Octopus Overlords

So now that Kavanaugh is a lock - anyone want to handicap how long until abortion is illegal in certain states? I want to say April 2020 but elections might change that math. Maybe June 2021. Hard to be accurate but I expect it'll be rather quickly as these things go.

That's a good question.

Presumably they'll continue to chip away at it by making it more difficult to qualify to perform an abortion, just like they have been, but now instead of the SC "noticing" what they are doing and calling shenanigans, they'll be all like "Totally fine. That seems reasonable. People can still get abortions if they drive 500 miles and stay at one of 5 hospitals in the entire state so it's not like they've banned abortions".

I think it'll take a little time for states to challenge Roe vs. Wade directly, but what do I know, I'm an optimist.

Nationwide political operatives have made a mockery of states determining their own policies.

RunningMn9 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:30 pm Maybe it's ok to just say "Yeah, that statement is a little hyperbolic"?

Sure. It's a tad hyperbolic. Better?

I believe Zarathud was referring to the fact that it is almost certainly his privilege that will get him his seat on the court. He may be qualified on paper, but he's a poor candidate. Yet he'll still sit. Being hand picked by GOP leadership might not be specifically due to his privilege, but let's face it, it probably was didn't hurt. I don't have an answer about how his privilege is currently harming women, outside of the women in his sphere of influence anyway. It's not very interesting or pertinent about how much damage he has done in the past, because now he's in a position to do enormous damage in the future, but sure, let's call it hyperbolic if that's a sticking point for you. I don't disagree.

It's not exactly a victory for women's rights to have an outspoken opponent of women's reproductive rights who is also likely guilty of sexual assault sitting on the bench.

Perhaps it's not the end of the world for American women everywhere, but it's likely to be detrimental for many, and potentially (probably? Depends on what you think the odds are of Roe v Wade being overturned, end runned) catastrophic for around 3/4 of a million hundreds of thousands women, each and every year.

edit: Whoops. Reading charts is hard. Also, Zarathud.

Hey, don't drag me into this one.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:16 pm Hey, don't drag me into this one.

Yeah, I meant to double check the name after I posted. You beat me to it.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:06 pm That's a good question.

Presumably they'll continue to chip away at it by making it more difficult to qualify to perform an abortion, just like they have been, but now instead of the SC "noticing" what they are doing and calling shenanigans, they'll be all like "Totally fine. That seems reasonable. People can still get abortions if they drive 500 miles and stay at one of 5 hospitals in the entire state so it's not like they've banned abortions".

I think it'll take a little time for states to challenge Roe vs. Wade directly, but what do I know, I'm an optimist.

Five hospitals? Two days ago Missouri dropped to ONE abortion clinic when a federal court upheld their restrictions. The intertubes tell me that "Missouri is not the only state where a single facility provides abortions to women. Other states include Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Mississippi, according to a 2014 report by the Guttmacher Institute. Nor is 2018 the first time that Missouri fell into this category."

Holman got it.

It's not just that Roe v. Wade will be a target within weeks of the confirmation (with the inevitable time for the lawsuit to make its way to the SCOTUS). It's that the Republican Senate will confirm someone with credible allegations of a sexual attack and misconduct. The SCOTUS will include someone whose conduct and character is hostile to women's rights.

Don't underestimate the optics -- the timeline just darkened. We are no longer the shining city on the hill, and the blame lies with Trump AND Mitch.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:44 pm We are no longer the shining city on the hill, and the blame lies with Trump AND Mitch.

ROTFLMFAO

em2nought wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:04 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:44 pm We are no longer the shining city on the hill, and the blame lies with Trump AND Mitch.

ROTFLMFAO

The sound of one hand clapping.

One of my gay friends just texted me "Blessed be the fruit" and a link to the confirmation article. I told him as a straight guy, it was nice knowing him and that I'd make sure he got extra rations if he ever wound up in one of my detention camps.

Now that they have their tax cuts and SCOTUS appointment, how much longer does Trump continue to be the useful idiot?

Congrats to the GOP and Justice Kavanaugh.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:30 pm Now that they have their tax cuts and SCOTUS appointment, how much longer does Trump continue to be the useful idiot?

I think it's a case of, "Holy shit, this is actually working!" And he'll continue to get GOP support until it doesn't. These people don't stop just because their original wishlist is complete.

Environmental protections are being wiped out to benefit pet businesses but they're not completely gone. The ACA is still out there, as emaciated as it might be. Constitutional carry doesn't yet exist in every state. I could go on.

Republicans: not just the racist right, but also the rapist right.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:30 pm Now that they have their tax cuts and SCOTUS appointment, how much longer does Trump continue to be the useful idiot?

Ginsberg could die or be invalided before 2020.

Possible 6-3 majority? The GOP is all in. They're not going back.

Holman wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:47 pmGinsberg could die or be invalided before 2020.

Hush! But yeah, I was thinking this morning that it's entirely possible that President Trump could get three Supreme Court nominations. There isn't a science-fiction author I'm aware of that's created a dystopian future adequate enough to describe the potential world we'd be living in.

em2nought wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:04 pm ROTFLMFAO

Tell me again why you bother with this forum? Do you get some value from it? Do you think of the people here as being people that like you? Do you like the people here?

You don't add an alternative point of view, you just spread you ass cheeks open and shit on everyone.

