On the heels of Roe - same-sex marriage and contraception (1 Viewer)

[Bleu Raeder]

As Supreme Court overturns abortion rights, could same-sex marriage be next to go?

Justice Thomas suggests the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage.

www.houstonchronicle.com

"Justice" Thomas wants to burn it all down...except for interracial marriage.

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court on Friday declared the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested the court should also reconsider past rulings establishing rights to contraception, same-sex relationships and gay marriage, as well.

“We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion, pointing to landmark decisions that protected the right to obtain contraception, the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts, and the right to same-sex marriage.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The Democratic Party messaging has indeed moved way too far left. The election of Trump is the end result of a twenty plus year culture war by the right. And it won that war.

 

[J-DONK]

The Democratic Party messaging has indeed moved way too far left. The election of Trump is the end result of a twenty plus year culture war by the right. And it won that war.

It's partially the right finding really good wedge issues, like transgender bathrooms. What percentage of the population does this concern? We are talking about transgenders who use public bathrooms, and implicitly those who don't pass. You would never realize a transgender is using the restroom if you can't identify them. What is that .01% of the population? Yet, that topic was talked about incessantly, and had laws enacted over it.

 

[Xeno]

I just don’t think that the party moving further left would solve their problems right now.

Staying in the center and reaching over the line to the right hasn't gotten us anywhere except to the point that the United States is effectively a Christofascist state controlled by six religious zealots with lifetime appointments. Every time the left reaches across the aisle the fascists grab their arms and force them further right. This week's gun legislation is the rarest of unicorns in today's climate, and if we're completely honest it's barely even a bandaid on a sucking chest wound.

Bipartisanship has failed. "Going high" has failed. The entire system has failed. If the American people are going to react to "progressive" policy (let's be honest with ourselves, nothing even the most progressive politicians are proposing is in any way radical, we'd just be bringing ourselves in line with the rest of the developed world) by jumping ship to the fascists then there's no point in fighting anymore because that means Americans want a fascist state.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Americans would act favorably to progressive economic policies while a significant number unfavorably to (what they consider to be) extreme social policies. Going left, or at least getting framed as being left on niche issues like trans-athletes and defunding the police, is what hurts Democrats today. Going further left on those issues is not going to help win any elections.

 

[wardorican]

The Democrats being spineless and 'catering to the middle' is part of what brought us to this point.

We may be forced to lay in the bed we made.

bullshirt. It's simply the rights willingness to break government to get their way.

 

[J-DONK]

bullshirt. It's simply the rights willingness to break government to get their way.

Then why do Democrats still praise Republicans? What did Biden call Mitch? A man of honor, and his good friend.

That happened this year.

After Mitch's decades long campaign of "no to everything", and refusing to appoint Garland.

Heathen is right. When do the gloves come off?

 

[RobF]

Americans would act favorably to progressive economic policies while a significant number unfavorably to (what they consider to be) extreme social policies. Going left, or at least getting framed as being left on niche issues like trans-athletes and defunding the police, is what hurts Democrats today. Going further left on those issues is not going to help win any elections.

You've touched on the problem there.

Democrats will be framed as being 'left on niche issues like trans-athletes and defunding the police' regardless. There's a lot of ways they can respond to that. But probably the worst one is to react to the framing, whether it's an opposition strategy, a media narrative, or a populist notion, without recognising that many of their own party are 'left' on the issue (the extent depending on the issue). If part of the party adopts the framing and rejects taking action on the framed issue, that bolsters the notion that doing so is a bad thing that people should be concerned about, and then the fact that people in the party do support taking action substantiates the attack. It ends up galvanising the opposition, dividing the party, and fueling apathy in the party's own supporters. The narrative inevitably ends up shifting towards the opposition.

That does not, of course, mean the party should react to topics by doing the opposite. What they should do is reject the framing. Form their own policies based on their principles, and then promote those. If the party actually is "left" on an issue, as determined by their own principles and policies, they should take that and promote that position. Sell it. Don't pretend, or often worse, change to be, something else, fuel the opposition's narratives and then try to beat them at them. That doesn't work.

An example: the Conservatives in the UK used immigration as a topic to win back power after the Blair and Brown led Labour governments. Labour's response was to repeatedly agree that immigration was a problem and promise things like 'tighter controls on immigration'. The problem with that is it ended up with limited defense of immigration, fueling the notion that immigration is a top issue, and playing into the Conservatives' hands in pushing the notion that they'd be better at tackling it than Labour. End result, 12 years and counting of Conservatives in government, Brexit, etc. (I'm over-simplifying there for the purpose of the example, but you get the idea).

