SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[I-5]

OK, you convinced me. But I don't see how it applies to the R's ram rodding SCOTUS nominations. What are the Dems supposed to do in response? Pack the court?

In regards to the SCOTUS, if I'm the Senate Majority Leader and have a chance to 'pack the court' aka 'the Nuclear Option', I would take a page from the republican playbook and just say 'we'll follow the letter of the law and see where that goes'. What is any more or less nuclear about ramming Bennett's nomination in at the nth hour, or withholding Garland's nomination 'because we have to respect the voters' of the upcoming election? McConnell did both of those actions because he could. If the dems have a chance to mold the court any way they can, why shouldn't they? A rose by any other name smells as sweet...or stinks. It doesn't matter at all what the 'nuclear option' means; only thing that matters is what you can do to even the game, because that's unfortunately what it is today - a political game. I don't like it, but nothing can be done at this point. Just play the game better is what I think.

[RiverDog]

OK, you convinced me. But I don't see how it applies to the R's ram rodding SCOTUS nominations. What are the Dems supposed to do in response? Pack the court?

In regards to the SCOTUS, if I'm the Senate Majority Leader and have a chance to 'pack the court' aka 'the Nuclear Option', I would take a page from the republican playbook and just say 'we'll follow the letter of the law and see where that goes'. What is any more or less nuclear about ramming Bennett's nomination in at the nth hour, or withholding Garland's nomination 'because we have to respect the voters' of the upcoming election? McConnell did both of those actions because he could. If the dems have a chance to mold the court any way they can, why shouldn't they? A rose by any other name smells as sweet...or stinks. It doesn't matter at all what the 'nuclear option' means; only thing that matters is what you can do to even the game, because that's unfortunately what it is today - a political game. I don't like it, but nothing can be done at this point. Just play the game better is what I think.

The answer is simple: If the Dems are able to expand the court from 9 to 11, you know damn good and well that as soon as the R's take control, they'll expand it from 11 to 13.

The Dems got beat. One appointment was done by the R's holding it up and the other was due to the timing of the unfortunate passing of RBG. The R's were more unscrupulous and unforgiving than their opponent. But let's not forget who it was that eliminated the 60 vote requirement for the confirmation of federal judges. Good ole Harry Reid. He gave the R's the cover they needed to apply that standard to SCOTUS appointments. Besides, it's not like the Dems haven't played hard ball with SCOTUS nominations as we've witnessed with the Thomas and Kavanaugh confirmations.

It needs to stop. The Dems are in a no win situation. SCOTUS is going to have a conservative tilt to it for at least the next 10 years. Might as well get used to it.

[Aseahawkfan]

I didn't miss your point at all, and the reason you can't come up with an analogous comparison on the republican side is that there isn't any issue that would scare republicans. Think about it, if Trump with all his gross conduct can manage to hold almost unanimous support among conservatives (and I'm not saying you're one of them), what does he have to worry about that they aren't willing to forgive or overlook? The way I read it, what the republican base loves are strong male leaders, and if they have major issues like Gaetz, Jordan, or Herschel Walker being outed as fathering at least 2 illegitimate children while ranting agaist absentee fathers in the black community (the ultimate irony, really)...none of it really matters to the base, because Jesus forgives us all. Unless of course you're a dem. I know how it works. Bottom line, it's not possible to offend the republican base as long as you're an Alpha Male type. In fact, the more boorish, the more they might like you. Cynical? Perhaps, but prove me wrong. Is the decent Romney very popular outside of Utah?

Republicans view Democrats as immoral. It's as simple as that. Baby killing, family destroying, supporting drug addicts and criminals, and interested in tearing down the American culture they grew up on.

When they hear abortion, they imagine baby killing liberal women that aren't church going and are immoral or amoral non-Christian baby killing socialists.

When they hear gun rights being taken away, they hear socialist tyrants trying to rob them of their means to defend their freedom.

When they hear nationalized healthcare, they hear higher taxes by socialist tyrants trying to destroy capitalism and give their hard earned money to people that don't deserve it.

So when they vote for a guy like Trump, they view it as the lesser of two evils to stop the socialist tyrant Democrats trying to rob this nation of freedom and destroy America from within.

When that is your mindset, how exactly do Democrats change that?

Just like when a Democrat hears the word Republican they often translate it as the following:

A black person thinks of a Republican as a KKK supporting racist who wants to put them back in chains.

A union worker thinks of a Republican as a big corporate supporting capitalist who has money who wants to get away with paying less taxes and screwing over the working people out of their rightful share of the American dream.

A Democrat woman thinks of a Republican as some religious tyrant looking to force them to follow Christian ideals keeping their unborn child to ensure God is not offended and America is not steeped in sin.

These two parties frame the other side as the Devil. If voting for a particular politician overlooking his personal behavior to fight the Devil is your mindset, then what do you expect?

Stop making it seem like only the Republicans don't care about bad behavior. Bill Clinton won two terms while cheating on his wife and lying on the witness stand and a ton of other scandals. Marion Barry became a mayor again after doing drugs and engaging in all kinds of nasty behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

The only reason Al Franken ended up screwed is bad timing. Any other time and Al Franken would have skated by for his rather than mundane accusations.

Let's not pretend this voting for scum who engage in terrible behavior is party specific. That's just you and your personal bias.

Fact is both sides build each other up as the Devil and vote on these ideas. They both have a lot of rotten apples that get votes solely because they are the right party in the right area at the right time.'

That's why I hate these parties and American politics right now. A bunch of voting based on lies and stereotyping and professional marketing that no one bothers to care about as long as they can cast their rage vote with a handful of centrists deciding elections by switching back and forth on candidates depending on what is important to them at a given time. Thank goodness we still have a lot of centrists trying to pull this thing back to sanity if we can get some candidates that aren't going off the rails.

[Aseahawkfan]

The answer is simple: If the Dems are able to expand the court from 9 to 11, you know damn good and well that as soon as the R's take control, they'll expand it from 11 to 13.

