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

Users who are viewing this thread

    Joined
    Oct 4, 2019
    Messages
    4
    Reaction score
    9
    Location
    Braintree, MA
    Offline

    "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.
     
    I had forgotten about it until mentioned, b/c I don't often look at MSNBC, but Chris Matthews did kind of compare Bernie's NV win to the Nazi's rapid advance over Europe

    This is not the first time Matthews got into hot water when talking about Sanders. Earlier this month, he connected Sanders’ embrace of democratic socialism to Cold War executions.

    MSNBC’s Chuck Todd also made some questionable comments about Sanders when he quoted an article from a conservative writer referred to Sanders’ supporters as the “digital brownshirt brigade.”
    I don’t doubt that and I should have been clearer: the portrayal of MSNBC as a one-note network is pure bunk. I remembered who was openly disdainful of Clinton, it was Chris Hayes with two guests, one was Michael Moore and I can’t remember the other one. It was pretty bad.

    oh, and I don’t like Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews.
     
    Chris Hayes was basically the only pro-Bernie pundit in the main stream media. The Bernie bros thing is a red herring in terms of understanding what made Clinton unpopular with a sufficient amount of voters in the battleground states that cost her the election. In a nutshell, she represented the establishment and 2016 was not a year where an establishment candidate was going to do well. She also didn't project herself well to the public (for example, "I'm with her" was a terrible slogan). You can search YouTube for a long-form interview she did with Howard Stern after the election. It paints her in a much better and down-to-earth light. The problem is she did not project herself in this way during the election but, instead, was more like the cartoon version parodied by Stephen Colbert on his show and, later, "My Cartoon President."

    The unfortunate reality is the vast majority of the electorate either doesn't care or is incapable of understanding policy issues. A successful candidate needs to present charisma and personality above all else. That is how a moronic narcissist like Trump got elected President of the United States.
     
    I don’t doubt that and I should have been clearer: the portrayal of MSNBC as a one-note network is pure bunk. I remembered who was openly disdainful of Clinton, it was Chris Hayes with two guests, one was Michael Moore and I can’t remember the other one. It was pretty bad.

    oh, and I don’t like Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews.

    I couldn't really comment on the rest, because I just don't follow MSNBC. It seems like since the invention of the TV, and the ability of it to capture a larger audience w/ 24hr news channels, news programs have gone more and more towards hot takes and opinions, vs just relaying news.
     
    You can search YouTube for a long-form interview she did with Howard Stern after the election. It paints her in a much better and down-to-earth light. The problem is she did not project herself in this way during the election but, instead, was more like the cartoon version parodied by Stephen Colbert on his show and, later, "My Cartoon President."

    To my recollection, you're the first person on here to mention my cartoon president (I was wondering if I was the only one that knew it existed). But the rest of this comment reminds me so much of when Bob Dole was running. He was a stiff as a piece of cardboard out on the campaign trail. Later when he lost, he went on late night talk shows etc and was actually funny and had a personality!! And I recall thinking "why couldn't he have been that way when running?" It was almost like seeing two completely different people.
     
    I couldn't really comment on the rest, because I just don't follow MSNBC. It seems like since the invention of the TV, and the ability of it to capture a larger audience w/ 24hr news channels, news programs have gone more and more towards hot takes and opinions, vs just relaying news.
    Yeah, the evening shows are basically op-ed programs. On all the networks, just some are more fact-based than others (Fox is basically reality-free, lol). But there’s a lot of analysis and opinion.
     
    Chris Hayes was basically the only pro-Bernie pundit in the main stream media. The Bernie bros thing is a red herring in terms of understanding what made Clinton unpopular with a sufficient amount of voters in the battleground states that cost her the election. In a nutshell, she represented the establishment and 2016 was not a year where an establishment candidate was going to do well. She also didn't project herself well to the public (for example, "I'm with her" was a terrible slogan). You can search YouTube for a long-form interview she did with Howard Stern after the election. It paints her in a much better and down-to-earth light. The problem is she did not project herself in this way during the election but, instead, was more like the cartoon version parodied by Stephen Colbert on his show and, later, "My Cartoon President."

    The unfortunate reality is the vast majority of the electorate either doesn't care or is incapable of understanding policy issues. A successful candidate needs to present charisma and personality above all else. That is how a moronic narcissist like Trump got elected President of the United States.

    I agree with most of this, but I would add also look at the bigger picture of who MSNBC tries to entice as a viewer. The average viewer age is 65. Who is Morning Joe made for? Not young progressives. It appears to be manufactured for bicoastal older elites. You have plenty of ex republicans on the channel as well. These people, and probably a decent percentage of the viewer base fought against labor. That's the antithesis of Bernie. I'll remind everyone we are only a few months away from MSNBC blaming progressive extremism for midterm losses.

