The democrats are forcing a vote on a bill to preserve Roe but unsurprisingly, it's expected to fail because of the republicans.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/11/poli ... index.html

That's just performative at this point. They won't get rid of the filibuster and they want to use it as a fundraising issue so they can stay in power. They should've codified it years ago. I know there are going to be the usual excuses - "but Manchin and Sinema" - but I just can't see any excuse for the total failure of all this. It's not like it was a secret that the Republicans were gunning for abortion laws for years now.

If Manchin and Sinema are really this bad of a problem for them, then the leadership should be bullying them and coercing them into doing what's needed. Primary them. Remove them from all committees, make them persona non grata in the government. This is a party that is either just so decorum-obsessed that they can't get anything done, or they actually like Manchin and Sinema and are only using them as an excuse on the surface.

It really just makes you feel good about how things are going over here /s.

Yep... and this isn't "oh both sides are the same." I voted Dem every time I could because they at the least seemed the better alternative to the Republicans. Criticizing this kinda stuff is because I want them to do much better.

$40 billion more just passed for Ukraine. There could be a whole debate about what to do about global conflicts, but it's nuts that this happens while nobody here can afford rent, no one has healthcare, etc.

I'm so tired of people on the left using problems at home as an excuse to justify kicking Ukraine to the dogs. Do we have to wait until literally everything is perfect in America before we lift a finger to help a country that is being dismembered by a tinpot dictator?


Primary Manchin, get a Republican who will vote against every Dem judicial nominee and program. The solution to this problem is defeating Republicans in the 2022 midterms. We need to win PA, we need to win WI, we need to win NC, and we need to do it while defending seats in AZ, NH, GA, and NV. Demanding the party primary Sinema and Manchin at this point is useless and unproductive. Worry about Sinema in '24. Focus on making her and Manchin irrelevant in 2022.

I didn't say don't give them anything; I'm saying we also need to spend another $40 billion helping people here too. But that gets hand-wringing and "how do we pay for it" while everyone starves and the rich get richer, and we're just supposed to pretend the US is doing great and the economy is fine.

So a Republican voting against everything would be different from Manchin?

edit - https://deadline.com/2022/05/senate-abo ... 235021491/ Manchin voted against the abortion thing. Not much distinction there really unfortunately.

Winning a lot of these other places would be great if we elect people who care about workers and inequality, sure. If they're just going to be more Manchins then I dunno. It will depend.

People wrote a pro-abortion message in chalk in front of Susan Collins' home and she called the cops for defacing public property. Lol. She's one of the mildest republicans, and she still finds a way to be an absolute fucking cunt. That's saying a lot about the rest of them when she's one of their least worse.

Just to say, it's not "pro-abortion" nobody wants that, unless it's necessary. I know that's been the term the media have been using but the proper term is "pro-choice." Not trying to be a smart ass, I just hate hearing or reading that term.

There's no reason we shouldn't be able to do both, I can agree with you (I think) on that.


Manchin voted to confirm (soon-to-be) Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. He's voted to confirm virtually all of Biden's nominees, actually. He voted for Biden's COVID-19 relief package, for the January 6th commission, and for the infrastructure bill. West Virginia's Republican junior senator, Shelley Moore Capito, voting against confirming Jackson, against most of Biden's nominees, and against all of those bills except for the infrastructure bill. And Capito is what passes for a moderate Republican in WV. She is the absolute best case scenario. If you want to see who would likely replace Manchin, look at Alex Mooney or Patrick Morrissey. They wouldn't even have voted for the infrastructure bill, much less anything else.

If you wanna say you don't like Manchin, that he's a huge roadblock to getting things done, that he's actively making the country worse by fighting against crucial initiatives that would improve the lives of millions of Americans, I'm right there with you. But saying a Republican would be no different? That's unreal. A Republican would absolutely be worse. And that's really the choice here: it's Manchin or a Republican. You are not going to get anybody more liberal in West Virginia at this point.


John Fetterman's not Joe Manchin. Neither are Cheri Beasley or Mandela Barnes. Heck, even Tim Ryan isn't Joe Manchin, although I think Ohio's a lost cause at this point. Being better than Joe Manchin is a pretty low bar, but every one of those candidates is a vote for codifying Roe v Wade, for helping workers, for fighting inequality, that we currently don't have in the Senate.

I wouldn’t necessarily write off Tim Ryan just yet. He is facing JD Vance, his only claim to fame was writing a shitty book that got turned into a Netflix movie. He’s fairly easy to beat just by replaying his constant contradictions being anti Trump then all of a sudden embracing him.