The Dems got beat. One appointment was done by the R's holding it up and the other was due to the timing of the unfortunate passing of RBG. The R's were more unscrupulous and unforgiving than their opponent. But let's not forget who it was that eliminated the 60 vote requirement for the confirmation of federal judges. Good ole Harry Reid. He gave the R's the cover they needed to apply that standard to SCOTUS appointments. Besides, it's not like the Dems haven't played hard ball with SCOTUS nominations as we've witnessed with the Thomas and Kavanaugh confirmations.

It needs to stop. The Dems are in a no win situation. SCOTUS is going to have a conservative tilt to it for at least the next 10 years. Might as well get used to it.

The court will end up growing and growing and growing if either party decides to take this nuclear option. I know the Dems are not stupid enough to think they will hold power long enough to stop the Republicans from doing the same when they get power. That is why I just laugh a the idea of court expansion. Sure, start that slippery slope, watch what happens.

These two sides want to keep pushing each other they are going to make this country miserable to live in. Scumbags like Pelosi and McConnell will just do whatever to get their way if they can.

I wish more people would want to build some other system than this two party crap system with these loons. I can't stand seeing a country as wealthy and well run as ours turned into a drama fest because news stations have way too much power in America. I can barely stand to talk to my mother on a weekly basis because she gets fed so much of what she believes from political media. I see the same thing with the right or left. I can literally watch CNN or Fox news, then listen to the regurgitation by members of either side. I keep telling people they need to read more, watch less news.

Americans are supposed to govern their nation. Not be led around by the nose by political media. They need to become more learned about their government and more involved in governing after learning the issues and the underlying philosophies governing the nation. It makes Democracy look like such a failed system that political media exerts this much influence and control. Then again how I can expect a system created by men of extraordinary education to work for a large group that barely wants to learn to write properly and do basic math.

[I-5]

Sounds like you both agree the SCOTUS system is broken. Count me in. The problem is there is no solution to this game that according to Riv the republicans ‘have won’. And they have. So the game continues. It’s not about what’s best for the country anymore. I’ll go back to what I said earlier, 6-3 is not good for either party. It will lead to more escalation for sure.

Would we be here without McConnell’s blocking of Garland or ramrodding of ACB? Again, he played the game perfectly.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not going to go so far as to say that this is "nothing" as it will have an impact on some people because they're going to have to practice prevention if they don't want to get pregnant, but it's being way, way over played. The left is acting like the court made abortion illegal when all they've done is say that it is not a right that is covered under the US Constitution and thus, defaults back to the states to regulate.

How can this be taking us back to the 50's when Roe v Wade was decided in 1973?

In the 1950's, there was no such thing as a birth control pill (introduced in 1960). Sex education wasn't taught in schools, it was left to our parents to have a discussion with us about the birds and the bees. Fast forward to today and they're teaching sex ed in middle schools and birth control pills are easy and cheap to get. Hell, Medicaid supplies them for free. I'm not going to go so far as to say that it's "nothing" as it is going to have a significant impact on women of child bearing age that do not want a pregnancy, but it's being way, way overplayed by the left. The way they're reacting, you'd think that they made abortion illegal when all they did was to end federal protection.

I was thinking of how this will go now. It will be a minor inconvenience unless the Republicans gain the House and Senate to pass a nationwide ban.

Likely what will happen is anyone who wants an abortion will contact an abortion organization online using their computer or a phone. They'll likely have some service to facilitate travel and hotel. They'll do the procedure in office depending on the weeks. Then return to the State they live in. It will concentrate abortion in legal states and start an abortion tourism industry offering hotel stays and competition for business. This is why this is hard to take seriously. It's not 1970 or earlier any more. Backwards ass states will find that out too as women just make day trips or weekends to another state likely supplemented by Planned Parenthood or other organizations.

It's not like it was back then when women were isolated. You had to use a telephone and phonebook to call around or something of the kind. The medical procedure wasn't easy or safe with lots of other options like pills. It's still going to be very easy to get an abortion in America. I read these articles about other nations complaining that have more stringent abortion laws on a national scale than us like France or Germany.

I don't think this is going to be worth it for the Republicans at all myself. Evangelical vote is weakening, not strengthening. Playing to that base is not worth it any more. Even my one religious buddy said he wouldn't personally do it, but has no interest in jailing women that do. It's not an important issue to him or anyone of my Trump voting conservative buddies.

C-bob lives in Kentucky, so likely a bigger deal there. But I'd be real surprised if this was a bigger issue for the Republican Party than the Democrats. I think the Democrats can rally harder around this issue than the Republicans can.

[RiverDog]

I was thinking of how this will go now. It will be a minor inconvenience unless the Republicans gain the House and Senate to pass a nationwide ban.

That's not going to happen anytime soon. Even if the R's manage to pass a bill, Biden won't sign it into law, so you're looking at 2025 at the earliest. Plus there's several pro choice Republicans, including Senators Collins, Murkowski, and Capito, that might be enough to deny the R's a numerical advantage even if they were to regain the Senate, and with the Dems defending just 14 seats, none of which are in states won by Trump in 2020, to the R's 21, with several of those in blue or swing states like PA and WI of which Biden won, it's going to take a big red wave to flip the Senate this fall.

With such a large percentage of voters in favor of some type of abortion rights, my guess is that the R's will choose to let sleeping dogs lay and move the discussion back to the economy.

Likely what will happen is anyone who wants an abortion will contact an abortion organization online using their computer or a phone. They'll likely have some service to facilitate travel and hotel. They'll do the procedure in office depending on the weeks. Then return to the State they live in. It will concentrate abortion in legal states and start an abortion tourism industry offering hotel stays and competition for business. This is why this is hard to take seriously. It's not 1970 or earlier any more. Backwards ass states will find that out too as women just make day trips or weekends to another state likely supplemented by Planned Parenthood or other organizations.

It's not like it was back then when women were isolated. You had to use a telephone and phonebook to call around or something of the kind. The medical procedure wasn't easy or safe with lots of other options like pills. It's still going to be very easy to get an abortion in America. I read these articles about other nations complaining that have more stringent abortion laws on a national scale than us like France or Germany.

