservatism, most towns and cities will be like the South where if you didn't attend church you will be shunned. Or if you are financially capable, you'll hide out in your second or third home while the nation breaks.

It's gonna be fun when you can conceal carry as a minor in schools for protection and challenge any rational discussion with MAGA or White Jesus says No.

With abortion banned, more unwanted kids will enter the system to feed the private prisons. Crime will go up and poor and crime ridden sections of cities will become free-fire zones. Rural and suburban police with there 2nd hand military weaponry will force undesirables into the cities. They won't even redline anymore, just arrest them and dump them.

Industries will be able to skirt any pollution or safety controls to make their shareholders happy. The great resignation will become the greatest depression as many who quit their jobs or retired early will race to take any sort of job to stave off the inflation or debt as their coffers will be drained. Most benefits will be bare minimum.

401ks will collapse with the influx of cryptofunds which in ponzi scheme like ways will amazingly disappear leaving the next few generations bereft of any retirement funds.

A MAGA congress will vote to eliminate Social Security and Trump in his fifth term (drooling and shitting himself constantly) will sign it to law stating it's the best thing for Americans to work until they die for him.

It's gonna be good times folks.

[cuervo72]

Worth noting that in the 50 yrs since Roe, men have become less likely to find a spouse, less likely father kids or live with the kids they father, and less likely to participate in the workforce.https://t.co/OnMzkW80Hh

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) May 6, 2022

Nope, not about control.

(Also, he's getting rightfully torched.)

[GrantDawg]

Man, I wish Qwikshot was exaggerating.

[molson]

I've been really fixated on the stat posted here earlier that 55% of white women voted for Trump. That really applies some weird contrary context to all of all the social media memes my friends are posting about how this is a battle with the lines drawn by gender, that women are showing great restraint not burning everything down. etc. I'm sure the % of white men voting Trump is higher, but, shit, most white women who voted wanted this, or at least didn't mind this outcome relative to other things that were more important to them, and that's hard to wrap my mind around. Maybe this is a war on women, but, there's lots and lots of women who are fighting with or are complicit with that battle.

[Brian Swartz]

I wasn't going to bring that up to just not start a fire, but while women are generally more pro-choice than men (and as recently as 20 years ago that was *not* the case), it isn't by that much. Low 40s % of women are pro-life (Gallup, but there are others). High-teens want abortion illegal in all circumstances.

The numbers have varied some, and the country has definitely moved perceptibly if slowly and not very far in the pro-choice direction, but the consensus for a very long time has been more restrictions than are currently on the books, but stopping short of banning abortion altogether.

Completely anecdotally, the most stridently anti-abortion people I have known personally are women. And also vice-versa of course. For quite self-evident reasons, it's a more polarizing and personal issue for them, but that cuts both ways.

[Ksyrup]

The gender thing makes sense once you factor in religion.

[henry296]

Originally Posted by molson

I've been really fixated on the stat posted here earlier that 55% of white women voted for Trump. That really applies some weird contrary context to all of all the social media memes my friends are posting about how this is a battle with the lines drawn by gender, that women are showing great restraint not burning everything down. etc. I'm sure the % of white men voting Trump is higher, but, shit, most white women who voted wanted this, or at least didn't mind this outcome relative to other things that were more important to them, and that's hard to wrap my mind around. Maybe this is a war on women, but, there's lots and lots of women who are fighting with or are complicit with that battle.

Many of them also believe it won't impact them so it is low impact side effect.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I've been really fixated on the stat posted here earlier that 55% of white women voted for Trump. That really applies some weird contrary context to all of all the social media memes my friends are posting about how this is a battle with the lines drawn by gender, that women are showing great restraint not burning everything down. etc. I'm sure the % of white men voting Trump is higher, but, shit, most white women who voted wanted this, or at least didn't mind this outcome relative to other things that were more important to them, and that's hard to wrap my mind around. Maybe this is a war on women, but, there's lots and lots of women who are fighting with or are complicit with that battle.

I think some felt that abortion was safe. Roe had been in place for so long, it seemed unthinkable to many that it could be overturned. It'll be very interesting to see what the female vote will look like this year and in 2024.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The gender thing makes sense once you factor in religion.

I wonder if religion is a bigger predictor of abortion views than gender. Seems like it would be.

Edit: The angst I see this week about "old white men" is understandable and accurate, but the bigger enemy is probably "Christian men and women of all ages".

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if religion is a bigger predictor of abortion views than gender. Seems like it would be.

Edit: The angst I see this week about "old white men" is understandable and accurate, but the bigger enemy is probably "Christian men and women of all ages".

It is. Like Brian, I know more women that vehemently opposed to abortion than men. Women in general are more religious than men, at least in the Bible belt. Heck, some of the most shockingly misogynistic statements I have ever hear came from white women.

[larrymcg421]

Views about abortion - Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics | Pew Research Center

The first poll on this page would suggest that it's not just which religion, but which denomination as well.

The most pro-choice of religions is Jewish and Buddhist, followed by Hindu and unaffiliated. For Christian denominations, there is a wide divergence. Interestingly, all Christians except for Mainline Protestant are less supportive of abortion rights than Muslims.

