Roe v Wade

1910111315

Comments

  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?
    I remember a few months ago in this thread or one of these threads people doubting a solid majority of Americans support abortion access.  If 60 percent of people in Kansas do it’s safe to say it’s an even more than a solid majority of the country 

    rigged elections  is their go to so I bet that’s thrown around soon, or “the wording of the question” on the ballot was confusing 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?
    I remember a few months ago in this thread or one of these threads people doubting a solid majority of Americans support abortion access.  If 60 percent of people in Kansas do it’s safe to say it’s an even more than a solid majority of the country 

    rigged elections  is their go to so I bet that’s thrown around soon, or “the wording of the question” on the ballot was confusing 
    It was confusing,  but not in a way that it helps them.  They are arguing that people misunderstood that it only gave the power to the legislature.  I think the people understood that perfectly well. 
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    mrussel1 said:
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?
    I remember a few months ago in this thread or one of these threads people doubting a solid majority of Americans support abortion access.  If 60 percent of people in Kansas do it’s safe to say it’s an even more than a solid majority of the country 

    rigged elections  is their go to so I bet that’s thrown around soon, or “the wording of the question” on the ballot was confusing 
    It was confusing,  but not in a way that it helps them.  They are arguing that people misunderstood that it only gave the power to the legislature.  I think the people understood that perfectly well. 
    Every evangelical church  in Kansas  explained exactly how to vote to everyone in attendance im quite sure 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    Never mind that a repub linked pac sent out misleading tweets that a yes vote was for “choice,” when in actuality a yes vote meant you wanted to ban abortion or rid the constitution of the right to an abortion.

    I don’t think the argument was that a majority of Americans were/are against abortion, just that repubs using the census, gerrymandering and pro-life candidates up and down the ballot would eventually make it illegal and the Supreme Court would back them. We’re seeing it happen and they won’t stop. Just wait until they retake Congress and potus in 2924. Tyranny of the minority.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?

    .....They will just use this as a reason why they need to fight harder for the rights of the unborn because the radical left has rigged everything and groomed our neighbors into their agenda and they must wake up to the true gop wokeness by force if necessary
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    static111 said:
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?

    .....They will just use this as a reason why they need to fight harder for the rights of the unborn because the radical left has rigged everything and groomed our neighbors into their agenda and they must wake up to the true gop wokeness by force if necessary
    They will just look for ways to change the make up of the state Supreme Court.  It’s easier

    Republicans tried that for 50 years at the US Supreme Court until they got their way.  I would think replacing state judges in Kansas will be much easier 

    I think the right to an abortion was a ruling by the state Supreme Court saying that right is implied in the state constitution.  Change the court and get a different outcome and  you don’t need a voter approved constitutional amendment to outlaw it 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 37,703
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?

    Kind of doubt they would embarrass themselves further this time, but you never know!
    "I believe in the mystery, and I don't want to take it any further than that. Maybe what I mean by that is love."
    -John Densmore











  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 4,331
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?
    I'm legitimately surprised I haven't seen that accusation. Maybe that's reserved for narcist politicians who care about their own power as opposed to the greater good.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2021 Asbury Park
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?

    .....They will just use this as a reason why they need to fight harder for the rights of the unborn because the radical left has rigged everything and groomed our neighbors into their agenda and they must wake up to the true gop wokeness by force if necessary
    They will just look for ways to change the make up of the state Supreme Court.  It’s easier

    Republicans tried that for 50 years at the US Supreme Court until they got their way.  I would think replacing state judges in Kansas will be much easier 

    I think the right to an abortion was a ruling by the state Supreme Court saying that right is implied in the state constitution.  Change the court and get a different outcome and  you don’t need a voter approved constitutional amendment to outlaw it 
    Yeah, that's the next step.  My understanding is that FL constitution specifically provides the 'right'.  I don't know about KS. But you're right, judges are elected in KS so you'll probably see a turnover there, unless the same voters can be mobilized to vote them in. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    Never mind that a repub linked pac sent out misleading tweets that a yes vote was for “choice,” when in actuality a yes vote meant you wanted to ban abortion or rid the constitution of the right to an abortion.

