US Politics Thread

[mat]

Trump Jnr talking to Jan 6 committee today.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Yep, the overall situation feels like a powder keg. I am aware *most* of these are not unique to the US, so would be interested to hear perspectives from elsewhere, but the current landscape you have:

- 30-40% of the country outwardly trying to gut voting rights and basic human rights to remain in power
- Political instability and corruption, to the point we almost had a fucking coup and the former President has been proven to be an absolute shitbag criminal and still might win again
- Rampant income inequality, at levels not seen in living memory
- Skyrocketing housing costs to the point pretty much anyone under 40 may never be able to afford a home
- Skyrocketing rent as a reaction to this because hey, what is America without unbridled capitalism
- Stagnating wages as the cost of living and inflation reach near record highs
- Education costs that are doubling and tripling every few years, to the point entire generations are saddled with college debt they can never get rid of
- The most expensive healthcare system in the world, where any sort of unexpected illness can basically end you financially
- The impacts of climate change becoming more visible by the day
- Racial tensions not seem in my living memory (I'm in my early thirties), I suppose since the Rodney King riots

What have I missed? A tipping point is coming very soon, and I'm not sure what will happen.

I know it’s getting weird when positions I espouse on here are classed as conservative, yet the exact same text gets me labeled a Radical Socialist amongst the RWNJs with whom I work.

The number of smug cunts who have come out of the woodwork since 1/6, and the level of jingoistic nationalism scares me. And, I’m talking about (mostly) guys who grew up working/middle class. Throw in some military service, and the numbers are off the charts!

I fear for the future of America, because we appear to be sucking all the educated, worldly, thinking people into the cities and suburbs, where the money and jobs are and the RWNJs seem to be hiding in plain sight about 5-10 miles further from town.

They ACT like they’re rugged individualists, but they don’t realize how the system has been set up to subsidize their lives with the taxes of those in the urban centers.

Bring it up and they immediately start telling you about freedom, how you’re a know nothing immigrant who should STFU about what it means to live in America!

These are (often) well educated airline pilots!! Scary!!

 

[SWP's back]

Trump Jnr talking to Jan 6 committee today.

Can’t see that going badly as he’s definitely chilled at the minute.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

But to not find treating a fertilized egg and a 7 month feutus the same, isn't far fetched.

What is clear here is that this is a complex issue. And that was the point I wanted to drive across all along.

I would agree that this is a complex issue, especially in relation to seven month fetuses.




And there are other tricky examples:

Cleft Palate

Reverend Joanna Jepson was born with this birth defect – her top jaw stuck out and her lower jaw hung down into her neck. She was forced to wait until her late teens before she could have the condition corrected. However, although she was bullied at school because of her appearance, she became concerned that abortions were being performed because a cleft palate had been detected, as she did not think that this handicap was serious enough to justify the decision. Additionally, there is no legal definition of “seriously handicapped” – it is left to parents and medical personnel to decide. Rev. Jepson believed that applying the above reasoning to her own situation, “the law is saying there are good reasons why I should not be alive”.

In particular, she challenged one such decision made by two doctors to abort a 28 week old fetus with a cleft palate in 2001. However, the result of the legal challenge was that Jepson’s complaint was not upheld. The Crown Prosecution Service stating that the doctors involved acted in good faith and would not face criminal charges. This might have been because children with a cleft palate sometimes have other birth defects as well.

Down’s Syndrome

As we know, children born with this condition are intellectually disabled. Hearing and vision problems, heart disorders and thyroid problems are also more common in children with this genetic problem. As a consequence, when they grow up, they may find it difficult to leave home and lead independent lives.

Down's syndrome can be detected while the child is still in the womb and most women choose to abort in this situation. However, Down's syndrome is not so crippling as to make life not worth living, and those born with the condition can lead joyful, happy lives. So pro-choice arguments based on anticipated quality of life are more difficult to defend, though once again the impact on the prospective parents has to be taken into account and it may be difficult to place Down syndrome children with adoptive parents.

Thanks for responding in such depth. I now appreciate that your position is more nuanced than I thought it was.
Unfortunately, I cannot keep up the dialogue on here as I am being distracted by personal issues.

But what I want to suggest with these examples is that the view from the inside may be very different from that of the outside. From the outside, aborting a seven month fetus or one with a cleft palate seems morally suspect to say the least. But that is often because we don’t know the full story.

Mental health issues can be just as devastating as physical ones. And so if the prospective mother of an unborn child experiences some form of psychological meltdown late in the pregnancy, which leaves her suicidal, this surely needs to be taken into account.

I will finish by stating that I am with the author and former Slits guitarist Viv Albertine when it comes to the issue of abortion.