I don't think this is going to be worth it for the Republicans at all myself. Evangelical vote is weakening, not strengthening. Playing to that base is not worth it any more. Even my one religious buddy said he wouldn't personally do it, but has no interest in jailing women that do. It's not an important issue to him or anyone of my Trump voting conservative buddies.

C-bob lives in Kentucky, so likely a bigger deal there. But I'd be real surprised if this was a bigger issue for the Republican Party than the Democrats. I think the Democrats can rally harder around this issue than the Republicans can.

I basically agree with that. The decision makes it a pain in the rear for some women in red states that want to get an abortion, but it's not going to make it impossible, even for those that are poor. It's a much different day and time than it was before Roe v. Wade. The reaction is way out of proportion to the actual effect this ruling will have.

My personal take is that abortion should be legal and accessible for up to 8 weeks into a pregnancy, which is plenty of time for a woman to find out that she's pregnant and to make a decision. Once you get past 8 weeks, the fetus has brain activity and can't be considered just a collection of cells anymore. After that point, the argument "my body, my choice" becomes much less compelling.

[I-5]

The answer is simple: If the Dems are able to expand the court from 9 to 11, you know damn good and well that as soon as the R's take control, they'll expand it from 11 to 13.

The Dems got beat. One appointment was done by the R's holding it up and the other was due to the timing of the unfortunate passing of RBG. The R's were more unscrupulous and unforgiving than their opponent. But let's not forget who it was that eliminated the 60 vote requirement for the confirmation of federal judges. Good ole Harry Reid. He gave the R's the cover they needed to apply that standard to SCOTUS appointments. Besides, it's not like the Dems haven't played hard ball with SCOTUS nominations as we've witnessed with the Thomas and Kavanaugh confirmations.

It needs to stop. The Dems are in a no win situation. SCOTUS is going to have a conservative tilt to it for at least the next 10 years. Might as well get used to it.

Is your suggestion for the dems to literally do nothing? Isn’t that how they ‘lost’? Bad advice. I think they should follow the republican example. There is no dirtier senate player than Mitch. Copy Mitch.

[Aseahawkfan]

I basically agree with that. The decision makes it a pain in the rear for some women in red states that want to get an abortion, but it's not going to make it impossible, even for those that are poor. It's a much different day and time than it was before Roe v. Wade. The reaction is way out of proportion to the actual effect this ruling will have.

My personal take is that abortion should be legal and accessible for up to 8 weeks into a pregnancy, which is plenty of time for a woman to find out that she's pregnant and to make a decision. Once you get past 8 weeks, the fetus has brain activity and can't be considered just a collection of cells anymore. After that point, the argument "my body, my choice" becomes much less compelling.

Pro-choice and "My body, my choice" was always a marketing slogan. Like we're all too stupid to know what's actually being done that we think wiping out developing human life at any point is something we should all morally allow because the life can't survive outside of the womb. Not something I'm down with. I think this should be a far more important moral discussion that women should be heavily involved in. I would no more support men making unilateral choices around something like this than I would women unless it was done out of a sense of equity. Both can be heavily impacted by reproduction and we should update our laws to reflect the new information we have absent a religious basis for the decision to ensure compliance with separation of Church and State.

The anti-Abortion movement is primarily driven by religion. I think there is a firm Constitutional right against government establishment of a religion or using religion as a basis for law.

8 weeks is kind of tight. I think a woman can go eight weeks without knowing she is pregnant. I am not precisely sure where I would draw the line. Maybe closer to 15 to 20 weeks. I would probably have to look at the fetal development. Then I could probably still support an abortion law based on rape, incest, or molestation. I don't think anyone should have a child forced on them. Women and men for that matter should be able to make a choice of who they have children with if there is some sort of nefarious behavior going on such as forced sex or manipulation even. I don't think a man should be forced to care for a child if a woman lies to him about contraception use.

I'd also like to make a paternity test mandatory. The primary reason for males wanting virgins in the past and the behavior required of females was because males wanted to be sure of paternity before giving their name to a child and investing massive resources into a child. It wasn't some desire to oppress. But an agreement for the male to gain some benefit from marriage when he would be perfectly happy never being married and sleeping around without some kind of agreement with the female that was legally binding like marriage. We can easily do paternity tests nowadays to ensure male paternity is proven, so we should incorporate it into law to alleviate issues with paternity. Then provide a provision in the law for legal abortion up to the time of gestation or a similar period of notification from the female pending a paternity test.

We have the tools to make a high quality law covering both parties right now. Love to see Congress get their heads out of their behinds and make a high quality law incorporating modern technology that is as equitable and moral as we can make it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Is your suggestion for the dems to literally do nothing? Isn’t that how they ‘lost’? Bad advice. I think they should follow the republican example. There is no dirtier senate player than Mitch. Copy Mitch.

Exactly. There is no dirtier player than Mitch. If the Dems try to expand the Court, Mitch will block it or wait until he has power to do the same and then do it with that fishy smile on his face. You want to start a war with Mitch, he welcomes it. He doesn't care. He'll just see it as an opportunity to take it farther than the Dems.

I don't personally want to see that warfare occur because it will be bad for the country. If the Dems want to go to war with Mitch knowing he'll go to war back, then I guess we can see that trash start. What the hell. Neither of these parties gives a flying crap about America any more anyway, it's just about getting their way and forcing it on all of us.

[RiverDog]

Is your suggestion for the dems to literally do nothing? Isn’t that how they ‘lost’? Bad advice. I think they should follow the republican example. There is no dirtier senate player than Mitch. Copy Mitch.

I don't want to see them escalate the war by going nuclear. If a similar situation presents itself like that which McConnell took advantage of, such as a vacancy 2 weeks before the next election or when we have a lame duck POTUS/Congress, then they are fully justified in playing the R's game. But I don't want to see them up the ante by adding justices, which would make things worse.

And yes, Mitch has played dirty, but so have the Dems. The Kavanaugh confirmation process was the most disgusting example of dirty play since Watergate. And it's not the first time they've done it, as they played dirty with the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas confirmations. The Dems are just as dirty as Mitch.

[Aseahawkfan]

They both play dirty and we all know it. It's what makes politics in this nation so unpleasant.

[RiverDog]

They both play dirty and we all know it. It's what makes politics in this nation so unpleasant.