[Ksyrup]

I've spent the last 40 years of my life in the south, so when I say "religion," I'm thinking of specific denominations.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I've spent the last 40 years of my life in the south, so when I say "religion," I'm thinking of specific denominations.

Me, too. White evangelicals. I know some conservative Christian non-evangelicals, but they mostly align with evangelicals politically.Most of the Catholic people I know are liberal and pro-choice.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder if religion is a bigger predictor of abortion views than gender. Seems like it would be.

Edit: The angst I see this week about "old white men" is understandable and accurate, but the bigger enemy is probably "Christian men and women of all ages".

I would say what they identify as plays a role, although not their actual beliefs. A lot of people seem to be using religion as a way to excuse beliefs that they should be able to control others. I genuinely doubt it's actually a moral belief when it comes to abortion.

[PilotMan]

Gilead. It's always control. Religion is about control. It's all in the way it's presented and accepted.

[Brian Swartz]

Politics itself is about control. Religion is not some special category while the rest of society doesn't care about control. Tax policy, regulations, zoning laws, all about controlling what people do. Many of them justified of course, but that's still what it's about. You can't have a functional society with a measure of control.

[PilotMan]

I guess the type of control I was referring to wasn't clear enough? I'm not some anarchist or god forbid, libertarian, over here who doesn't believe in the common good and the need for effective public policy. But thanks for shifting the focus if my statement to make it seem benign and completely out of left field, by explaining how control is important in the overall scheme of government and public policy. I hope your harem of women gives you plenty governor.

[Brian Swartz]

I don't see the need for sarcasm here. I also don't see a distinction of significance. Unless you're going to assume religions are inherently malevolent a priori while also assuming that isn't the case in politics, it's very analagous. In both cases there is the promotion of what people think is right and necessary for the common good.

[PilotMan]

I don't see the point in having a conversation with you when you demand to dictate the terms and define topic of the conversation. We're not having a conversation about whether or not policy and politics are about power or whether or not all religion is inherently evil and works at opposite ends to the good of the people or whether or not those are the same things. If you'd like to discuss anything you can start by discussing how the church and certain politicos combine to force their minority doctrine to strip rights, define laws, and cause pain and suffering while completely avoiding any deeper consequences because their religious beliefs said so. Which makes everything right and supposedly takes it out of their hands.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Politics itself is about control. Religion is not some special category while the rest of society doesn't care about control. Tax policy, regulations, zoning laws, all about controlling what people do. Many of them justified of course, but that's still what it's about. You can't have a functional society with a measure of control.

Fair point...it is just that religion is generally stunted growth of the rational.

God man angry that babies being aborted.

The same logic Alito is using that abortion wasn't in the constitution should be used to ban cars because they aren't in there either...

We need to go back to horse and buggies.

I grew up 12 years a Catholic, very devout. I left that bubble and gained a perspective on how the world really was. ( I mean I started getting leery when our Sex Ed was taught by priests who you know shouldn't know the first thing about sex). Of course part of the indoctrination was watching "Silent Scream" in which we got to see a baby aborted (I think that was 6 or 7th grade). Mind you we never saw a video of child birth because "vaginas"!

Religion in the United States (and elsewhere) including Evangelicalism is to keep you stupid and obedient and filling their coffers.

Now that being said, I don't immediately swing for science on every decision but I do apply the critical thinking I've learned from science to influence my decisions. But I did use morality to help raise a daughter that wasn't mine from her birth to finally adopting her at 20 (My confirmation saint name is Joseph - go figure). Religion did teach me wrong from right but science taught me to ask what is good, what is right, how did we get here? I learned that there is more than black and white, most of the world is gray and that chaos is pretty much our standard of living.

Everything we think of as order is just a mirage, no different than a dollar having actual value, we believe it does because everyone else believes. The so called woke are just calling bullshit on a lot of it and that pisses off those that profit off of it. Now I do think some aspects of religion, their followers and the churches/places of faith do try to help but because we're human if we don't identify as the same, then you're an outsider.

My own sense of faith is this: if there is a God, and it created everything, then it also created evil, it created chaos, it created death. We want to say God is good and the light, but like anyone wanted to created a sanitized version of things we excise the bad parts.

(I mean if you believe that God is all-knowing but that he created angels that were obedient to him but then Lucifer revolted and created a hell (did Lucifer create it or was God just building a place for Lucifer to hang out?) or that God created a person named Judas and that he knew he'd betray his only son, was God good with that? If Judas didn't exist would Jesus been crucified?

I know that theologist talk "free will" but isn't that a cop out of believe it or not. The whole paradox can God created a stone that even "he" couldn't lift.

Perhaps that's why waaaaaayyyyy back the founders of this country wanted Religion and Government separated because of the corruption/desecration of the basic principles of this country?

I may have 30 more good years here on Earth, perhaps with age and experience and with raising children, I've become more invested in this country, but it sucks to think how terrible this nation has become under conservative principles and how much worse its going to be.

If people like Ted Cruz, JD Vance and Marjorie Greene are the face of conservatives with Orange Shitgibbon then what do we really got to look forward to here?

