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.

 

[MT15]

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.

Fear is an odd choice of words, man.

 

[zztop]

My 2 cents as a Bernie bro, maybe I had some "insider perspective"... or maybe I am just biased hah

He appealed a lot more to younger voters vs HC
DNC already anointed HC before primaries and was mostly for show.
Media screwed over Bernie. Not saying I watched news 24/7 but often it seemed they were mostly pushing HC from the start.
Trump admitted he was more afraid of Bernie vs HC (for good reason in my opinion - I think he would have won Wis,PA,Mich).
Bernie would not have won the south, but neither did HC
After HC won the primaries, a lot of the younger Bernie supporters were dejected.
HC lacked charisma and didn't appeal to the younger voters, other than potentially being the first woman president. (that obviously was not enough and I don't blame them, she was mediocre)
HC's policies were deeply moderate. She only moved slightly more left after Bernie started making gains against her.
HC should have been smart to get Bernie to be her VP. He would probably refuse, unless maybe she gave him many concessions (agreed to more of his proposed policies) - which I think would have been a fair trade to avoid a trump victory - of course she didn't do any of that. But in my opinion him being VP would have retained much of his support.
Bernie's "high point" was the 2016 elections. Afterwards a lot became jaded or demoralized nothing would ever change. Also after trump, people were triggered by 4 years of his shirt and wanted someone "safe" hence the swing to the middle aka Biden.

 

[MT15]

That makes sense. I became jaded toward Bernie and some of his supporters after 2016 myself.

I also talked to a bunch of relatives who voted for Trump, they thought Clinton was too far left. They would have never voted for Bernie, even though some of them voted for Obama.

 

[Heathen]

Fear is an odd choice of words, man.

Were you genuinely perplexed at the use of 'fear' vs. 'concern'?

The question remains legitimate. Feel free not to answer if you feel so obliged, but the question was asked
in no condescending or presumptuous manner.

 

[MT15]

I’m not afraid of anything that Bernie proposes, and I agree with most of it. You gotta win elections, though. And I just don’t think the more far left proposals can win in this country at this point in time.

But go ahead with your assumptions that I must have “fear”. That, IMO, wasn’t a random choice of words. You can say it isn’t condescending, but it certainly comes across as that. Whatever. I’ve seen it before, a lot, on line from Bernie supporters. It gets very old, and is part of the reason I have soured on this wing of the party. Tired of it.

 

[zztop]

Crap, I forgot one from my list above. Regarding policy, it would not have mattered much if HC/Bernie won, b/c republicans controlled house and senate from 2015-2019. Republicans would have just obstructed everything the whole time.

I think the use of the word fear could be replaced with concern. I heard a lot of "who is going to pay for it?" in regards to, for example, giving everyone an opportunity to get a college education, universal healthcare etc

Sad reality is (well since I'm only around them) middle class and poor assume/expect they'll have to pay for this. Which is a sad/troubling issue on it's own. Things have become so out of order, where lower/middle class has to support upper/rich millionaires/corporations that make billions of profits a year

trickle down never works, rich get richer, massive tax breaks for wealthy, common folk bear the brunt of things. All should be the opposite.

from 2009-2011 president, house and senate were all controlled by democrats, they should have done more.

 

[Heathen]

I’m not afraid of anything that Bernie proposes, and I agree with most of it.

I haven't mentioned Bernie Sanders once in this thread.

You gotta win elections, though. And I just don’t think the more far left proposals can win in this country at this point in time.

Sure, that's your personal view. Let's move on...

But go ahead with your assumptions that I must have “fear”. That, IMO, wasn’t a random choice of words. You can say it isn’t condescending, but it certainly comes across as that. Whatever. I’ve seen it before, a lot, on line from Bernie supporters. It gets very old, and is part of the reason I have soured on this wing of the party. Tired of it.

Look, I'm just going to address this once more and leave it be.

I asked "I guess what is your fear with 'moving further left' on policy?", and you responded with it being an 'odd choice of words'.

I clarified that I didn't mean it in the way you're assuming. Maybe you thought it was truly a personal jab or meant as an backhand insult. I'm telling you, it wasn't meant that way.

There needs to be an element of good faith present both in dialogue - questions and answers --- and in misunderstandings.

 

[Heathen]

Crap, I forgot one from my list above. Regarding policy, it would not have mattered much if HC/Bernie won, b/c republicans controlled house and senate from 2015-2019. Republicans would have just obstructed everything the whole time.

I think the use of the word fear could be replaced with concern. I heard a lot of "who is going to pay for it?" in regards to, for example, giving everyone an opportunity to get a college education, universal healthcare etc

Sad reality is (well since I'm only around them) middle class and poor assume/expect they'll have to pay for this. Which is a sad/troubling issue on it's own. Things have become so out of order, where lower/middle class has to support upper/rich millionaires/corporations that make billions of profits a year

trickle down never works, rich get richer, massive tax breaks for wealthy, common folk bear the brunt of things. All should be the opposite.

from 2009-2011 president, house and senate were all controlled by democrats, they should have done more.