    I don’t think the argument was that a majority of Americans were/are against abortion, just that repubs using the census, gerrymandering and pro-life candidates up and down the ballot would eventually make it illegal and the Supreme Court would back them. We’re seeing it happen and they won’t stop. Just wait until they retake Congress and potus in 2924. Tyranny of the minority.
    Teh problem with that strategy is how many pro life voters voted 'no' because yes was for choice?  Who is more likely to read GOP PAC tweets, Republicans or D's?  Seems misguided. 
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    how is the gop going to spin what happened in woke, blue, kansas last night?

    have they called the election rigged yet?

    .....They will just use this as a reason why they need to fight harder for the rights of the unborn because the radical left has rigged everything and groomed our neighbors into their agenda and they must wake up to the true gop wokeness by force if necessary
    They will just look for ways to change the make up of the state Supreme Court.  It’s easier

    Republicans tried that for 50 years at the US Supreme Court until they got their way.  I would think replacing state judges in Kansas will be much easier 

    I think the right to an abortion was a ruling by the state Supreme Court saying that right is implied in the state constitution.  Change the court and get a different outcome and  you don’t need a voter approved constitutional amendment to outlaw it 
    Yeah, that's the next step.  My understanding is that FL constitution specifically provides the 'right'.  I don't know about KS. But you're right, judges are elected in KS so you'll probably see a turnover there, unless the same voters can be mobilized to vote them in. 
    Not sure exactly how it works in Kansas, but in Georgia all but 1 Supreme Court judge was appointed by a Republican governor.  

    Basically the judges retire off cycle their replacement is appointed then they run a few years later as the incumbent.  So even elected judges is heavily manipulated 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    Totally agree 

    same thing about voting based on the current state of the economy.  It trails any policy decisions sometimes by years.

    whos in charge when the economic cycle changes always gets too much blame and whoever is in charge in a recovery too much credit 

    there is way too many votes being cast about issues that have not a lot to do with who is running 
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 31,454
    From the NYT email blast. However, no mention of the huge sums of Dark Money and the role it plays in elections and SCOTUS nominees. All this seems to do is ensure that nothing is settled, a constant state of conflict or disagreement. Whatever happened to something getting to SCOTUS and it was considered settled, unless you passed legislation at the national level or passed a constitutional amendment (RvW)?

    One among three

    The Supreme Court has lately looked like the most powerful part of the federal government, with the final word on abortion, gun laws, climate policy, voting rights and more.
    But the founders did not intend for the court to have such a dominant role. They viewed the judiciary as merely one branch of government. They gave Congress and the president, as well as state governments, various ways to check the court’s power and even undo the effects of rulings.

    Two big examples have emerged this summer, following the court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In Kansas, residents voted overwhelmingly this week to keep abortion rights as part of the state’s constitution. And in Congress, advocates for same-sex marriage are trying to pass a bill to protect it, worried that the court may soon restrict marriage rights as well.
    These developments offer a reminder about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power: Political progressives and moderates who are alarmed about the current court — the combination of its aggressiveness and the relative youth of its conservative members — have many options for confronting it.

    Some options are fairly radical, like changing the size of the court or passing a law declaring any subject to be off limits from Supreme Court review (both of which, to be fair, have happened in previous centuries). Other options are more straightforward. They involve the basic tools of democratic politics: winning over public opinion and winning elections.
    Larry Kramer, a former dean of Stanford Law School, argues that many progressives have made the mistake of paying relatively little attention to this strategy in recent decades. They have instead relied on courts to deliver victories for civil rights and other policies. That tactic worked under the liberal Supreme Court of the 1950s and 1960s and even sometimes under the more conservative court of recent decades. But under the current court, it will no longer work.