It always has been and always will be dirty. But it's changed. No more Ronald Reagan sharing a beer with Tip O'Neil on St. Patrick's Day. The two sides literally hate each other, and it's a direct reflection of how the country views one another.

If you're interested in documentaries, PBS did a good one on "LBJ" that does a good job of showing what politics used to be like back in the 60's. The way LBJ intimidated Alabama Gov. George Wallace is a classic example of the "Johnson Treatment".

[I-5]

They both play dirty and we all know it. It's what makes politics in this nation so unpleasant.

Lately the republicans have played dirty far more dirty. Letting Franken resign without anyone fighting for him shows how weak the dems have been. They arent dirty nearly enough. Since Mitch is never not going to play, yes I’d go nuclear and more until someone ends the ridiculousness. Let it be a republican that flinches for once. Play as dirty as the law allows.

[Aseahawkfan]

It always has been and always will be dirty. But it's changed. No more Ronald Reagan sharing a beer with Tip O'Neil on St. Patrick's Day. The two sides literally hate each other, and it's a direct reflection of how the country views one another.

If you're interested in documentaries, PBS did a good one on "LBJ" that does a good job of showing what politics used to be like back in the 60's. The way LBJ intimidated Alabama Gov. George Wallace is a classic example of the "Johnson Treatment".

I think the rise in power of political media caused it. I never saw it this bad until Rush Limbaugh and Fox News rose to prominence. Then the Democrats answered in kind. It all just became media mass manipulation of the populous.

I personally think this could be proven. Not sure what you could do to change it if you proved it.

[Aseahawkfan]

Lately the republicans have played dirty far more dirty. Letting Franken resign without anyone fighting for him shows how weak the dems have been. They arent dirty nearly enough. Since Mitch is never not going to play, yes I’d go nuclear and more until someone ends the ridiculousness. Let it be a republican that flinches for once. Play as dirty as the law allows.

Dems have become weak. Not sure why. But so have the Republicans. The days of centrists like even George W. Bush are gone. Somehow the weirdo Trump supporters have taken over and the Tea Party Libertarians, at least the ones I used to talk to.

Then again the Dems seem to have been taken over by the LGTBQ movement and socialists like Cortez. That isn't inline with centrist Democrats or Republicans.

It's a very weird time in politics where weird extreme elements in both parties have come to the forefront.

Politicians like Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney used to be ruthless in a way that didn't fall into the public as much. Now with Trump's rise to power, I guess everyone wants to show their dirty underwear in public.

Don't usually like to wish it on anyone, but I hope he leaves the earth soon. Trump is a cancer in this country bringing out the worst in people. It's too bad for him too. He went from a guy a lot of people admired for his success building up the Trump name to one of the most polarizing figures in American history. He ruined his own name just to hold power for a little while. I bet there are times when he regrets what he did. But he can never admit he is wrong and take the high road. Hell, he would probably lose power if he did as one of the great things about Trump I always hear from his followers is he takes not crap off anyone and this gives him the appearance of strength. Sad that is what is viewed as a strong person nowadays. Men like Reagan were often self-deprecating and part of why the nation loved them is they had a sense of humility and manners. Modern Americans don't appear to value humility.

[RiverDog]

Don't usually like to wish it on anyone, but I hope he (DJT) leaves the earth soon. Trump is a cancer in this country bringing out the worst in people. It's too bad for him too. He went from a guy a lot of people admired for his success building up the Trump name to one of the most polarizing figures in American history. He ruined his own name just to hold power for a little while. I bet there are times when he regrets what he did. But he can never admit he is wrong and take the high road. Hell, he would probably lose power if he did as one of the great things about Trump I always hear from his followers is he takes not crap off anyone and this gives him the appearance of strength. Sad that is what is viewed as a strong person nowadays. Men like Reagan were often self-deprecating and part of why the nation loved them is they had a sense of humility and manners. Modern Americans don't appear to value humility.

I hear ya. I don't like wishing for another human being to die, with the exception of murderers and rapists, despots like Vladimir Putin and the like, but Trump sure challenges that moral compass of mine that keeps me from thinking such thoughts.

[NorthHawk]

The problem with the Dems and other liberal type of political parties is that they tend
to be lecturers and moralizers instead of parties that make changes. They get into power but
don’t constantly follow through on their promises. Wishy washy is not an appealing trait in anything let
alone a political party that wants to govern.

[c_hawkbob]

The problem with the Dems and other liberal type of political parties is that they tend
to be lecturers and moralizers instead of parties that make changes. They get into power but
don’t constantly follow through on their promises. Wishy washy is not an appealing trait in anything let
alone a political party that wants to govern.

Problem is democracy is predicated upon people of differing viewpoints being able to discus honestly, be willing to see valid points on both sides of an argument, determine where the common ground may be and ultimately compromise. It's too bad that ability ever became labelled "wishy washy" and labelled a bad thing. The problem with the Democratic party is there are too many willing to play by those original rules and not enough cutthroat arseholes.

[Aseahawkfan]

I still think the problem is the conservative political media is better at manipulating the masses than the liberal political media. That is where most people in the modern day get their political stances.

It's not an accident that Fox News has the higher ratings and the nation is moving conservative. It takes a real strong leader with a good vision for the nation to compete with political media.

The power of political media has become too powerful as predicted that it would. Dems and liberalism control a lot of public universities and the public education system, while the conservative Republicans exert power in the media. Which is why the Fake News argument and such is so ridiculous, when Fox and other conservative outlets are the highest rated news stations most watched in America.

I talk to people all the time. All they do is watch political media. They don't read the philosophy or history of much of their nation. They don't even know the underlying ideas in the Constitution. They don't learn who some of these politicians are. They watch the news or some other conservative media site and lap it up. I've asked people about this and most say it's easier to watch a show and believe what they're being told without much thought put into their reasons for a belief.

Americans as a whole do not think very much on their own. They get spoonfed their ideology with good marketing, then pick a side according to their personal feelings without much thought into how it should all be.

And we're just not producing strong leadership lately for whatever reason.