In her autobiography, she wrote this:

‘I didn’t regret the abortion [I had] for twenty years. But eventually I did and I still regret it now. I wish I’d kept the baby, whatever the cost.’

However, she then adds:

‘I still defend a woman’s right to choose. To have control over her body and life. That cannot and must not ever be taken away from us.’

The repeal of Roe v. Wade will do precisely that for some women.

It is a decision that also needs setting in a larger context as it has clearly been inspired by the Christian Right.

Malise Ruthven once described this constituency as having had 'a baleful influence on American foreign policy, by tilting it towards the Jewish state, which they eventually aim to obliterate by converting righteous Jews to Christ. They have damaged the education of American children in some places by adding scientific creationism, or its successor ‘intelligent design’ to the curriculum. They inconvenience some women, especially poor women with limited access to travel by making abortion illegal in certain states. On a planetary level, they are selfish, greedy and stupid, damaging the environment by the excessive use of energy and lobbying against environmental controls. What is the point of saving the planet, they argue, if Jesus is arriving tomorrow?'

These days the USA seems to have more in common with countries like Iran and its system of velayat-e faqih, or Saudi Arabia (where witchcraft is a crime). In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court, it is becoming a de facto theocracy, one in which the morally bankrupt and utterly repellent Republican Party appears to have been taken over by the lunatic QAnon quasi-Christian cult and its absurd conspiracy theorising, along with many US Christian congregations.

 

[BlueMoonAcrossThePond]

There's a term I heard for the first time while listening to National Public Radio which for me, (almost) precisely captures the beliefs of the Right: Toxic Individualism.

The Right believes that:
I have the right to arm myself with automatic weapons and to brandish such weapons in public.
I have the right to pollute the air, water and land.
I have the right to refuse to comply with health recommendations/mandates.
I have the right to see that my candidate of choice is elected to office regardless of popular vote.
I have the right to pray in public and especially in school settings regardless of the impact this may have on others.
I have the right to refuse help to those in need. By extension, government should not extend help as doing so impacts me financially.
I have the right to unfettered free speech. Even in cases where speaking is to the detriment of society at large and is completely free of factual content.
And so on.

At odds with toxic individualism is the Right's belief that I do not have the right to abortion - toxic yes, individualistic, no.

 

[Dax777]

I would agree that this is a complex issue, especially in relation to seven month fetuses.




And there are other tricky examples:

Cleft Palate

Reverend Joanna Jepson was born with this birth defect – her top jaw stuck out and her lower jaw hung down into her neck. She was forced to wait until her late teens before she could have the condition corrected. However, although she was bullied at school because of her appearance, she became concerned that abortions were being performed because a cleft palate had been detected, as she did not think that this handicap was serious enough to justify the decision. Additionally, there is no legal definition of “seriously handicapped” – it is left to parents and medical personnel to decide. Rev. Jepson believed that applying the above reasoning to her own situation, “the law is saying there are good reasons why I should not be alive”.

In particular, she challenged one such decision made by two doctors to abort a 28 week old fetus with a cleft palate in 2001. However, the result of the legal challenge was that Jepson’s complaint was not upheld. The Crown Prosecution Service stating that the doctors involved acted in good faith and would not face criminal charges. This might have been because children with a cleft palate sometimes have other birth defects as well.

The idea that one should be able to extinguish a 7 month feutus on the off chance that the potential child might have other birth defects is just strange.

Down’s Syndrome

As we know, children born with this condition are intellectually disabled. Hearing and vision problems, heart disorders and thyroid problems are also more common in children with this genetic problem. As a consequence, when they grow up, they may find it difficult to leave home and lead independent lives.

Down's syndrome can be detected while the child is still in the womb and most women choose to abort in this situation. However, Down's syndrome is not so crippling as to make life not worth living, and those born with the condition can lead joyful, happy lives. So pro-choice arguments based on anticipated quality of life are more difficult to defend, though once again the impact on the prospective parents has to be taken into account and it may be difficult to place Down syndrome children with adoptive parents.

I agree with the above, and In a way this is akin to the defending of "humanity starting at conception "often argued by the Religious.

Both are hard to defend. At the extreme they are both saying similar things from opposite views. At one extreme is the notion that 'No one should have any right to stop the potentiality of a fertilized egg. And at the other extreme, it's that the woman on whom the feutus depends should have unfettered rights to do as she pleases.

I find neither position satisfactory. And while I don't pretend to have all the answers, nor so I think there is a singular or simplistic. Correct answer., I think there are ideas that are encompassing than either of these positions

Thanks for responding in such depth. I now appreciate that your position is more nuanced than I thought it was.
Unfortunately, I cannot keep up the dialogue on here as I am being distracted by personal issues.