    The founders did not design the court to be the final arbiter of American politics, anyway. At the state level, progressives still have the ability to protect abortion rights, so long as they can persuade enough voters — as happened in Kansas this week. At the federal level, Congress has more authority to defy court decisions than many people realize.
    “If you want a better government, you have to actively get yourself engaged in creating it. And that you do through democratic politics if you want it to be a democracy,” Kramer recently said on Ezra Klein’s podcast. “You try and persuade, and if you do, the country follows you.”

    267 to 157
    The same-sex marriage bill is so intriguing because it is a rare recent instance of Congress acting as a check and balance on the Supreme Court, just as the founders envisioned and the Constitution allows.

    When the court overturns a specific law, Congress can often pass a new law, written differently, that accomplishes many of the same goals. Congress took this approach with civil rights starting in the 1980s, including with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which made it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination. The law was an explicit response to a Supreme Court ruling against Ledbetter.
    More recently, however, Congress has been too polarized and gridlocked to respond to court decisions. As a result, the courts have tended to dominate federal policy, by default.

    But after the court’s abortion decision in June contained language that seemed as if it might threaten same-sex marriage rights, House Democrats quickly proposed a marriage bill that would defang any future court decision. The court could still issue a ruling allowing states to stop performing same-sex marriages. But the House bill would require one state to recognize another state’s marriage. Two women or men who married in, say, California would still be legally married in South Carolina even if it stopped performing same-sex weddings.
     

    Celebrations in New York after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in 2015.Sam Hodgson for The New York Times


    Initially, the House bill seemed as if it might be a political exercise, intended to force Republicans in swing districts to take a tough vote. Instead, the bill passed easily, 267 to 157, with all 220 Democrats and 47 Republicans voting yes.
    In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster, the bill’s prospects remain unclear. For now, the bill has the support of all 50 senators aligned with the Democratic Party and four or five Republicans. My colleague Annie Karni says that Democratic leaders plan to hold a vote on the bill in the coming weeks.

    No wonder: According to a recent Gallup poll, 71 percent of Americans support same-sex marriage.
    Even if it fails to pass the Senate, the bill may prove consequential. It has set a precedent, and a similar bill seems likely to be on the legislative agenda any time Democrats control Congress. The House vote, by itself, also has the potential to influence the Supreme Court by demonstrating that a decision overturning same-sex marriage rights would be out of step with the views of many Republicans.

    Beyond marriage
    I recognize that progressives still face obstacles to achieving their goals through Congress. The Senate has a built-in bias toward rural, conservative states. The House suffers from gerrymandering (although this year’s districts don’t actually give Republicans a big advantage). And the Supreme Court has made it easier for states to pass voting restrictions.

    Yet political change is rarely easy. Religious conservatives spent decades building a movement to change the country’s abortion laws and endured many disappointments and defeats along the way.
    If progressives want to slow climate change, reduce economic and racial inequality, protect L.G.B.T. rights and more, the current Supreme Court has not rendered them powerless. If they can win more elections, the Constitution offers many ways to accomplish their goals.

    For more
    • The contours of the Kansas vote suggest that about 65 percent of voters nationwide — and a majority of voters in more than 40 states — would support abortion rights in a similar ballot initiative, according to an analysis by The Times’s Nate Cohn.
    • Suburban Democrats and rural Republicans in Kansas joined to produce the landslide result.
    • The vote has galvanized Democrats to campaign on abortion rights.
    • President Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to protect abortion access across state lines.
    • In Times Opinion, Michelle Goldberg writes that even in red states, abortion restrictions cannot necessarily survive contact with democracy.

    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 4,856
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.


    Bolded part is very true, but voters have demonstrated many time they don’t have the skill set to make this determination. Currently, Biden is getting slammed in the polls for the high cost of gas, but has he ignored the issue like plenty before him have?  He has taken many steps to address the issue, including  holding off on the summer additive, withdrawing  fuel reserves, and proposed suspending gas surtaxes. Republicans have stood in the way of some of these steps, yet voters don’t look at the issue critically, they just blame the man in charge, even if he is acting to address the issue, which is what we should all want from an executive.