[RiverDog]

Problem is democracy is predicated upon people of differing viewpoints being able to discus honestly, be willing to see valid points on both sides of an argument, determine where the common ground may be and ultimately compromise. It's too bad that ability ever became labelled "wishy washy" and labelled a bad thing. The problem with the Democratic party is there are too many willing to play by those original rules and not enough cutthroat arseholes.

I agree with everything except for the last sentence. There are plenty of cutthroat arseholes in the Democratic Party as witnessed by their absolutely ruthless and total disregard for the personal reputation of a federal district court judge that hadn't been accused of so much as spitting on the sidewalk by introducing unverified testimony about an alleged event 37 frigging years in the past. If that's not cutthroat, I don't know what is.

And as far as not enough playing by original rules, it was Harry Reid who first waived the filibuster rule that used to require 60 votes for the confirmation of a federal judge, giving McConnell the political cover to waive the same rule for SCOTUS appointments....not that McConnell wouldn't have done it anyway.

[RiverDog]

I still think the problem is the conservative political media is better at manipulating the masses than the liberal political media. That is where most people in the modern day get their political stances.

It's not an accident that Fox News has the higher ratings and the nation is moving conservative. It takes a real strong leader with a good vision for the nation to compete with political media.

The power of political media has become too powerful as predicted that it would. Dems and liberalism control a lot of public universities and the public education system, while the conservative Republicans exert power in the media. Which is why the Fake News argument and such is so ridiculous, when Fox and other conservative outlets are the highest rated news stations most watched in America.

I talk to people all the time. All they do is watch political media. They don't read the philosophy or history of much of their nation. They don't even know the underlying ideas in the Constitution. They don't learn who some of these politicians are. They watch the news or some other conservative media site and lap it up. I've asked people about this and most say it's easier to watch a show and believe what they're being told without much thought put into their reasons for a belief.

Americans as a whole do not think very much on their own. They get spoonfed their ideology with good marketing, then pick a side according to their personal feelings without much thought into how it should all be.

And we're just not producing strong leadership lately for whatever reason.

IMO it's not that the conservative media is better at manipulating minds. It is that the mind of the hard-core conservative is more subject to manipulation than their liberal counterparts.

Conservatives are, on the whole, less educated but not necessarily less intelligent, older, and a lot more insecure than their liberal counterparts. They feel, perhaps subconsciously, more personally threatened by women and minorities, frustrated by the changes society has gone through over the past 50 years or so, that advances made by those groups has somehow left them behind, left them with a healthy mistrust of government, of science, of medicine. They are easy prey for guys like Tucker Carlson.

The rest of your comments I agree with. We are dupes for whoever comes across the tube or our phones and tablets. Too many people get their information from one source, and although that source may present accurate information, the types of information that makes it through their filter is that which appeals to their audience, tells them what they want to hear, and keeps them coming back to that source.

And yes, we have not been producing good leaders. The pool from which to draw from is too small. No one in their right mind would want to go into politics. Only those with an over inflated ego are willing to live in a fishbowl.

[NorthHawk]

The conservative side are masters at a number of things including setting up Straw Men and then knocking them down and convincing people that what's good for them is for the masses to pay more
and the ultra wealthy to pay less. It's a well planned playbook and it's being followed to a tee.
But now they are being heavily influenced by the Evangelical Christians and the next steps will be to further the Christian agenda. The latest victory was school prayer where a coach is now permitted
to get their players to pray to a Christian god.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if a coach who was Muslim did the same for his religion and team because this whole thing is about a minority demanding the majority bend to it's view of
the world and the rules that come from it. Freedom of and from religion as we've known it may soon be a thing of the past in America if this trend continues.

[curmudgeon]

EF44BC10-BD39-46E0-9C06-8E348921A653.gif (200.84 KiB) Viewed 4166 times

[RiverDog]

The conservative side are masters at a number of things including setting up Straw Men and then knocking them down and convincing people that what's good for them is for the masses to pay more
and the ultra wealthy to pay less. It's a well planned playbook and it's being followed to a tee.
But now they are being heavily influenced by the Evangelical Christians and the next steps will be to further the Christian agenda. The latest victory was school prayer where a coach is now permitted
to get their players to pray to a Christian god.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if a coach who was Muslim did the same for his religion and team because this whole thing is about a minority demanding the majority bend to it's view of
the world and the rules that come from it. Freedom of and from religion as we've known it may soon be a thing of the past in America if this trend continues.

The evangelical movement is dying out. The number of Americans that belong to a church has dropped by over 20% since the turn of the century:

Americans' membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup's eight-decade trend. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/chu ... %20century.

Less than 20% of the population attend a church once a week. I don't see religious services being televised live on Sunday mornings like I did back in the 80's and 90's. The days of Jerry Falwell, Jim & Tammy Baker, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson drawing millions of followers is long gone.

[Hawktawk]

The conservative side are masters at a number of things including setting up Straw Men and then knocking them down and convincing people that what's good for them is for the masses to pay more
and the ultra wealthy to pay less. It's a well planned playbook and it's being followed to a tee.
But now they are being heavily influenced by the Evangelical Christians and the next steps will be to further the Christian agenda. The latest victory was school prayer where a coach is now permitted
to get their players to pray to a Christian god.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if a coach who was Muslim did the same for his religion and team because this whole thing is about a minority demanding the majority bend to it's view of
the world and the rules that come from it. Freedom of and from religion as we've known it may soon be a thing of the past in America if this trend continues.

The evangelical movement is dying out. The number of Americans that belong to a church has dropped by over 20% since the turn of the century:

Americans' membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup's eight-decade trend. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/chu ... %20century.

Less than 20% of the population attend a church once a week. I don't see religious services being televised live on Sunday mornings like I did back in the 80's and 90's. The days of Jerry Falwell, Jim & Tammy Baker, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson drawing millions of followers is long gone.

The movement isn’t as large but it’s far more radical, overwhelmingly supports MAGA and even QAanon. There’s still millions of them, enough to swing many elections . They couldn’t spell God if you spotted them the G and D . They have hatred and hypocrisy in their heart . I say this as a former pastoral major who has preached from the pulpit and in the street and read the Bible cover to cover multiple times . These people worship a false god of arrogance and judgement of those who think differently . They remain a huge problem . Don’t get me started on the democrats either it’s a totally different rant . The country’s nuts .

