'Murica! (139 Viewers)

[JuveE46]

I am baffled by how much backward and ancient the Republitards have become. Third world party, supported by psychos and masochists.
How can any woman vote for them is beyond my understanding. How can any reasonable and modern person vote for them is the mistery of 21st Century USA.

Изпратено от моят XQ-AU52 с помощта на Tapatalk

Has the two party system not already hinted that there is no such thing as choice? It's a "Any color you prefer as long as it's black" mentality system which is disguised behind such words as freedom of this and that.
The main freedom which is freedom of choice and representation, you got two, they are tomato and tomAato those are your choices.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Elvin]

Those being that there's a lower tolerance for democracy and a desire for autocracy that is bound to have a more skilled and conniving despot at the helm.

I never understood that? Just why would anyone have such a desire. Are humans just fucked up?

 

[AFL_ITALIA]

Green isn't purple, so it must be pink.

 

[swag]

What’s the “+” for?

It's for whatever you want it to be, honey.

I never understood that? Just why would anyone have such a desire. Are humans just fucked up?

It's taken me a long while to accept that pretty much anywhere in the world, there's at least a 25-30% baseline of people who wouldn't mind having an autocrat or dictator make all the strongman decisions and "take care of them".

Then add that democracy is messy, it requires being on the losing side at least as often as a winning side, it isn't easily solved with binary solutions (though it helps to produce narratives that make people believe there are binaries), and that it requires healthy institutions and hedges to prevent power grabs ... who has the patience?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's for whatever you want it to be, honey.



It's taken me a long while to accept that pretty much anywhere in the world, there's at least a 25-30% baseline of people who wouldn't mind having an autocrat or dictator make all the strongman decisions and "take care of them".

Then add that democracy is messy, it requires being on the losing side at least as often as a winning side, it isn't easily solved with binary solutions (though it helps to produce narratives that make people believe there are binaries), and that it requires healthy institutions and hedges to prevent power grabs ... who has the patience?

The irony here is conspicuously striking

 

[alaska]

he left out Loving even though it’s exposed as well. Wonder why?

Because it's not a substantive due process case. It's an equal protection clause case, and pretty plainly one too.

- - - Updated - - -

How many of you have sat down and read the opinion? Show of hands.

Or do you just read Twitter and the news?

 

[campionesidd]

Freedom loving conservatards sure love curbing other people’s freedom.

 

[alaska]

Freedom loving conservatards sure love curbing other people’s freedom.

The constitution limits the freedom of democratic choice. That's why it's not a very long document. It's a brief list of things you can't just have mob rule on. The more limited the constitution is, the more freedom there is.
As a policy matter, I think it's a net positive to have reasonable access to abortion. But don't tell me the constitution says anything about abortion - it doesn't. And don't tell me limiting democratic choice increases freedom. It doesn't.

 

[Strickland]

Are they really going to fully cancel abortion in some states? Or will they restrict it to special cases / make it less accessible? IMO it should exist as a service, but it should be heavily regulated, if this gives them a chance to do that, its not all gloom and doom.

 

[campionesidd]

The constitution limits the freedom of democratic choice. That's why it's not a very long document. It's a brief list of things you can't just have mob rule on. The more limited the constitution is, the more freedom there is.
As a policy matter, I think it's a net positive to have reasonable access to abortion. But don't tell me the constitution says anything about abortion - it doesn't. And don't tell me limiting democratic choice increases freedom. It doesn't.

I don’t hold the original constitution to the same regard some people do.
it was written in the 18th century, when slavery was legal, witches were burned at the stake, interracial couples couldn’t marry, gays will killed, etc etc.
Of course the various amendments made it more contemporary, but it only goes to show the constitution can be modified with the times. We haven’t had an amendment since 1971.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they really going to fully cancel abortion in some states? Or will they restrict it to special cases / make it less accessible? IMO it should exist as a service, but it should be heavily regulated, if this gives them a chance to do that, its not all gloom and doom.

Redneck states like Texas are banning them outright.

 

[Buck Fuddy]

Freedom loving conservatards sure love curbing other people’s freedom.

Their freedom > your freedom. It's that simple.

 

[Bianconero_Aus]

Are they really going to fully cancel abortion in some states? Or will they restrict it to special cases / make it less accessible? IMO it should exist as a service, but it should be heavily regulated, if this gives them a chance to do that, its not all gloom and doom.

Many of the republitard states have trigger laws written 50 years ago which will automatically ban all abortions instantly.

 

[Seven]

Most effective way to protect life if you ask me.

But you just said it's not government's place to take or give rights.

Then how can they take one right to protect another?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

But you just said it's not government's place to take or give rights.

Then how can they take one right to protect another?

Give as in legislate, federal govt doesnt have the power to give rights, its powers are clearly deliniated. Killing fellow citizens is not a right it is a transgression that places the transgressor outside the realm of law. But i understand your confusion, most grew up in a society where govt is God so it only seems natural to see as omnipotent.

 

[Seven]

Give as in legislate, federal govt doesnt have the power to give rights, its powers are clearly deliniated. Killing fellow citizens is not a right it is a transgression that places the transgressor outside the realm of law. But i understand your confusion, most grew up in a society where govt is God so it only seems natural to see as omnipotent.

This is ironic coming from someone in the USA, where people still try to interpret their own constitution according to the views and beliefs of people who wrote it two centuries ago. In most of Europe, or Belgium at least, laws change constantly. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution, but no one bothers reading it the same way we did 200 years ago. We assume we've moved forward since.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

This is ironic coming from someone in the USA, where people still try to interpret their own constitution according to the views and beliefs of people who wrote it two centuries ago. In most of Europe, or Belgium at least, laws change constantly. Of course it's more difficult to change the constitution, but no one bothers reading it the same way we did 200 years ago. We assume we've moved forward since.

Laws change in the US too, rights don't. A right is unalienable.

 

[Seven]

Laws change in the US too, rights don't. A right is unalienable.

Arguably that is the same way in Belgium, but we codified those rights in the ECRM.

In practice however rights can and do change. Whether or not a court deems them unalienable depends on historic context. Dred v Scott comes to mind of course.

 

[swag]

The irony here is conspicuously striking

Is it really that surprising though? Nanny states in different flavors, really.

Hence why I always say there's a lot more common between Born Again Christians and radical lesbian feminists than most people would give them credit for. Or Wokeistan and Nazi Germany, if you prefer.

Are they really going to fully cancel abortion in some states? Or will they restrict it to special cases / make it less accessible? IMO it should exist as a service, but it should be heavily regulated, if this gives them a chance to do that, its not all gloom and doom.

Fully.

And you'd be a fool to think this was a one-and-done issue. This is the beginning of a lot of new lobbying and empowerment to jack an agenda while the iron is hot.

 

[Strickland]

Many of the republitard states have trigger laws written 50 years ago which will automatically ban all abortions instantly.

Lol, thats horrible, like a pendulum going from one extreme to the other

 

[swag]

Lol, thats horrible, like a pendulum going from one extreme to the other

Gays are next bruh. God will cleanse the earth of the sins of fake Americans.