I think it's important to recognise that these narratives and the notions of what's "left" and what isn't don't exist in a vacuum. The parties' own policies and positions help form them. That is, if a party goes "further left" on an issue, it may help them win elections, if in doing so they can shift the narrative and win support for the issue; just as a party going "further right" on an issue can, and has. Conversely, not moving, or even just failing to hold a position, can lose elections.

Generally, if one party pro-actively adopts strong, and often deliberately polarising, positions, and another party takes a reactive, relatively passive stance, trying to avoid the polarisation, the narrative will typically shift, or appear to shift, towards the pro-active, divisive, party. They might end up with a minority of support (since polarising, extreme, positions can put people off), but it'll be a galvanised minority that turns out to vote. And that can beat a divided majority, some of which can start to view the opposition as an option that won't even stop things heading in the wrong direction, but at best just slow it down.

 

[Bolo]

The Democratic Party messaging has indeed moved way too far left. The election of Trump is the end result of a twenty plus year culture war by the right. And it won that war.

That election was basically a professional criminal vs a professional troll. You kinda know what a professional criminal is but a professional troll(Trump) is sorta unpredictable and the fact Hilary isn't very well liked and many stayed home in that general. Not running Bernie instead of Hilary ended up being the death knell for the door opening for Trump. Hilary was never polling well with independents and she barely even campaigned in states that ended up being the swing of that election. Bernie on the other hand was crushing it with the independents. These are the voters who decide these elections. When the DNC basically shilled out for Hilary, it caused all those independents who were Bernie supporters and dislikers of Hilary to stay home or vote for Trump in the general.

There was a bit of luck in what transpired, but there were major missteps by the DNC along the way. I firmly believe you don't get Trump had Bernie been the nominee in 16.
Younger voters were energized over his ideas about higher wages and the looming student debit crisis. Hilary was all over the place, she was always going where the wind was blowing and quite often came off as out of touch. She did not have the resonation as Bernie did, even his rallies were crazy big compared to Hillary. Unfortunately, the establishment wanted Hilary and they got Hilary which led to a Trump victory.

Even under Trump, it still was luck of the draw with RBG dying under a Republican administrations watch. Speaking of RBG, she is why I'd be fine with 10 year term limits on Supreme court judges. Her health had been dwindling for a number of years before she passed away, she died on the job, wasn't about to retire either.

 

[Xeno]

That election was basically a professional criminal vs a professional troll. You kinda know what a professional criminal is but a professional troll(Trump) is sorta unpredictable and the fact Hilary isn't very well liked and many stayed home in that general. Not running Bernie instead of Hilary ended up being the death knell for the door opening for Trump. Hilary was never polling well with independents and she barely even campaigned in states that ended up being the swing of that election. Bernie on the other hand was crushing it with the independents. These are the voters who decide these elections. When the DNC basically shilled out for Hilary, it caused all those independents who were Bernie supporters and dislikers of Hilary to stay home or vote for Trump in the general.

There was a bit of luck in what transpired, but there were major missteps by the DNC along the way. I firmly believe you don't get Trump had Bernie been the nominee in 16.
Younger voters were energized over his ideas about higher wages and the looming student debit crisis. Hilary was all over the place, she was always going where the wind was blowing and quite often came off as out of touch. She did not have the resonation as Bernie did, even his rallies were crazy big compared to Hillary. Unfortunately, the establishment wanted Hilary and they got Hilary which led to a Trump victory.

Even under Trump, it still was luck of the draw with RBG dying under a Republican administrations watch. Speaking of RBG, she is why I'd be fine with 10 year term limits on Supreme court judges. Her health had been dwindling for a number of years before she passed away, she died on the job, wasn't about to retire either.

All of this falls apart as soon as you remember that Bernie Sanders also lost the primaries to Joe Biden.

 

[CoolBrees]

I would like to think that Bernie would have won.

But I also thought it wouldn’t matter; there was no way America would elect a guy who called Mexicans rapists and said he can grab women by the arse but here we are.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

All of this falls apart as soon as you remember that Bernie Sanders also lost the primaries to Joe Biden.

You can't compare the two, really. In the 2016 general, Sanders would have pulled far more independents (and possibly even Republicans) who went with Trump. Certainly enough in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin where it mattered. And whose to say Sanders would not have been a better 2020 general election candidate, either? At least to the point where the margins in states would not have been so close for Trump's election conspiracy insanity to take root.

 

[Heathen]

bullshirt. It's simply the rights willingness to break government to get their way.

It's really not just that.