And I'm fine with the idea that Sanders may not have been a well-rounded, palatable ask for Americans in 2016. Clearly he had his base and didn't resonate with others - I think many who thought of his ideas as too new or out of the ordinary. His type may not be for another decade or so, but there are signs that the landscape is changing in that regard.

I'm also not one of those that thinks Sanders would have won or would have been able to push some utopian progressive agenda had he won. Quite the contrary. My argument was more so that the Democratic platform at large could have made strides over the last 10-15 years to solidify themselves 'for' something, especially when they were in positions of such political prowess - maybe the 'party of the working man or woman', I don't know.. Some of these ideals like mandated paid family leave are by there very nature progressive or 'far left' dependent upon who is making the classification. It doesn't matter if it were Clinton or Sanders running with them.

But I fully agree that it's an issue that so many voters see proposals that would greatly benefit them - like universal healthcare, and balk at it because the concept of marginally higher taxes but no out of pocket expense, coverage between jobs, etc. is just too foreign to process. But they assumed the same thing about Biden (taxes are going to go up) for no real reason at all other than they may have heard it on Fox News or in some errant facebook forward.

 

[Taurus]

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.

Actually getting something freakin' done on those issues will. The reason the GOP has been so ardent about sabotaging the ACA is that they're afraid Americans will like it and want more. Surprisingly enough, stripped of the name ObamaCare, most Americans DO like the ACA.

The problem isn't the talk, it's the walk. And the ones doing the talking.
Take minimum-wage laws. A higher min wage passed in Florida while the Democrat pushing it LOST. How do you do that? How bloody incompetent do you have to be to find yourself on the popular side of issue after issue, yet so consistently lose?
Well, you can roll over for gerrymandering.
You can let one or two rogue Senators completely derail the marquee legislation of your party's President.
You can sit idly by while the party that ISN'T in power enjoys victory after victory, at last convincing your supporters that frankly, you aren't worth their votes because you'll wuss out on actually doing what you said you'd do.

Every time I hear someone from the Dem establishment talk, I want to put a shock collar on them, turned up to 11.
BZZZZT! "Three syllables or less"
BZZT! "Not a statement, question or description, verbal filler."
BZZZZT! "Verbal filler again"
BZZZZZZZZT "More verbal filler"
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! "You like this, don't you?"

 

[Taurus]

My 2 cents as a Bernie bro, maybe I had some "insider perspective"... or maybe I am just biased hah

He appealed a lot more to younger voters vs HC
DNC already anointed HC before primaries and was mostly for show.
Media screwed over Bernie. Not saying I watched news 24/7 but often it seemed they were mostly pushing HC from the start.
Trump admitted he was more afraid of Bernie vs HC (for good reason in my opinion - I think he would have won Wis,PA,Mich).
Bernie would not have won the south, but neither did HC
After HC won the primaries, a lot of the younger Bernie supporters were dejected.
HC lacked charisma and didn't appeal to the younger voters, other than potentially being the first woman president. (that obviously was not enough and I don't blame them, she was mediocre)
HC's policies were deeply moderate. She only moved slightly more left after Bernie started making gains against her.
HC should have been smart to get Bernie to be her VP. He would probably refuse, unless maybe she gave him many concessions (agreed to more of his proposed policies) - which I think would have been a fair trade to avoid a trump victory - of course she didn't do any of that. But in my opinion him being VP would have retained much of his support.
Bernie's "high point" was the 2016 elections. Afterwards a lot became jaded or demoralized nothing would ever change. Also after trump, people were triggered by 4 years of his shirt and wanted someone "safe" hence the swing to the middle aka Biden.

Excellent analysis. HC won the nomination in the South. But, of course, she got shellacked in the general there. Just like every Democrat.
She did jack-all to really appeal to Bernie's base. Lip service at best and easily seen as such.
She picked a living cipher as a running mate.
Same-old, same-old policies badly presented to people whom those policies had failed to help.

All of this represented by a woman for whom the concepts of authenticity and personal charisma are utterly alien.

 

[MT15]

I haven't mentioned Bernie Sanders once in this thread.



Sure, that's your personal view. Let's move on...



Look, I'm just going to address this once more and leave it be.

I asked "I guess what is your fear with 'moving further left' on policy?", and you responded with it being an 'odd choice of words'.

I clarified that I didn't mean it in the way you're assuming. Maybe you thought it was truly a personal jab or meant as an backhand insult. I'm telling you, it wasn't meant that way.

There needs to be an element of good faith present both in dialogue - questions and answers --- and in misunderstandings.

So, where did I indicate that I’m not conversing in good faith? I just told you how your comment came across. If you say that’s not the way you meant it, fine. I don’t personally have a problem with just about any of the progressive agenda. My opinion is that it won’t win right now in any but the already progressive areas. I don’t know what else to tell you, but you clearly want something else. I said it was just my opinion.

 

[Heathen]

So, where did I indicate that I’m not conversing in good faith? I just told you how your comment came across. If you say that’s not the way you meant it, fine. I don’t personally have a problem with just about any of the progressive agenda. My opinion is that it won’t win right now in any but the already progressive areas. I don’t know what else to tell you, but you clearly want something else. I said it was just my opinion.