[RiverDog]

The conservative side are masters at a number of things including setting up Straw Men and then knocking them down and convincing people that what's good for them is for the masses to pay more
and the ultra wealthy to pay less. It's a well planned playbook and it's being followed to a tee.
But now they are being heavily influenced by the Evangelical Christians and the next steps will be to further the Christian agenda. The latest victory was school prayer where a coach is now permitted
to get their players to pray to a Christian god.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if a coach who was Muslim did the same for his religion and team because this whole thing is about a minority demanding the majority bend to it's view of
the world and the rules that come from it. Freedom of and from religion as we've known it may soon be a thing of the past in America if this trend continues.

The evangelical movement is dying out. The number of Americans that belong to a church has dropped by over 20% since the turn of the century:

Americans' membership in houses of worship continued to decline last year, dropping below 50% for the first time in Gallup's eight-decade trend. In 2020, 47% of Americans said they belonged to a church, synagogue or mosque, down from 50% in 2018 and 70% in 1999.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/chu ... %20century.

Less than 20% of the population attend a church once a week. I don't see religious services being televised live on Sunday mornings like I did back in the 80's and 90's. The days of Jerry Falwell, Jim & Tammy Baker, Oral Roberts, and Pat Robertson drawing millions of followers is long gone.

The movement isn’t as large but it’s far more radical, overwhelmingly supports MAGA and even QAanon. There’s still millions of them, enough to swing many elections . They couldn’t spell God if you spotted them the G and D . They have hatred and hypocrisy in their heart . I say this as a former pastoral major who has preached from the pulpit and in the street and read the Bible cover to cover multiple times . These people worship a false god of arrogance and judgement of those who think differently . They remain a huge problem . Don’t get me started on the democrats either it’s a totally different rant . The country’s nuts .

Glad you jumped back in.

I agree with you, sort of. Like any other group, the last ones to go are the most ardent, hard line supporters, and yes, so long as we're as divided as we are, I can see them providing the difference in a close election.

However, I don't see the religious right controlling the agenda like they did 2 or 3 decades ago. American's attitude on abortion is a direct reflection of this waning influence, with 85% believing that it should be legal in at least some circumstances, a number that's gotten stronger since the turn of the century when less than 50% supported it. A similar situation exists with same sex marriage, with 70% of the country being good with it, an increase of about 15% in 10 years, with support increasing even amongst religious conservatives.

If I'm a conservative Republican candidate for an elective office, I'm not seeking out the evangelists.

[Aseahawkfan]

The conservative side are masters at a number of things including setting up Straw Men and then knocking them down and convincing people that what's good for them is for the masses to pay more
and the ultra wealthy to pay less. It's a well planned playbook and it's being followed to a tee.
But now they are being heavily influenced by the Evangelical Christians and the next steps will be to further the Christian agenda. The latest victory was school prayer where a coach is now permitted
to get their players to pray to a Christian god.
It would be interesting to see the reaction if a coach who was Muslim did the same for his religion and team because this whole thing is about a minority demanding the majority bend to it's view of
the world and the rules that come from it. Freedom of and from religion as we've known it may soon be a thing of the past in America if this trend continues.

We have a good idea of some of what would happen.

Repubs would bash on the kids being taught Islam.

Dems would support his right to pray because he is a minority.

While both would react in the opposite fashion if it were Christianity where Dems like to talk down to and make fun of believers Christianity crying separation of Church and State and Repubs would make it seem like we are a Christian nation that has lost its way. Both to play to members of their bases in a hypocritical fashion.

The usual. Both sides play to their basis often tot he detriment of this nation. Whoever appears to be winning at a given time is the worse group to the other.

[Aseahawkfan]

IMO it's not that the conservative media is better at manipulating minds. It is that the mind of the hard-core conservative is more subject to manipulation than their liberal counterparts.

Conservatives are, on the whole, less educated but not necessarily less intelligent, older, and a lot more insecure than their liberal counterparts. They feel, perhaps subconsciously, more personally threatened by women and minorities, frustrated by the changes society has gone through over the past 50 years or so, that advances made by those groups has somehow left them behind, left them with a healthy mistrust of government, of science, of medicine. They are easy prey for guys like Tucker Carlson.

The rest of your comments I agree with. We are dupes for whoever comes across the tube or our phones and tablets. Too many people get their information from one source, and although that source may present accurate information, the types of information that makes it through their filter is that which appeals to their audience, tells them what they want to hear, and keeps them coming back to that source.

And yes, we have not been producing good leaders. The pool from which to draw from is too small. No one in their right mind would want to go into politics. Only those with an over inflated ego are willing to live in a fishbowl.

I don't know that I believe that. I'd have to see that proven in a real objective scientific study, not just a poll.

Left believes a lot of weird things purely on the basis of being told to believe it. Being educated is helpful, but doesn't guarantee much of anything. I know plenty of people with degrees who received than based on time served than actual learning. They can often barely recall many aspects of their education. They tend to recite common left leaning political positions and ideas as pushed by the media and similar liberal influencers. Even phrases like like we're seeing right now, "My body. My choice" is an extremely dumbed down and emotional idea with no context, yet it is a major slogan in the Democratic Party and a general belief held by the left.

I think Fox News is better at manipulating the masses because the Democrats as a whole are not as invested in their ideologies as Republicans for reasons that are other than what you state. I think if the anti-immigrant ideas were what primarily drove the Republican Party, then I might agree with you. But they do not. I have Trump voting friends married to immigrant wives who could care less about the immigrant situation. It is not a major voting plank for them at all. I don't think the anti-immigrant rubbish is much of a voting plank for Republicans as in its not going to win them elections which is why Donald Trump was the only guy to use it and it didn't really help him. By the end even Ann Coulter hated him again because he didn't do anything to advance her cause.

Right now the Republicans vote primarily on hate for the Democrats and not many specific issues other than arguments they are fed by Fox News and similar conservative media. But the real votes that decide the election are based on hate for the Democrats, which Fox News is much better at inspiring than than the liberal media. And they vote with their wallets. I think that is what is driving the current Trump cycle.