If you really, truly think that the Democrats could have over the years not mounted a better coalition of ideals, connected with people on the ground (in places like the midwest - crucial to the loss in 2016) and representatives to get to the point that we could have beaten someone as blatantly, openly full of shirt as Trump, then I guess we have nothing else to talk about.

It's hard to imagine that's what is being assumed. But feel free to correct if I misread what seemed to be an oversimplification in your last statement.

 

[MT15]

I would like to think that Bernie would have won.

But I also thought it wouldn’t matter; there was no way America would elect a guy who called Mexicans rapists and said he can grab women by the arse but here we are.

I have come around to the conclusion that Bernie would not have won in the general. I don’t have anything other than my opinion on this, but he was never subjected to any real negative attention from the RNC, IIRC, because they didn’t think he’d be the candidate and he is tailor made for their socialist fear mongering. Face it, if the Rs can sell Clinton and Biden as “socialists”, and they can and did, Bernie wouldn’t have had a chance in 2016. JMO.

 

[Heathen]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you (not just you personally, but a lot of progressives) vastly overestimate the ability of progressives to win elections in huge parts of the country. When we had the newer political test thing a while ago, it said the percentage of the population that identifies as you do was around 10% if I recall correctly. That surprised me, because even I didn’t think it was that low. My more traditional liberal stance was only around 20%, again going from memory. I just don’t think that the party moving further left would solve their problems right now.

I guess what is your fear with 'moving further left' on policy?

Where further left may mean being more on offense in terms of gun control instead of sitting on our hands. Where it may mean allocating more to our schools and teachers instead of to the military. Or having worker representation on corporate boards?

Im curious.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I have come around to the conclusion that Bernie would not have won in the general. I don’t have anything other than my opinion on this, but he was never subjected to any real negative attention from the RNC, IIRC, because they didn’t think he’d be the candidate and he is tailor made for their socialist fear mongering. Face it, if the Rs can sell Clinton and Biden as “socialists”, and they can and did, Bernie wouldn’t have had a chance in 2016. JMO.

Respectfully, you're misreading the room/country during that time period. There are no shortage of news stories from immediately after the election where people say they voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary and they would have voted for Sanders because of his progressive economic policies. Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin was all he needed. The other states that went for Clinton were mostly a Democratic lay up and any D would have won them.

Meanwhile, Hillary didn't stand for much other than perhaps the symbolism of being the first female president. And I know there were a lot of Hillary voters that didn't want to vote for another old white guy or didn't trust Bernie... but I'd bet they would have trusted the three woman he would have appointed to the Supreme Court.

The 'socialist' thing is a legitimate concern but I don't think that would have come into play until 2020 when Trump and the GOP really hammered home the culture war.

 

[J-DONK]

I would like to think that Bernie would have won.

But I also thought it wouldn’t matter; there was no way America would elect a guy who called Mexicans rapists and said he can grab women by the arse but here we are.

He polled remarkably better vs Trump then HRC. It's not an outrageous claim.

PolitiFact - Bernie Sanders says he polls better against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton does

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is behind in the delegate count by near-insurmountable numbers, but he

www.politifact.com

 

[J-DONK]

I have come around to the conclusion that Bernie would not have won in the general. I don’t have anything other than my opinion on this, but he was never subjected to any real negative attention from the RNC, IIRC, because they didn’t think he’d be the candidate and he is tailor made for their socialist fear mongering. Face it, if the Rs can sell Clinton and Biden as “socialists”, and they can and did, Bernie wouldn’t have had a chance in 2016. JMO.

TBH, Fox never needed to run a negative campaign. The super work channel that is MSNBC did that. Pepperidge farms still remembers Chuck Todd, and Chris Matthews comparing Sanders supporters to Nazi's.

Then you got the braindead take of "WhY Didn'T alL thOSe SanDers sUPPorteRS VotE foR HRC?"

P.S. That whole debacle points out socially progressive =! economically progressive. MSNBC is all over transgender bathrooms, but you better not say a word about unions, higher minimum wage or M4A.

 

[Taurus]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you (not just you personally, but a lot of progressives) vastly overestimate the ability of progressives to win elections in huge parts of the country. When we had the newer political test thing a while ago, it said the percentage of the population that identifies as you do was around 10% if I recall correctly. That surprised me, because even I didn’t think it was that low. My more traditional liberal stance was only around 20%, again going from memory. I just don’t think that the party moving further left would solve their problems right now.

22% of voters is all it took to put Trump in office.
Numbers and leanings don't mean shirt if you can't get people off their arses to VOTE.