Hope it's not too serious. And wishing you a fruitful resolution on whatever it is.

But what I want to suggest with these examples is that the view from the inside may be very different from that of the outside. From the outside, aborting a seven month fetus or one with a cleft palate seems morally suspect to say the least. But that is often because we don’t know the full story.

Mental health issues can be just as devastating as physical ones. And so if the prospective mother of an unborn child experiences some form of psychological meltdown late in the pregnancy, which leaves her suicidal, this surely needs to be taken into account.

For sure. I'm not so obtuse as to not recognize these extremes. But in the same vain, the inverse is also true. I've know someone who aborted a pregnancy to spite their partner. I've also known of someone who aborted her pregnancy to improve her chances with a new relationship interest.

And there are a myriad of other examples of abortions of convenience that I've read of. But I'm sure this is not News to anyone.

I will finish by stating that I am with the author and former Slits guitarist Viv Albertine when it comes to the issue of abortion.

In her autobiography, she wrote this:

‘I didn’t regret the abortion [I had] for twenty years. But eventually I did and I still regret it now. I wish I’d kept the baby, whatever the cost.’

However, she then adds:

‘I still defend a woman’s right to choose. To have control over her body and life. That cannot and must not ever be taken away from us.’

I empathize with her position but I respectfully disagree. I don't think that right can wholely rest with the pregnant woman till birth.

I think at the beginning of the pregnancy, the mother has all the right, but as time passes and the feutus grows, so should the rights of the feutus.

And at some point, the right of growing feutus will be so strong as to supercede any right the mother has other than danger to her life. What that point is, I couldn't tell you. Not smart nor invested enough to know.

The repeal of Roe v. Wade will do precisely that for some women.

True. It will.

It is a decision that also needs setting in a larger context as it has clearly been inspired by the Christian Right.

I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The thought that there is something moral about humanity isn't all bad.

These days the USA seems to have more in common with countries like Iran and its system of velayat-e faqih, or Saudi Arabia (where witchcraft is a crime). In other words, thanks to the Supreme Court, it is becoming a de facto theocracy, one in which the morally bankrupt and utterly repellent Republican Party appears to have been taken over by the lunatic QAnon quasi-Christian cult and its absurd conspiracy theorising, along with many US Christian congregations.

I'm not sure any of the above is necessarily true. And it's not in line with your normally measured and researched positions. It seems the growing divisiveness is getting to all of us.


But in so far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the initial error was finding a right to abortion in the Constitution in the first place. That decision was simply judicial activism. Because such a right simply doesn't exist.

And if such a law were to be enacted, it is Congress (i.e. the representatives of the people) who ought to enact that. Not some 9 lifetime Unelected Yoda's.

The Supreme Court ought to stick to what it's was created to do. Interpret the Constitution as best they can But leave the law making to Law makers. Surely we can all agree on that.

 

[Dax777]

There's a term I heard for the first time while listening to National Public Radio which for me, (almost) precisely captures the beliefs of the Right: Toxic Individualism.

Lol. This is absurd

The Right believes that:
I have the right to arm myself with automatic weapons and to brandish such weapons in public.

Nope they don't believe that.

I have the right to pollute the air, water and land.

Nope. No one believes that.

I have the right to refuse to comply with health recommendations/mandates.

Yes. Some believe this. Especially when evidence sometimes show a flimsy correlation between some of those mandates and positive outcomes.

Mask mandates after vaccination... Anyone explain this please????

I have the right to see that my candidate of choice is elected to office regardless of popular vote.

Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential election. Let me repeat that again: Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential elections!

There are legitimate reasons for this. And even if there weren't. It's not as if the rules got sprung on any candidates after the fact. Everyone knows the rules going in.

People who make this silly point ( Mostly bretherens from across the pond) have no idea how silly they sound. Let me help:

You sound like someone who complains that his team should be awarded victory because they create more chances than the opposition. Even if the opposition scored more goals.

That is how silly it sounds. The goal of football is to score the most goals. It's irrelevant who created the most chances.

Similarly,the goal of the American Presidential election is to win the most electoral seats. That's the goal! Not the most people votes.That would be the equivalent of having the most possession or most chances created. Irrelevant as far as winning is concerned.

Hope that helps clear things up for all Eternity.

I have the right to pray in public and especially in school settings regardless of the impact this may have on others.

Do you have something against Islam? You think a man or woman shouldn't be able to get on their knees and bow to face Mecca at Sunset? What do you have against Islamic call to prayer exactly?

Oh wait! It's Christianity that you were attempting to flex on. This is typical virtue signaling.

I have the right to refuse help to those in need. By extension, government should not extend help as doing so impacts me financially.