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I don't see the point in having a conversation with you when you demand to dictate the terms and define topic of the conversation.

I don't think I'm doing that at all, and I don't think it's a fair reading of what I've said. What do you expect, to just be able to make a blanket statement on a debate forum and not have it be challenged by people who disagree? If you don't want to respond to what I post, feel free not to.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

We're not having a conversation about whether or not policy and politics are about power or whether or not all religion is inherently evil and works at opposite ends to the good of the people or whether or not those are the same things.

You said religion is about control. You act like I'm shoehorning in something irrelevant when I'm simply responding to what you said and stating why I think it's wrong-headed. If that's not the kind of discussion we're on this forum to have, what are we doing here?

If what you want to have is a left-wing securalist echo chamber, feel free to say so and I'll do my best to remember that request and just address my comments to other posters in the future.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

Religion in the United States (and elsewhere) including Evangelicalism is to keep you stupid and obedient and filling their coffers.

There are some groups that do behave this way to be sure. There are others who do not. A major point of emphasis within many denominations in the believer's accountability first and foremost to God, not the church, or the leader of that church, etc. There are all manner of religious groups and it's simply not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella like this.

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

I know that theologist talk "free will" but isn't that a cop out of believe it or not. The whole paradox can God created a stone that even "he" couldn't lift.

It isn't necessarily a cop-out. By definition if you believe in an infinite being who exists beyond time, beyond space, beyond our capability of understanding, there are going to be aspects of that being and reality that you can't fully comprehend.

I'm with you on the concern about what modern conservatism has become and how dangerous it is. I think the Republic is on the verge of greatly accelerating it's final collapse, and we could fall of the cliff as soon as '24. I don't want to live in the kind of nation that would result. It's not at all a foregone conclusion though.

My main point here is simply that people are people. We don't have the right to relegate them to second-class status simply because they are religious, which is exactly what you do if you say their opinions have no place in the public square. People in general - not all of them, but in general - want what's best for society. They just disagree on what that is, and this is not a phenomenon isolated to the religious. There are political demagogues of all stripes who could care less about the facts for completely non-religious reasons. We are all biased due to our worldview, whether it's religious, atheist, agnostic, whatever it may be. Religious people don't have some corner market on being irrational - indeed some are religious precisely because their understanding of logic and science brought them to that point of belief.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Politics itself is about control. Religion is not some special category while the rest of society doesn't care about control. Tax policy, regulations, zoning laws, all about controlling what people do. Many of them justified of course, but that's still what it's about. You can't have a functional society with a measure of control.

The only edit I would have for what you are saying is that politics is about controlling what "those people over there" do. That is what makes it debatable if we currently have a functional society. We are attempting to control more and more of what some do while providing others the freedom to do what they want.

[Flasch186]

Hidden my response so that if you don’t want to read it you don’t have to, it’s your choice. Hopefully that keeps me from being suspended for simply explaining why Brian ends up in these circuitous fruitless and frustrating ‘debates’ in an honest direct way.

Spoiler

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't think I'm doing that at all, and I don't think it's a fair reading of what I've said. What do you expect, to just be able to make a blanket statement on a debate forum and not have it be challenged by people who disagree? If you don't want to respond to what I post, feel free not to.



You said religion is about control. You act like I'm shoehorning in something irrelevant when I'm simply responding to what you said and stating why I think it's wrong-headed. If that's not the kind of discussion we're on this forum to have, what are we doing here?

If what you want to have is a left-wing securalist echo chamber, feel free to say so and I'll do my best to remember that request and just address my comments to other posters in the future.

The problem Brian is as I've pointed out ad nauseum and even been somehow punished for is that you consistently contradict yourself AND then move goal posts, redefine words & statements, reinterpret stats differently depending on what page of a thread you're on, etc etc. It feels like you're doing it om purpose. It's like arguing or debating with smoke and it's impossible to figure out where the gas light is going to light up and on what page. That is what you do and what everyone thinks you do so hopefully you'll go look in the mirror and see that for what it is and perhaps even change so that debating with you doesn't actually feel like the biggest waste of time ever as you move the goalposts not just back and forth from endzone to 10 yard line but from sideline to sideline, into the stands, into the concessions are and then out into the parking lot. That is why its so hard to talk to you.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll do you the same courtesy.

Spoiler

Every time I've asked you - or others - to provide an example of me doing that and why that's the case one of two things have happened. No response at all, or an example has brought up where that's obviously not the case and what has often actually happened is that the people I've been discussing something with are the ones moving the goalposts.

I think you know perfectly well that when you say 'everyone thinks I do' what you describe that just isn't the case, as there are multiple people on these forums who have not only spoken up on my defense in the past but also agreed with me that other people were the ones twisting my words. Of course I'm sure that's not always the case, I'm far from faultless and that includes my posting activities here. But I've repeatedly invited specific criticism. As long as people keep speaking in generalities and don't give me reasonable specifics, there's nothing more I can do. I've examined my own posts as much as I know how to do. I often re-read what I've said two or three times before responding. Not always, but it's often the cases in which I have done that and am as sure as I can be that I've written clearly and fairly that certain individuals choose to disparage my remarks anyway.