    Further, presidential elections should be about direction of our country, and anyone with a basic understanding of the constitution (a word that gets thrown around tons by voters) should understand the court had the final say on our laws, and since they get lifetime appointments, it should take a lifetime of dedicated voting to get the laws in place that are important to us individually 

    Republicans seem to get this basic concept, Dems and Independents, not as much unfortunately.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Scio me nihil scire
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    Our refineries aren’t even set up that way.  We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time.  Not all oil is  the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process it

    we already produce  close to our domestic consumption.  2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million. 

    That in no way makes us energy independent 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    Our refineries aren’t even set up that way.  We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time.  Not all oil is  the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process it

    we already produce  close to our domestic consumption.  2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million. 
    Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market.  I think he's arguing we should not be.  I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use.  Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market. 
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 4
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    Our refineries aren’t even set up that way.  We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time.  Not all oil is  the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process it

    we already produce  close to our domestic consumption.  2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million. 
    Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market.  I think he's arguing we should not be.  I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use.  Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market. 
    It’s just not possible.  Energy independence is not a real thing.  Even when you produce more than you use which is all I’m saying 

    people say energy independence  a lot.  I just don’t think it has anything to do with how much you are producing.  It’s a good political talking point, it’s not realistic at all though 

    if you nationalise production I guess it’s possible but not in a free market. 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    edited August 4
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market.  To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil.  So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us.  Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.

    To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example.  If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.  
    Post edited by static111 on
    Scio me nihil scire
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 25,759
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market.  To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil.  So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us.  Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.

    To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example.  If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.  
    But because we don't produce more than we use, we would have to go to the global market.  But then again, there would be NO global market since you can't be arguing that the US should exit it, but while everyone else stays.  So now you are doing direct deals with other countries, which means tariffs and other geo-political issues.  So now you're incentivized to maybe take what you need, like the Caucuses, reserves in Africa, etc.  This is exactly how wars start.  
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    Our refineries aren’t even set up that way.  We export crude to other countries for them to refine and import crude for domestic refineries a lot of the time.  Not all oil is  the same and because it’s oil that doesn’t mean a specific refinery can even process it

    we already produce  close to our domestic consumption.  2020 America produced 18.4 million barrels of oil per day and consumed 18.12 million. 
    Yeah I know, but it's set up that way because we are engaged in the global commodities market.  I think he's arguing we should not be.  I'm trying to understand if that's the argument, that US companies only sell to US refineries for US use.  Right wingers point to 2020 (an aberration by the way, due to the pandemic) where we used the same amount as drilled and say that Trump created 'energy independence", but that's meaningless since we are in a global market. 
    I recognize that not every country has arable land or valuable mineral resources, but most regions have a mix.  I am saying we should decentralize and find ways for countries that have the ability to produce what is necessary for them before they go monoculture for the global market.  I think that shortening supply chains in this way would reduce carbon pollution and provide a more equitable trade system.  That's the argument, not that the USA specifically should disengage completely from the global market because we produce crude we can't refine.  I'm imagining a restructuring of the global market that hopefully would create more fair and equitable systems for citizens of all countries.
    Scio me nihil scire
  • static111static111 Posts: 3,742
    edited August 4
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    static111 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    It’s great KS sent a message to the country, but let’s be realistic, this is a narrow set of facts that are not applicable to most red states.

    The bottom line is showing up once or twice can do a little something, but SCOTUS has the sledge hammer here, and can undo yesterdays vote in the dark of night if they so choose. It takes 20 years of voting every year, around the country, to undo the damage that the lack of democratic turnout and independent indifference from this last generation to undo what the gop has accomplished in setting up this court. 
    Yeah. In most sates, if a GOP-controlled legislature and Governor want to make this change, they can just do it. Kansas had a very specific scenario that broke the pro-choice way.

    I do think this is a good indication of where people/voters stand on the issue. But I question whether that translates to a shift in party voting. I still suspect a lot of people that would vote "choice" over "birth" will accept all the other stuff they want will come at the price of an issue that isn't in their top-5.