Well, I believe I’d told you more than once that something said wasn’t sinister as mentioned, yet you pushed that it was. So good faith needs to cover misunderstandings, and when one party clears they air on said misunderstanding - it needs to be taken that it’s truly what they mean. I think that’s reasonable.

It seems we got pulled into a bit of an aside over a word so I’ll just say that all I was “looking for” was for you to tell me what you thought was potentially a losing strategy with pushing ideas that were “far left” with respect only to the current conservative political arena in America, like mandating paid parental leave…getting at that not just some, but many of these ideas are norms in prefer industrialized countries AND popular here. So to try to see it from your angle, and feel free to clarify, may just be a situation where the final solution is mentioned a few times to get folks primed, but a slower approach to its adoption is the better strategy? I think that may be the difference between policy push between Sanders and AOC for example - where Sanders was more scorched earth and AOC seems to want to play the long game. There’s a good article on that somewhere that analyzes the two approaches, and gives pros and cons for each.

 

[MT15]

I questioned your choice of words. You said once that it wasn’t condescending, and I said once that it came across that way whether you meant it to or not. Then you posited that I’m not posting in good faith. Personally, it’s not a huge deal to me, but I thought you should know how your choice of words was perceived. So, fine, that’s been beat to death.

In a state such as I live in, the status of the Democratic Party has been significantly damaged by some of the recent successes in framing social issues by Rs. I am afraid of what the R party will do if they gain control in this country. People in general are scared of socialism, CRT, defund the police, even though it’s stupid to be so. I just think the Ds need to win elections, first and foremost. If they have to run toward the middle to avoid more attacks from Rs of being ‘socialist’, etc. then do it. They have to win. The economy isn’t is their favor, they already have to overcome that.

 

[samiam5211]

What is going on in the US is the equivalent of a business where the employees don't get along and are fighting with each other over bullshirt because management has pitted them against each other so they don't focus on how terrible a job management does.

As long as our elections are determined by social issues that government can't really solve, the country is going to continue down the path towards a failed state. Politicians are running on issues that the government will never resolve because the conflict is about how people feel.

As bad as the economy is, I doubt many people will be casting votes in November based on their opinion of each party's economic platform.

 

[Heathen]

I questioned your choice of words. You said once that it wasn’t condescending, and I said once that it came across that way whether you meant it to or not. Then you posited that I’m not posting in good faith. Personally, it’s not a huge deal to me, but I thought you should know how your choice of words was perceived. So, fine, that’s been beat to death.

I actually didn't posit that at all. I stated that there should be an element of good faith in misunderstandings. That's completely different.

And what I mean is that it shouldn't immediately be assumed, for sake of civil discussion, that the other poster is trying to get in a jab, be condescending, etc. That's all I'm saying.

In a state such as I live in, the status of the Democratic Party has been significantly damaged by some of the recent successes in framing social issues by Rs. I am afraid of what the R party will do if they gain control in this country. People in general are scared of socialism, CRT, defund the police, even though it’s stupid to be so. I just think the Ds need to win elections, first and foremost. If they have to run toward the middle to avoid more attacks from Rs of being ‘socialist’, etc. then do it. They have to win. The economy isn’t is their favor, they already have to overcome that.

Well, in all states - but especially the blood red ones, even moderate measures will be classified as 'extreme' and 'socialist, communist, some scary sounding ist' etc. simply because that's the right wing schtick that works on them, and Repubs know it. Changing the messaging isn't going to do much good. I'm not worried about swaying Republican voters. IMO We don't need their votes to win. We need Democrats to galvanize under certain tenets like the Republicans do on their increasingly extremist ones. There needs to be a fine balance of agreement between moderate and progressive Democrats on policy that isn't 'like what the Republicans offer but slightly better', but maybe not so far ahead that it's foreign. We have the numbers to win, over and over. Once more - Rust Belt states are key, and again i posit that worker's rights are paramount.

We're in agreement that D's need to win elections. What i don't want are any more Manchins or Sinemas who are very clearly moderates who have sunken the party at many important junctures. We'll leave it at that.

 

[MT15]

My state would be one you consider very red- but we still have about 40 percent of people who identify as democrats. Thats not enough to win, and Rs hold a supermajority in both state houses, as you might expect. But if you run someone like Manchin he could win. And he would vote with Ds 90% of the time. You take what you can get. AOC wouldn’t win.

I will be working to register more D voters later this summer.

 

[samiam5211]

My state would be one you consider very red- but we still have about 40 percent of people who identify as democrats. Thats not enough to win, and Rs hold a supermajority in both state houses, as you might expect. But if you run someone like Manchin he could win. And he would vote with Ds 90% of the time. You take what you can get. AOC wouldn’t win.

I will be working to register more D voters later this summer.

If 90% of that 40% voted, your state would be considered a Democratic stronghold.

 

[Heathen]

Manchin who votes consistently Democrat instead of sabotaging the party at certain key points would be a good W in a deep red state, yeah.