Yes. You've always had that right. And if you doubt that we can test it out now. I'm in serious need. Do you mind sending me 1000 pounds? Let me know where to send my a/c info. Or perhaps you have the right to refuse?

Government on the other hand are shitty at helping. And it by and large becomes an opportunity for corrupt Ill begotten gains. Have you not been reading about the PPP loans and all the scams that came with it?

I have the right to unfettered free speech. Even in cases where speaking is to the detriment of society at large and is completely free of factual content.

Yes. Not unfettered. But within the already prescribed limits.

But the real issue here is about power.

Who gets to decide what speech is to the detriment of society? You? The newly formed Ministry of Disinformation in the Biden Orwellian nightmare? Me? Foggy. Dumb SWP?

Pray tell, was the Hunter Biden disinformation free of factual content? How about the lab leak theory? Both were basis for bans and suspension on Social media in the very near past. Today, they are deemed factual.

The reason why Free Speech is necessary, is because we often cannot pre determine which speech is true, right or for the betterment of humanity.

You have to think these things beyond slogans.

And so on.

At odds with toxic individualism is the Right's belief that I do not have the right to abortion - toxic yes, individualistic, no.

Yes, you should not have a right to abortion, just like you should not have a right to kill another person.

Yes, there are circumstances where that right will be yours. In self defense, you can kill another. To preserve your life, you may end that of another.

But that right should be constrained by circumstance. To suggest otherwise is barbaric and frankly, well... Toxic!

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Lol. This is absurd

Nope they don't believe that.


Nope. No one believes that.


Yes. Some believe this. Especially when evidence sometimes show a flimsy correlation between some of those mandates and positive outcomes.

Mask mandates after vaccination... Anyone explain this please????


Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential election. Let me repeat that again: Popular vote is irrelevant to deciding the American Presidential elections!

There are legitimate reasons for this. And even if there weren't. It's not as if the rules got sprung on any candidates after the fact. Everyone knows the rules going in.

People who make this silly point ( Mostly bretherens from across the pond) have no idea how silly they sound. Let me help:

You sound like someone who complains that his team should be awarded victory because they create more chances than the opposition. Even if the opposition scored more goals.

That is how silly it sounds. The goal of football is to score the most goals. It's irrelevant who created the most chances.

Similarly,the goal of the American Presidential election is to win the most electoral seats. That's the goal! Not the most people votes.That would be the equivalent of having the most possession or most chances created. Irrelevant as far as winning is concerned.

Hope that helps clear things up for all Eternity.


Do you have something against Islam? You think a man or woman shouldn't be able to get on their knees and bow to face Mecca at Sunset? What do you have against Islamic call to prayer exactly?

Oh wait! It's Christianity that you were attempting to flex on. This is typical virtue signaling.


Yes. You've always had that right. And if you doubt that we can test it out now. I'm in serious need. Do you mind sending me 1000 pounds? Let me know where to send my a/c info. Or perhaps you have the right to refuse?

Government on the other hand are shitty at helping. And it by and large becomes an opportunity for corrupt Ill begotten gains. Have you not been reading about the PPP loans and all the scams that came with it?


Yes. Not unfettered. But within the already prescribed limits.

But the real issue here is about power.

Who gets to decide what speech is to the detriment of society? You? The newly formed Ministry of Disinformation in the Biden Orwellian nightmare? Me? Foggy. Dumb SWP?

Pray tell, was the Hunter Biden disinformation free of factual content? How about the lab leak theory? Both were basis for bans and suspension on Social media in the very near past. Today, they are deemed factual.

The reason why Free Speech is necessary, is because we often cannot pre determine which speech is true, right or for the betterment of humanity.

You have to think these things beyond slogans.


Yes, you should not have a right to abortion, just like you should not have a right to kill another person.

Yes, there are circumstances where that right will be yours. In self defense, you can kill another. To preserve your life, you may end that of another.

But that right should be constrained by circumstance. To suggest otherwise is barbaric and frankly, well... Toxic!

How much mental gymnastics can you fit in one post.

You seem to be the right wing libertarian version of one of the members in the secretive communist society in Hail Caesar.

You've consumed far too much right wing bollocks to be able to form an objective and insightful opinion worth listening to.

 

[SWP's back]

needs to happen as look what the backwater cousin fucking slave wanting Bible Belt states are already doing:



Seeing as IVF clinics dispose of 1.7m foetuses every year (compared with 650k aborted foetuses), where would that law leave IVF clinics?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

needs to happen as look what the backwater cousin fucking slave wanting Bible Belt states are already doing:



Seeing as IVF clinics dispose of 1.7m foetuses every year (compared with 650k aborted foetuses), where would that law leave IVF clinics?

It’ll be contraception next!