The Democrats are supporting some very weird ideas right now and don't seem to want to admit it. The transgender push is a huge and strange issue to many Republicans. Pushing the idea into schools, demanding transitioning females get to compete in female sports, and just the entire issue being shoved down America's throat as a threat. The defund the police movement and constant attacks on the police of being racist. They been selling Critical Race Theory ideology for a while now which has several books rewriting American history in a way that the "white people are all bad." Have you read Howard Zinn's books? Or the 1619 Project?

There is a lot going on with the Democrats that gets pointed out by the Republicans with no context in the same fashion all Democrats paint the Republicans all a certain way with no context. Fox News has just been much better at selling these extremist viewpoints as looking to destroy America than CNN or MSNBC and far more common than they are.

I spent some time reading Howard Zinn and some of the 1619 Project and it does take a lot of liberties and is dishonest in its revising of history in quite a few parts, it does provide some alternative history that has some truth if you sift through the ideology. I've always been of the mind history should be more truthful and less driven by ideology. And these books are in answer to how the United States has written history in a fashion that is positive often even in regard to their obviously cruel methods of creating and managing the nation. So alternative viewpoints are to be expected. But these types of things get used to rile the Republican base against the Democrats while at the same time not containing compelling reasons to rally Democrats who are often indifferent to these types of books or completely unaware of them.

There is a lot of keep track of on both sides, but the Democrats provide the Republicans with a lot of ammunition to rile their bases. Right now the Democrats are pushing a lot of hard to swallow changes to society. Which is more why I think Trump rose to power. Too much weirdness and even America starts to push back on some of it.

[I-5]

Can someone give a coherent argument how what the 6-3 SCOTUS has already done (reverse Roe vs Wade) and is attempting (specifially Clarence Thomas' writings regarding same sex marriage and contraception) not a version of Sharia law that conservatives love to bring up with hardline fundamenatalists? Do they not see the parallel world they imagine in their minds?

[RiverDog]

Can someone give a coherent argument how what the 6-3 SCOTUS has already done (reverse Roe vs Wade) and is attempting (specifially Clarence Thomas' writings regarding same sex marriage and contraception) not a version of Sharia law that conservatives love to bring up with hardline fundamenatalists? Do they not see the parallel world they imagine in their minds?

I don't accept your premise, that SCOTUS is attempting or will attempt to overturn decisions regarding same sex marriage and contraception. You're listening to one justice and assuming that his opinion represents the majority. Here's what was said in the majority opinion of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, written by a justice that is arguably just as conservative as Clarence Thomas:

The court’s majority opinion overturning Roe, written by Justice Samuel Alito, repeatedly states that the ruling should not be seen as having any impact on those other cases. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” he wrote, adding that rights concerning contraception or same-sex intimacy are “inherently different” from abortion rights.

https://news.yahoo.com/will-the-supreme ... 06005.html

Like I said, the left is way, way over reacting to this decision.

[I-5]

I don't accept your premise, that SCOTUS is attempting or will attempt to overturn decisions regarding same sex marriage and contraception. You're listing to one justice and assuming that his opinion represents the majority. Here's what was said in the majority opinion of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, written by a justice that is arguably just as conservative as Clarence Thomas:

https://news.yahoo.com/will-the-supreme ... 06005.html

Like I said, the left is way, way over reacting to this decision.

And I don't accept your premise that the reaction doesn't match the action. What makes you think SCOTUS is done repealing laws they don't like? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both spoke about Roe vs Wade as 'settled law' in their confirmation testimonies...so much for that.

I also dispute that Alito is just as conservative as Clarence Thomas. The latter is sounding more like a conspiracy theorist with each new statement he makes, and explicitly proclaimed 'this isn't the end'. In this case, I do believe Thomas' words.

[Aseahawkfan]

Who knows what the Supreme Court will do at this point.

This isn't the 50s with hangars in the backroom. So the angst is just ridiculous. This is the age of the Internet and corporations run by socially liberal owners who are already supplying large sums of money to facilitate travel for abortion. Even Amazon I think is offering 4000 dollars to assist in travel. If states like wherever that Noem lady is governor start jailing women for abortions, doubt that will go over well with the majority of Americans. Even women on the conservative side support abortion. Congress will be pushed to come up with some law to take care of this on a Federal level.

I still think this is likely to hurt the Republican vote in the midterms, not help. If this doesn't help the Dems in the midterms, I don't know what will at this point. The Dems are closer to securing enough power to push their platform than the Republicans, so they had best take advantage of this.

[I-5]

ASF, I don't think you need doubt that this will help the democrats in the upcoming election. The anger I'm seeing and hearing is far greater than the anger at Trump before the election. Far greater. November isn't that far, so if anything this will pick up steam.

[RiverDog]

I don't accept your premise, that SCOTUS is attempting or will attempt to overturn decisions regarding same sex marriage and contraception. You're listing to one justice and assuming that his opinion represents the majority. Here's what was said in the majority opinion of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, written by a justice that is arguably just as conservative as Clarence Thomas:

https://news.yahoo.com/will-the-supreme ... 06005.html

Like I said, the left is way, way over reacting to this decision.

And I don't accept your premise that the reaction doesn't match the action. What makes you think SCOTUS is done repealing laws they don't like? Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both spoke about Roe vs Wade as 'settled law' in their confirmation testimonies...so much for that.

I also dispute that Alito is just as conservative as Clarence Thomas. The latter is sounding more like a conspiracy theorist with each new statement he makes, and explicitly proclaimed 'this isn't the end'. In this case, I do believe Thomas' words.

First of all, regarding Thomas sounding like a conspiracy theorist, you're reacting to Thomas's wife, not the justice.

Secondly, it's not only my opinion that Alito is just as conservative as Thomas. Here's one, albeit it from 2015. In a ranking with a score of 0 being the most conservative, Thomas scored a 16 while Alito was given a 10:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ranking-most ... 02622.html

Clarence Thomas is going to need 4 other justices to join him in his opinion in order for your fears to be realized, and if he doesn't have Alito in his corner, it's a near certainty that he's not going to have Roberts or Kavanaugh with him.