#deleteyouraccount

Unagi wrote:

em2nought wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:04 pm ROTFLMFAO

Tell me again why you bother with this forum? Do you get some value from it? Do you think of the people here as being people that like you? Do you like the people here?

You don't add an alternative point of view, you just spread you ass cheeks open and shit on everyone.

#deleteyouraccount

He just likes fucking with people I suspect. As a wise man once said, "Some men just want to watch the world burn."

Thread:

Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh

"Democrats and the country would have been better off if Mr. Avenatti spent his time on his Iowa vanity project rather than meddling in Supreme Court fights," a senior Senate Democratic aide fumed, referring to Avenatti toying with the idea of seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. "His involvement set us back, absolutely."

I can’t stand that guy. I hope he crawls back under whatever rock he was previously hiding under.

Full stop. Every day the Democrats spent not railing against Mitch McConnell after he refused to hold a hearing for Garland is more to blame for what just happened than Avenatti. The idea that he set the party back somehow is hilarious.

I couldn’t agree more.

Ditto.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:30 pm Now that they have their tax cuts and SCOTUS appointment, how much longer does Trump continue to be the useful idiot?

They are just starting. It's only been two years. Remember 'checks and balances'? They have the executive, legislative, and judicial branches locked up. NOW they will start working on their agenda since all the pieces are in place.

I'm interested in seeing how the people of this country respond. Is this what people really want? How will women, in general, react when choice has been removed from them? If this was a movie It'd be a suspenseful one.

No, it's not what the majority wants. Depending on how one massages the numbers, the GOP's senators only represent 41% of Americans...the 49 Dem senators represent 30-40 million more people. Trump lost the election by 2.8 million votes, and his approval rating hovers below 40%. The Republican agenda is not popular by any definition. The real question is whether what the people want matters at all, or if the GOP is completely insulated from that now. We'll get some indication in a few weeks.

I think you'll have mass protests the likes of which haven't been seen since the '60s if they come anywhere close to touching abortion. They're going to try to put the genie back into the bottle, but I'm guessing women these days aren't going to put up with that shit.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:44 pm but I'm guessing women these days aren't going to put up with that shit.

I used to think that. I don't think that anymore.

Smoove_B wrote:I used to think that. I don't think that anymore.

Really?

We had thousands of women marching on Washington after Trump's inauguration and he hadn't even *done* anything yet. You think they wouldn't show up if abortion was outlawed?

Then there’s the Wendy Davis kerfuffle in Texas.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:49 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I used to think that. I don't think that anymore.

Really?

We had thousands of women marching on Washington after Trump's inauguration and he hadn't even *done* anything yet. You think they wouldn't show up if abortion was outlawed?

How did that work out for them?

One of my (female) facebook friends posts pictures from marches and protests that she joins every month or two. It seems to make her feel good.

People (some statistically insignificant number) will protest. Even more will continue to vote against their interests. It's what people do, I've learned.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:49 pm You think they wouldn't show up if abortion was outlawed?

I think there are women that would demonstrate. I think there are multiple generations of women (and men) born after 1972 that don't have a full appreciation for what that decision meant. In a similar way that people aren't vaccinating their kids because they've never seen the measles or whooping cough ("Why should I worry about those things? People don't get those diseases anymore and if they do, doctors fix them"), people aren't going to realize what a reversal of the Roe V. Wade decision will potentially mean for them until after it happens.

I still believe the apathetic middle is largely unmotivated to do anything because the last ~2 years haven't impacted them directly in any capacity. It's not until after there's *something* that impacts them personally or in their family that they'll suddenly be motivated to do something - and at that point it will likely be too late as we've seemingly had our government hijacked by an extremest fringe group.

Ya wonder if this place is going to be like Ireland for twenty years, until the kids get pissed and change things for the better.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:56 am Full stop. Every day the Democrats spent not railing against Mitch McConnell after he refused to hold a hearing for Garland is more to blame for what just happened than Avenatti. The idea that he set the party back somehow is hilarious.

Why not both? McConnell is obviously the devil, but Avenatti can also be an imp. We can absolutely go after more than one cause for the problem.

I can assure you that Republicans don't want to prevent Democrats from deleting their "little" Democrats. Personally, I just want all levels of government out of it all together. If you want to do it have at it, just don't have a representative government sanction it or pay for it.

I'm looking forward to firing up the House Un-American Activities Committee once again. George Soros should be tickled.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:49 pm

Smoove_B wrote:I used to think that. I don't think that anymore.

Really?

We had thousands of women marching on Washington after Trump's inauguration and he hadn't even *done* anything yet. You think they wouldn't show up if abortion was outlawed?

The only effective "protests" are astroturfed. Grassroots protests are onky of concern to police traffic & crowd control divisions, and maybe the local chamber of commerce. However, you get a billionaire behind a "movment" and it'll go places. Who is backing pro-choice with the same single minded vigor that Bloomberg backs Everytown or the Koch brothers back Americans for Prosperity?

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:29 amWhy not both? McConnell is obviously the devil, but Avenatti can also be an imp. We can absolutely go after more than one cause for the problem.

Sure. I guess my point is that they're not even on the same level. Avenatti doesn't bother me in the least - neither his demeanor or technique, but I can understand why he's annoying. I still don't think Avenatti is a cause for anything, instead he's just another symptom of the larger issues - an individual that can thrive because of the situation we're currently in. Yes, he ultimately the contributes to it, but the fact that he can even sit at the table is because of the ridiculous state of affairs.