    I'm also interested to see what this does to GOP messaging around the issue. Will they back off on their draconian plans when campaigning (and will they be lying?)? Will they do what they can to avoid focus on the issue altogether (seems like a good strategy)? Will they say the majority doesn't matter because we're talking about equal rights of clumps of cells? (Bold and probably not effective).
    I think you're already seeing candidates and office holders in some states hedging their words and trying to downplay or outright ignore the issue. That's what is happening here in VA.  But I expect that to be a top 3 issue to discuss at midterms, and if inflation/gas gets under control, it could be the top issue.  Now the GOP will try to make it about gas and "parents rights" because they see that as a winning issue, and abortion is a loser. 

    You are 100% correct on this, but as I say often, folks who vote based on gas prices completely miss the point of deciding what is best for them with their vote, unless they believe they are voting to get a seat on the OPEC Conference Board.

    otherwise, do voters want to drill more and further destroy the planet, or invest in renewables? Voting should be about that - long term decision making and direction.  This every two years left/right flip flopping based on gas prices of independents hurts our progress as much as anything else does.
    People are stupid.  They think that 1. the US gov't controls oil production 2. that if we produced as much oil as we used, that oil prices would go down.  That's a complete misunderstanding of the global commodities market.  
    Do you think that is a sign that a global commodities market is a problem?  For instance, if countries only traded the excess of their goods on the global market after the needs of their citizenry were met could this create a more stable global situation?  I think long fragile supply chains, that largely have to be protected militarily in some way, involving certain countries consuming huge amts of resources out of ratio with their populations is a problem that leads to this type of volatility.  Another example is that because of the global economy there are certain countries that intentionally trash crops to keep the value of commodities on the global market up, and countries that could grow crops like wheat and corn that could supply the basic needs of their population that don't and now a situation like the war in Ukraine is destabilizing the global commodities market because a huge percentage of the global population has come to rely on the centralization and specialization of the global market instead of decentralized domestic production.

    I don't think it is an ignorance of the global market, but people's feelings in the US that the global market doesn't always serve the best interests of the citizenry.

    In the interest of thread integrity I would say that for some voters the daily issues of domestic household economies are of a greater concern than abortion rights during given years.  In a sustainable economy that is stable more voters would absolutely show up for a wedge issue like the right for a woman to choose, in a chaotic economy and world situation with an unstable economy that isn't benefitting them, for better or worse many voters are going to vote for whatever they percieve will help them with their short term economic and survival needs regardless of long term reprecussions to other issues.
    The global commodities market is good for the world, not necessarily optimized for US citizens, as an example.  The reason we have had 80 years of intercontinental peace in Europe is because we have a interconnected economy.  I have beat this drum for years.  Our world wars were economic in nature, and rooted in nationalism.  Moving to an isolationist economy rooted in nationalism again, makes war more likely.  
    You don't have to be isolationist to take care of the needs of your country first whether it is the US or Egypt, or even make policies to prevent farmers from plowing crops under to keep prices fixed.  I think there are many ways that the global community could decentralize but still be interconnected.  There is no reason to abandon arable land and trash crops when people could be fed.  That isn't isolationist at all.  Another positive of this shrinking the supply chain would also be a smaller carbon footprint which would be good for the globe as well.

    The global economy and the flow of goods and services over long distances is one of the leading causes of pollution.  Trying to manage the dispensation of resources and localizing some aspects for global stability is hardly isolationism or pro nationalism.  For a country to abandon all of it's industries in favor of one specialty cash crop  or industry is far more dangerous than doing more to make the best use of it's land and resources for it's citizens needs.  What happens in a drought when the yield is low, what happens when you over farm the land with your monoculture, what happens when your specialty cog of the global market is not needed or becomes unpopular.  Then you have nothing to fall back on to meet the needs of your citizens, well except the IMF or the World Bank, which would then basically own your country and dictate policy in favor of debt servicing.