Look, I'm not happy with the make-up of SCOTUS, either. I would much rather see a court that's a little more split than the current 6-3 tilt. But libs worried that they'd protect Trump in his fraudulent election claims, and those fears turned out to be completely unfounded as all 3 of Trump's appointees voted against him. They've also refused to protect him in the Jan. 6th hearings. IMO they're a little more objective than what you're portraying them to be.

There's a lot more things wrong with this country than the make-up of SCOTUS.

[I-5]

First of all, regarding Thomas sounding like a conspiracy theorist, you're reacting to Thomas's wife, not the justice.

Secondly, it's not only my opinion that Alito is just as conservative as Thomas. Here's one, albeit it from 2015. In a ranking with a score of 0 being the most conservative, Thomas scored a 16 while Alito was given a 10:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ranking-most ... 02622.html

Clarence Thomas is going to need 4 other justices to join him in his opinion in order for your fears to be realized, and if he doesn't have Alito in his corner, it's a near certainty that he's not going to have Roberts or Kavanaugh with him.

Look, I'm not happy with the make-up of SCOTUS, either. I would much rather see a court that's a little more split than the current 6-3 tilt. But libs worried that they'd protect Trump in his fraudulent election claims, and those fears turned out to be completely unfounded as all 3 of Trump's appointees voted against him. They've also refused to protect him in the Jan. 6th hearings. IMO they're a little more objective than what you're portraying them to be.

I will agree there's a lot more wrong than the SCOTUS. But don't minimize what's wrong with the SCOTUS.

There's a lot more things wrong with this country than the make-up of SCOTUS.

Riv, I know who Ginni Thomas is. She's a nutcase, but I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about Clarence Thomas, her husband:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote, referring to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage. "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

Thomas' concurring opinion above (which no other justice joined) on the reversal of Roe vs Wade basically delivered what pro-choice groups had predicted for months: that if the SCOTUS reverses course and says that the Constitution doesn't protect a right to an abortion, then it also will jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment.

I agree there's a lot more wrong with the country than the SCOTUS. But don't minimize the issues with the SCOTUS, either.

[RiverDog]

Riv, I know who Ginni Thomas is. She's a nutcase, but I'm not talking about her. I'm talking about Clarence Thomas, her husband:

"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote, referring to landmark opinions that blocked states from banning contraception, sex by same-sex couples and gay marriage. "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

Thomas' concurring opinion above (which no other justice joined) on the reversal of Roe vs Wade basically delivered what pro-choice groups had predicted for months: that if the SCOTUS reverses course and says that the Constitution doesn't protect a right to an abortion, then it also will jeopardize other rights the court established under the 14th Amendment.

I agree there's a lot more wrong with the country than the SCOTUS. But don't minimize the issues with the SCOTUS, either.

What I was referring to was your comment that "The latter (Thomas) is sounding more like a conspiracy theorist with each new statement he makes"

I'm not sure what his comment about revisiting gay marriage and contraception decisions has to do with sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

And I'll give you the opposite advice about the issues with SCOTUS: Don't make a mountain out of a molehill. This is going to be a pain in the butt for some women of childbearing age that don't have the foresight to protect themselves, but they have plenty of means available to avoid the dilemma altogether. Dems and libs need to quit crying over the decision. There's nothing anyone can do to change it. If they truly care about the welfare of these women, they need to put to use the energy and resources they're expending in protesting the decision into lobbying state legislatures and educating both young men as well as women.

As far as other potential issues that MIGHT come before the court, let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

[RiverDog]

ASF, I don't think you need doubt that this will help the democrats in the upcoming election. The anger I'm seeing and hearing is far greater than the anger at Trump before the election. Far greater. November isn't that far, so if anything this will pick up steam.

That remains to be seen. This stuff has the tendency to fade away with time. There is no follow-up to it. The issue is at its zenith and will only decline in effectiveness with the electorate. Does it have enough legs to last until Labor Day when the campaigns get into full swing, then November when people go to the voting booth?

On the other hand, we get a constant reminder of how bad this economy is every time we drive past a gas station.

[I-5]

That remains to be seen. This stuff has the tendency to fade away with time. There is no follow-up to it. The issue is at its zenith and will only decline in effectiveness with the electorate. Does it have enough legs to last until Labor Day when the campaigns get into full swing, then November when people go to the voting booth?

On the other hand, we get a constant reminder of how bad this economy is every time we drive past a gas station.

Would you say the 4 years of anger at Trump faded away by Nov 6? If anything it built up even more. I think you're overestimating your intuition that this is the kind of issue people, especially women, will someow forget or have opinion soften by November. It won't.

[RiverDog]

That remains to be seen. This stuff has the tendency to fade away with time. There is no follow-up to it. The issue is at its zenith and will only decline in effectiveness with the electorate. Does it have enough legs to last until Labor Day when the campaigns get into full swing, then November when people go to the voting booth?

On the other hand, we get a constant reminder of how bad this economy is every time we drive past a gas station.

Would you say the 4 years of anger at Trump faded away by Nov 6? If anything it built up even more. I think you're overestimating your intuition that this is the kind of issue people, especially women, will someow forget or have opinion soften by November. It won't.

You're looking at just one side of the equation, the Democratic POV.

I'm not making any predictions. This is the biggest SCOTUS ruling in half a centry, so it may not fit the trends of the past. I'm just saying that these types of things have the tendency to fade over time while the economy, if it's bad like it has been, hangs around as an issue. People vote their pocketbooks. It's likely that the Fed will continue to raise interest rates every 6 weeks, and each time they do, it will be another reminder of how bad the economy is. People gas up their cars once a week. The price of gas I paid yesterday was still over $5/gallon.

The party in power historically does poorly in the midterms. Congressional races are usually reflective of the POTUS's popularity, and Biden's RCP job approval average as of yesterday is at 38.9%, the lowest of his presidency, so the SCOTUS decision hasn't helped his popularity yet, but it's still early. If he remains this unpopular in November, I can't see the Dems staving off a disaster. But I've been wrong before.