    MSNBC is socially liberal. They are owned by Comcast. They, like most corporations, are perfectly fine painting rainbows, or wearing pink. They are never going to champion pro-labor, or progressive economic policies. You might see a 10 minute segment every once and while. You will never see Rachel Maddow spend 6 months talking about corporations systemically screwed over Americans going back to the 70's.

    As far as what sunk HRC? For the myriad of reasons to pick from. You could view her loss through one very simple issue. Trade. Does HRC not campaigning in the Midwest matter more then the association with NAFTA? After all, Trump and his tearing up NAFTA talk was a direct sequel to Obama. The only difference is Trump walked the talk. My personal opinion is the average American does understand what outsourcing did to domestic labor markets. That's why pro-trade candidates
    don't win elections anymore.

    P.S. If you want to highlight the shame that is MSNBC. This is a simple issue with some clear bad guys. American housing market prices are insane. Does MSNBC regularly talk about corporations buying up homes, and turning an entire generation into renters? You have hours, and hours to fill everyday. This issue should be addresses multiple times a week.
     
    Last edited:
    Jdonk, your post reads like Greenwald could have written it. Exactly. Down to the semi-approval of Trump. JMO, that may not be fair, but it was what I thought of as I read it.

    Maddow has done plenty of economic shows over the years, it’s very odd for you to disparage her about that. MSNBC as a whole has covered the recent union victories very favorably.

    This propensity to hate viewpoints that are very close to your own is very weird. Not uncommon, but I don’t get it. Also the ageism has again reared its ugly head. I hate to tell you this but there are plenty of young Trumpists. Like a lot. I know a whole lot more younger Trumpists or Republicans than I do young progressives as far left as you are.

    So now, queue the post saying all young people believe as you do and all old people are closet Republicans. Or that anyone that isn’t lockstep with you doesn’t want people to have healthcare.
     
    Last edited:
    I've seen more than enough of Glenn Greenwald -- who is a hack and useful idiot for the far right -- and I can't say I agree with that assessment of J-Donk's posts. I don't really have a strong opinion on Hillary Clinton one way or another but if the DNC wants to be successful in the future, it needs to learn from its past mistakes and not nominate a candidate who projects as tone deaf to working class voters. But I fear at this point it's too little too late as next year the Supreme Court is posed to hand control over electors to state legislatures and deem them political questions outside the review of courts.
     
    I've seen more than enough of Glenn Greenwald -- who is a hack and useful idiot for the far right -- and I can't say I agree with that assessment of J-Donk's posts. I don't really have a strong opinion on Hillary Clinton one way or another but if the DNC wants to be successful in the future, it needs to learn from its past mistakes and not nominate a candidate who projects as tone deaf to working class voters. But I fear at this point it's too little too late as next year the Supreme Court is posed to hand control over electors to state legislatures and deem them political questions outside the review of courts.
    Just that one post. YMMV. 🤷‍♀️
     
    Do people really think the country is becoming more conservative overall? Since, when? Bush won the popular vote for president in 2004, but that was on the back of losing it in 2000 in a controversial election. Before that? 1988

    Biden is more progressive then Obama who was more progressive then Clinton.

    If polling is accurate about progressive attitudes for each age bracket. America should slowly overtime continue to become more progressive as the younger cohorts become a larger share of the likely voter demographic.

    I'm asking myself when will the tyranny of the minority end? Not, that the country is actually becoming more conserative.
    The country, yes. The populous, no.

    However, I think history has shown that often youth are more liberal/progressive, then many turn conservative.
     
    Democrats did not narrowly lose. They won with an increasing majority of the popular vote and moving to the left is not what mainstream Democrats want.

    Did you actually read what you responded to?

    I said the Democrats narrowly lost the Rust Belt states and thus lost the presidency. This is common knowledge.

    Also, who are you to say what “mainstream” Democrats want? Do you have a poll that suggests what you infer is in fact the case?

    We want rational and reasonable government by smart people who give an actual damn about the country and the people in it. We don't want a troupe of AOCs nuts any more than we want a bunch of rightwingers like we've got now. We aren't willing to lie to the extreme and paint opponents as pedophiles who eat children because we aren't stupid enough to believe it or naive enough to believe anyone would actually vote that way, but here we are.

    I suppose since now we’re speaking as if we have mice in our pockets….

    “We” don’t want Democrats that give into the right and accept having their political stances being pulled to the right by the right in our increasingly right wing country.
    In the meantime myself and “AOCs nuts” will continue to push for reasonable, common sense legislation until people in this country blinded by the right’s bulls*** realize they can demand more…you know, like most modern countries throughout the world.
     
    68467E5D-64AE-4EDF-A1A8-445B27A21319.jpeg


    44342AD4-F0CC-45AD-A953-D457FE575D61.jpeg
     
    Jdonk, your post reads like Greenwald could have written it. Exactly. Down to the semi-approval of Trump. JMO, that may not be fair, but it was what I thought of as I read it.

    Maddow has done plenty of economic shows over the years, it’s very odd for you to disparage her about that. MSNBC as a whole has covered the recent union victories very favorably.