Abortion is a social good. I'm absolutely pro abortion, and I'm not alone.

I just want people to be able to make their own decisions, I'll leave it at that.

The two terms probably mean the same for most people, but I prefer the term pro-choice as well because the experience of getting an abortion can vary a lot depending on the person. It could be a sober medical decision one doesn't think twice about, a freeing positive decision, an incredibly hard but necessary decision, or one of a thousand other variations.

To me "pro abortion" sounds like the abortion itself is a pro, which for some people it won't be even if they do make the choice to have one.

lol Manchin



No surprise on that vote result but yeah, what an absolute cunt. If only he and Collins (and all the rest of the GOP, naturally) could get fired into the sun. That'd be nice.

No prob, I usually use pro-choice too, I prefer that term. Just a slip of the... tongue? Keyboard?

Regarding the above pics... is it too optimistic that Repubes will leave Planned Parenthood alone now that Roe is done? Hahaha, what am I saying, of course I'm sure they'll still attack it. They've already been saying they want to do the decision (can't recall the name) about contraception next.

I'm not writing him off completely but he definitely has an uphill battle, nor would I say Vance is going to be easy to beat, particularly not in a national environment that's pretty rough for Dems. For Ryan to win, he'd have to run an excellent campaign, with messaging that resonates with the electorate early on, with strong fundraising numbers throughout, and he'd need Vance to run a poor, disorganized campaign, too. It's possible, and Ryan is probably the only Dem who can pull it off (other than Sherrod Brown) but I'd bet on WI and PA flipping long before I bet on OH.

It's not about being "pro-abortion" or even pro-choice. It's about everyone in a society having totalizing control of every part of their body. Would it ever be acceptable to use the power of the state to force someone to give up an organ or blood, even if it was to save a life, even if the person being harvested would be able to live life normally, even if the government reimbursed them?

Effective in probably half the country before the end of the year, women are de facto second class citizens, merely vessels to be handled by the state. And this is only the beginning of the coming disembowlement of a free society.


how ya gonna pay for it how ya gonna pay for it how ya gonna pay for it??? Oh, you said weapons, not social goods and basic civil rights, my bad, here's a check.

Nice utopian fallacy, though. Not even Russia with their "tinpot, theocratic dictator" has the draconian abortion laws that are about to besiege half this country. They even have a lower infant mortality rate too!

Mind your mask, it's starting to slip again. None of that has anything to do with whether sending weapons to Ukraine is a good thing or not.

We're forced to operate in a zero-sum game. I don't like it, I would personally rather see an MMT economy, but it doesn't matter what I want because this is the reality. A penny spent on defense is a penny that could've been spent on a gas rebate. That's how it works in the US. Inflation is a core concern of the American electorate, which means that further entitlement cuts are just on the horizon. In fact, the Biden administration has already expanded Trump's policy to privatize Medicare. And now we have a new crisis in the impending Roe V. Wade repeal.

So yes, based on the framework imposed by our economic overlords that we are forced to accept, the $15bn spent for Ukraine to kill people could instead have been spent on ensuring women in America don't die of blood infections when they're forced to do a back alley abortion. You'll also notice that the aid package for Ukraine was $40bn, not 15. My only issue is with the 15, most of which, by the way, is not going directly to Ukraine but to Lockheed Martin, where a large chunk of it will be skimmed off the top. On top of that, continuing to exacerbate the conflict by continuing to send weapons to Ukraine is an extremely dangerous gambit with very little reward.

I would rather live in a world where everyone cared about the horrorshows in South Sudan and Ethiopia--where mass rape, executions and starvation are simply the day to day reality--as they do in their own country, but we don't live in that world.

Hard to disagree with these points...

Well touche on Manchin. Honestly I barely think about him, I was just responding to what this discussion had been like. In general I don't really have much positive to say about any Dems. There are some alright ones but in general this party is only useful because they are a less offensive and evil vote than a Republican. But a vote is a vote and that's a very small thing to do, so it is what it is.

Re: Ukraine - I think there's room for nuance to say that while we can't be isolated, we can also be skeptical of the US involvement in this even if we're not saying "no, don't send them anything."

Tsk, tsk. There's no room for nuance when discussing 21st century American politics.
The 'echo-chamber enlightenment' has all but killed it.

This was not my thought (I'm not smart enough), but a buddy of mine said this was probably done to drum up support, "Liberal antifa will invade your neighborhood if you don't donate NOW!"

I remember when conservatives at least pretended to care about the US becoming a police state. Now they just proudly lick the boots of actual oppressors. Fox News should be tried for crimes against humanity.

I think some of you forget that politicians are beholden to their constituents. People like Manchin have to listen to all the people they represent. Look at the demographics of West Virginia. Blame doesn't just go to one place.

Apparently in some areas, writing with chalk is considered vandalism and can come with a hefty fine. No idea if this is the case in Maine. In similar news, apparently protesting at the house of judges, no matter how peaceful, is illegal. Personally I find protesting judges to be kind of pointless but the right to protest should have no exceptions.

This is flawed thinking. Aid to Ukraine isn't taking away from aid or infrastructure for the American people, because the latter was simply *never on the table*. Our government refuses to help us because our politicians largely don't believe in it, not because there's no money for it.

Indeed. Pull yerself up by your own boot straps. All hail the individual. Vote against your own self interests because...boot straps. Oh, and don't forget about punitive politics, like pro-life consequences. "That'll teach ya!"

Meanwhile protesting abortion clinic employees is fine

Cunts

Dude, what are you even talking about at this point? I genuinely have no clue.

Let's see. According to them:
- protesting at abortion clinics = OK
- protesting at churches or at SCOTUS' homes = not OK
- attacking the Capitol to disrupt a democratic process = OK
- writing in chalk on a sidewalk = not OK
- burning books and banning them from schools = OK
- removing someone from a platform because they were hateful and broke the TOS = not OK
- death penalty = ok
- abortion = not ok

Calling America not "literally perfect" is one hell of an understatement. Also, no one disputes the humanitarian aid, although it's concerning that countries where the living conditions of the population are far worse than Ukraine could never even dream of such support. Of course, those countries aren't full of white Christians...

Politicians are elected to represent the needs of and benefit their constituents and supporters, yes.

But let's not just throw our hands up and say "democracy at work". Democracy is not rule by mob. Politicians should have a responsibility to to oppose bad decisions and act in people's best interests, no matter who those people are, and even if the decisions are unpopular.

Once you factor in gender, race, sexual orientation, non-cis people, etc. there's a good chance that a majority of Americans in many places are not actually "minorities," yet their rights and freedoms are routinely trampled on with little consequence. That's not the system working as intended to protect and lift up the people who need the help the most; that's members of the ruling class representing themselves and their buddies and perpetuating a fascist slave state.

5 unelected assholes (all but one of whom were appointed by a president who lost the popular vote) are gearing up to strike down a ruling that a supermajority (70%) of Americans believe should be upheld. The argument for America as a democracy is more threadbare than ever.

The idea is that protest outside of a judge's house - any judge's house, could influence the decision of the judge, and that's why it's illegal. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable exception to me. In this case it's a terrible decision but that doesn't always have to be the case.

As long as unelected officials have the power to strip away our rights like this, protesting them directly *has* to remain legal. We simply have no other mechanism for influencing them.

Yeah this is a case where legal =/= good like in an increasing number of them these days.

I think there is a difference between a decision about the guilt or innocence of someone - which should rely only on evidence, and never, ever on public opinion* - and a decision that basically determines the legality of something. That's a more gray area, as if most people in a country feel something ought to be legal or not, I think it should certainly be taken into consideration. I should stress out that this shouldn't be the only factor, and also I suspect the dickheads on the SCOTUS only take joy in triggering the libs (because that's modern conservatism for you) so it's in vain anyway.

Also let's not forget that 3 of the judges had said before that Roe was the law of the land and settled law - essentially, they lied. Normal people would lose their jobs ithey lied so during a job interview.

*I do see situations where protesting such a case may be warranted - if a judge has shown himself to lack impartiality, for instance a racist judging a black, or a misogynist, or similar situation.

We've entered the reality John Roberts was fighting tooth and nail to avoid: the Supreme Court is now seen as political. Obviously it was always political but the veil of neutrality that was girded by either ruling on intensely divided issues (e.g. religious freedom) or issues that only an informed minority care about (e.g. Citizens United), or simply by ruling in favor of the will of the majority of citizens (e.g. gay marriage) has allowed SCOTUS to seem no different than a judge presiding over a murder trial.

Now that's gone and SCOTUS is viewed as just another political arm of the government and one that's thoroughly anti-democratic to boot. In lieu of that and in lieu of the fact SCOTUS is in no danger of being abolished, it's high time protesting at judges' homes (at least SCOTUS judges) be not only legalized but encouraged. Not doing so could lead to severe destabilization, the very nightmare scenario democracy was designed to prevent.

It should be legal under 1st amendment to protest at SCOTUS judges' homes.

SCOTUS judges: Lol no.