    Global interconnectedness is absolutely a good thing.  There should be an enforcable global bill of rights, global living wage, global worker protection, global environmental protection and truly free global trade.  However this should be accompanied by looking at where we are now and all the flaws and pollution that the current system creates and looking at ways to fix them.  More of the same kicks the can down the road.  Until everyone on the global market has the same rights and protections as those in the best cities in the best countries we don't have a global market, we have a global system of plunder for the richest nations and corporations.


    Let's be super specific here, because you're going in a few directions.  Are you arguing that the US oil producers should only sell to US manufacturers for US citizenry usage?
    In that particular instance I am saying that if there is a glut of product over what meets the needs of the citizenry then the excess could go to the global market.  To get really specific this would not be realistic because we lack the refinery infrastructure for a lot of our oil.  So getting even more specific I would say we would either incentivize the creation of a refinery infrastructure to maximize use of our petro products, or fill whatever need we have for our domestic oil and then put the rest on the global market to trade for other forms of oil that may be more useful for us.  Perhaps when it comes to petroleum this isn't possible, but petroleum isn't all commodities.

    To simplify and use a foodstuff commodity as an example.  If we produce enough wheat for our domestic yearly usage we should sell that internally and then put the excess on the global market, rather than buying foodstuffs cheaply on the global market and plowing under our own crops and subsidizing producers for the destruction of consumable foodstuffs to stabilize the global market. This being a more straightforward example because there are fewer steps in getting wheat to grow and harvested and packed than there are for refining petrochemicals.  
    But because we don't produce more than we use, we would have to go to the global market.  But then again, there would be NO global market since you can't be arguing that the US should exit it, but while everyone else stays.  So now you are doing direct deals with other countries, which means tariffs and other geo-political issues.  So now you're incentivized to maybe take what you need, like the Caucuses, reserves in Africa, etc.  This is exactly how wars start.  
    That sounds like more of a case for improved fuel economy and investment in intercontinental mass transit than going to war.  I see a lack of production as a way to find a solution, not as a justification for taking from others.  I am assuming you are coming from a petroleum only perspective, not from a foodstuffs angle as well?  We export 50% of the wheat we produce, I am hoping we don't consume more than the other 50%, that seems like a bad way of doing business. And in our country we have an over consumption problem of everything that there are many solutions to besides eating up the rest of the world's resources.
    Post edited by static111 on
    Scio me nihil scire
  • Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 1,608
    edited August 5
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,721
    These religious nuts have way too much control


    A Minnesota jury ruled Friday that a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for a morning-after pill because of his beliefs did not violate a woman's civil rights under state law but inflicted emotional harm and awarded her $25,000 in damages.

    A mother of five, sought the morning after pill in January 2019 at the only pharmacy in her hometown, McGregor (population 391), after a condom broke during sex.

    The pharmacist, who had been dispensing drugs from the McGregor Thrifty White pharmacy for four decades and is also a local preacher, refused to fill her prescription, claiming it would violate his “beliefs,” according to the complaint.

    “Badeaux (the pharmacist) informed her that there would be another pharmacist working the next day, who might be willing to fill the medication but that he could not guarantee that they would help,” the complaint states.

    Badeaux also warned her against trying to get the prescription filled at a Shopko pharmacy in a nearby town and refused to tell her where else she could try, as required by state law, the complaint states.

    Another pharmacist at a CVS in the city of Aitkin also blocked her from getting the prescription filled.

    She wound up driving for hours “while a massive snowstorm was headed to central Minnesota,” to get the prescription filled at Walgreens in the city of Brainerd, according to the complaint.


    Really there should be a law preventing pharmacists who won’t fill any and all lawful prescriptions from being able to work in a town without a specific number of alternative pharmacies 


    I didn't know pharmacists could choose to not fill valid prescriptions. Sounds like this guy made sure she wasn't going to get the prescription filled there either way. But you know, it was divine intervention that caused the condom to break so I'm sure it was what god wanted for her. She was just too callous to accept the gift of another possible child. 
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 8,721
    In other news, Indiana nearly bans all abortions.

    Gift article.


    It's a hopeless situation...
Sign In or Register to comment.