    This propensity to hate viewpoints that are very close to your own is very weird. Not uncommon, but I don’t get it. Also the ageism has again reared its ugly head. I hate to tell you this but there are plenty of young Trumpists. Like a lot. I know a whole lot more younger Trumpists or Republicans than I do young progressives as far left as you are.

    So now, queue the post saying all young people believe as you do and all old people are closet Republicans. Or that anyone that isn’t lockstep with you doesn’t want people to have healthcare.

    I didn't give any kind of semi-appoval of Trump. Obama did run against NAFTA in 2008, and so did Trump in 2016. Trump then delivered on his campaign promise unlike Obama who pulled a 180, and tried to pass TPP. Is stating a fact semi-approval now?

    Is thinking MSNBC isn't actually all that progressive a conservative viewpoint?

    You are missing the point of my entire critique of MSNBC. Young people don't even watch the channel. Again, the average viewing age is 65. It's marketed to an older, socially liberal, but economically conservative Democrats. If you like MSNBC, you might fit in that box. Also, if you don't like my critique that's fine, but let's not start buying me Proud Boys shirts over it.

    Also, it's not ageism. The younger generations are more progressive. There is a mountain of polling that backs this up.


    I honestly didn't even express my most scathing opinion about MNSBC. Does the programing simply cater to older conservative Democrats, or does it also make viewers more conservative vs their younger cohorts? I'm not sure it isn't both.

    P.S. AFAIK, I'm wildly to the left you on almost every topic. You have consistently had a more authoritarian, conservative viewpoint then mine. Right down, to trying to cast me in outgroup not belonging in the Democrat tent.
     
    Last edited:
    So, I think a little perspective is in order J. I didn’t “cast you out” of any tent of any sort by just making a simple observation (which still holds up - even more so after your last post here.) You seem to be influenced by the likes of Greenwald. It is what it is.

    You have also called me “authoritarian” many times now - with absolutely nothing to back that rather hysterical bit of hyperbole up. I have not had a single authoritarian take on here, you need to back that up or shut up about it.

    Are you so callow and inexperienced that you believe that younger generations polling as more liberal than older people is some sort of new phenomena? That this has never happened before? That this time - that your generation really means it though? It’s all so ridiculous. It’s the take of someone who has no historical perspective. I think the general trend in the US is to go more progressive, but this isn’t the fait accompli you seem to think it is. I see plenty - plenty of young people who are dead set against progressive goals around me.

    And, I highly doubt I’m all that much more conservative than you are, if at all. What I do differently than you is to bring a healthy skepticism to some of the more outlandish ideas that idealistic people have (for example: who think that extremely red areas will suddenly start voting for highly progressive candidates, and anyone who says that they probably won’t is someone who is against having universal health insurance or some such nonsense.)
     
    @JDONK - can you back up your claim about the average age of the MSNBC viewer? I couldn’t find anything remotely close to your average age of 65 claim. Here is what I found:

    “Although they operate on opposite ends of the political spectrum, MSNBC and Fox News attract similar audiences. Like its right-wing competitor, most of MSNBC’s viewers (44%) self-identify as middle-class citizens. They are predominantly white (70%), with 19% of Black and 8% of Hispanic viewers. Furthermore, their age structure is almost the same — 31% aged 50–64, 25% in the 18–34 group, 19% in the 35–49 bracket, and 24% aged 65 and over.”


    The highest percentage I could find for viewers over 65 was 40 some percent - from a Pew 2019 survey - but it wasn’t actually viewers, it was categorizing people who choose one network as their main source of news. Not the same as viewers.


    So, I’d be interested to see where you got your data - or was it just an assertion?
     
    some people (I will self censor myself)


    Mitchell now has set his sights on Descovy and Truvada, two medications that help prevent HIV transmission when taken as PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, because those medications enable homosexual behavior, the suit states.

    In the case Kelley v. the United States of America, filed in federal court in 2020, Mitchell represents several clients who object to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance providers cover, among other things, preventive medications specifically for PrEP.

    “The PrEP mandate forces religious employers to provide coverage for drugs that facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,” the lawsuit states. “It also compels religious employers and religious individuals who purchase health insurance to subsidize these behaviors as a condition of purchasing health insurance.”
     
    some people (I will self censor myself)


    Mitchell now has set his sights on Descovy and Truvada, two medications that help prevent HIV transmission when taken as PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, because those medications enable homosexual behavior, the suit states.

    In the case Kelley v. the United States of America, filed in federal court in 2020, Mitchell represents several clients who object to the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that insurance providers cover, among other things, preventive medications specifically for PrEP.

    “The PrEP mandate forces religious employers to provide coverage for drugs that facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use,” the lawsuit states. “It also compels religious employers and religious individuals who purchase health insurance to subsidize these behaviors as a condition of purchasing health insurance.”
    But he wants me to pay the high school football coach to lead prayer circles.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom