Jump to content

Legosi (Tani Coyote)

SSMB Moderator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Legosi (Tani Coyote)

  1. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/donald-trump-elizabeth-warren-dna-1-million/index.html Elizabeth Warren has taken a DNA test that has confirmed her Native American ancestry. Trump has denied he ever said he would pay her $1 million. He later clarified his promise to pay $1 million to a charity of her choice was only if she won the Democratic nomination first. In fairness, Warren has taken the test so he can't try and use her ancestry against her should she start running next year. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/saudi-arabia-congress-trump-khashoggi/index.html The Senate has begun discussing taking action against Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi. Voices from Marco Rubio to Bernie Sanders are saying investigations should be made and action taken. We might see a veto-proof bipartisan sanction bill against Saudi Arabia like we saw with Russia a while back. Trump continues to warn against sanctions because of the weapons deal with the Saudis, and has said cutting the deal would cost jobs. Unfortunately for him, most members of Congress have little reason to care about that. Most of them will be re-elected no matter what they do, as any job losses would inevitably be blamed on Trump. Senators in particular would be content to throw Trump under the bus. Your typical Senator can look at the President and go, "We were here before you, and we will be here after you, Mr. President" with a snide grin. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/democrats-protest-grassley-judicial-nominee-recess/index.html After McConnell cut a deal with Democrats to clear a slate of judges in exchange for the Democrats being able to go back home and campaign, Chuck Grassley is moving several nominations forward during the recess (that is, when there will be a minimal Democratic presence to oppose any of them). He blasted Democrats for "obstruction" that has left many vacancies. Pretty sure he was quiet on his buddy Mitch doing it. I am glad he is 86 and will be 90 when his seat is next up. Also this is his seventh term. Good Lord do we need term limits. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/15/politics/trump-painting-the-republican-club-presidents-white-house/index.html Meanwhile there's this. Trump has hung a painting of himself having a drink with past Republican Presidents in the White House. The fact he is so close to Lincoln, Teddy and Ike disgusts me. Him being right next to Ford and Nixon is right on the money, though. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I think he should be having an exclusive party with Andrew Jackson, personally.
  2. The next episode better be out sooner than two years if they're gonna end on a cliffhanger like that AHHHHH

  3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/republicans-attack-cuomos-plan-to-restore-felons-voting-rights-1538520147 Governor Cuomo of New York has been spearheading an effort to restore voting rights to parolees, and tens of thousands had their rights restored. This follows 2016's mass restoration efforts in Virginia, where Governor McAuliffe responded to a court ruling he could not mass pardon 200,000 people by instead pardoning a bunch of them with an autopen. Personally, I hope if Democrats take a lot of Governorships this year, they do the same thing. If the GOP wants to play dirty, let's jump down in the mud with them. There are millions of Americans who cannot vote due to felony disenfranchisement, and it is a population that leans Democratic. If Florida votes to restore ex-felons' voting rights this November, I anticipate we will see a snowball effect not only of Democrats mass pardoning, but Republicans getting on board with the national popular vote. If Florida passes that amendment, it is game over for the Florida GOP and the national GOP's ability to win the Electoral College.
  4. Of course, that same GOP can easily just pack the judiciary as it is doing now. There is no real clear answer here, because our democratic system requires that we give the government the tools we'd be content to have used against us when we're not in power. Should the courts start displaying open partisan hackery, annihilating their status as a relevant player becomes a lot more appealing. http://thesource.com/2018/10/12/new-jersey-sets-october-29th-as-date-for-recreational-marijuana-legalization/ Days before the midterms, New Jersey is expected to pass a legal marijuana bill on October 29th.
  5. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/politics/white-house-ninth-circuit-judges/index.html Trump has submitted three nominations for the 9th Circuit Court, which currently has 6 vacancies. Just in case the GOP does somehow lose the Senate, they're rushing through appointees to the most liberal Court in America. Don't feel too discouraged by conservative courts, however. Besides the possibility of packing, Democrats have another weapon to use against a conservative judiciary: under the Constitution, Congress can declare the judiciary unable to rule on certain kinds of cases in terms of appeal. Since most of the federal court's power comes from hearing appeals... yeah, this would neuter the courts very fast. Historically, few challenges to the Court's appellate jurisdiction have succeeded. This was generally because the Court took a step back and avoided Congressional reprisal. But in an era where every tradition is at risk, I think jurisdiction stripping might become a salient topic of discussion. I would not be surprised if we see a shift to semi-Presidential government within our lifetimes. The Senate outright refusing to appoint the President's nominees unless they're people the Senate wanted first, the courts actively being stripped of their jurisdiction, the House starting to look like it should be the future and not the Senate...
  6. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/13/politics/the-forecast-democratic-hopes-taking-senate/index.html Mixed political forecasts. In all likelihood, the GOP will keep the Senate, but the forecast shows catastrophic losses to the GOP in the House and Governors' races. It is possible the coattails will go down and give Dems control of a lot of state legislatures as well. This will put Dems in a position to roll back GOP gerrymandering for state and federal seats, and also allow them to freely disrupt the GOP agenda with noncompliance laws like sanctuary state bills. https://www.cnn.com/election/2018/forecast/senate The Senate is far from settled, however. Current margins of error mean that we could end up with a Senate with anywhere from 47 to 57 Republicans. It all comes down to turnout. CNN is currently forecasting the GOP having a net gain of 1 seat. Here's a real crucial takeaway though: the Democrats are owning it in the Great Lakes region. If they can keep their numbers there, Trump will not win reelection.
  7. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/opinions/mitch-mcconnell-has-damaged-all-three-branches-of-government-begala/ While we like to hate on Trump for the damage he is doing to our institutions, let us give a round of applause for Mitch McConnell, the man who really got things dirtied. He threatened to paint the intelligence agencies as partisan if they dared come out against Trump's campaign by mentioning Russian influence. He pushed through two Supreme Court nominations that really should not have happened. He used the filibuster to block more nominations under Obama than all the other Presidents combined. May he go down in history as much an asshole as Andrew Jackson. The House of Representatives really just might become the most respected body in our government if those new rules get passed. There could not be a more delicious rebuke of Framers' intent than that, that the most democratic body in the government would be the least of a shitshow. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/12/politics/georgia-voter-lawsuit-brian-kemp/index.html Georgia's election might heat up. There is a class action lawsuit against the state government because of voter laws that require ID verification to vote. The Secretary of State is defending it on the basis people can still vote, it just requires a provisional ballot. Except provisional ballots tend to carry a requirement you bring an ID somewhere else a week later, which discourages a lot of people from actually casting their vote. You know, usual Republican legal hoops to voting. The same way opt-out registration over opt-in registration is classed as infringing on "choice." Just remember how Jim Crow voter suppression was defended. "It's to prevent fraud." "Oh everyone can vote they just need to pass this, this, and this test." "Everyone can vote they just need to pay this small fee many months ahead of the election." See a pattern here? And considering the alignment of Jim Crow states with red states... hmm. Yes, but it seems to fall flat compared to zakat. Then again, it's more American Protestantism than Christianity that has this issue. Catholics and Orthodoxists are very fond of social welfare in addition to private charity. Holy books are the same as constitutions I suppose. People read into them what they want to read. In theory, yes. They could repeal the law mandating single member districts for the House, but that would need to pass Trump's veto. It would also need a condition that multi-member districts be allocated proportionally and not at large. Historically, multi-member districts have been used to suppress minority votes. Federalism and the 14th Amendment have a fun relationship which will basically allow Congress to regulate federal elections with more leeway. It's why some states have "None of these candidates" as an option for offices, but only those that are not federal.
  8. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/10/11/1803668/-VICTORY-Death-penalty-abolished-in-Washington-by-order-of-State-Supreme-Court?utm_campaign=trending Washington has abolished the death penalty by state Supreme Court order. The ruling is made under the basis of state law, so presumably the federal courts will not get involved unless someone wants to make a constitutional case that states cannot outlaw the death penalty. Good luck with that. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/10/11/17963714/stock-market-crash-dow-jones-global-trump Play your Cosmic Fall music, because the stock market is in freefall and it looks like Trump had a hand in it. He is currently blaming the Federal Reserve's tightening of the money supply for the problem. I like how when it's up, it's because of him, but when it is down, it's never his fault. Absolutely. It's also profoundly stupid from a historical standpoint. Social welfare was invented not by Marxists eager to overthrow the capitalist class, but by conservatives realizing that starving, homeless people are the most likely group to decide a violent overthrow of the government sounds appealing. Rome saw the usefulness of social welfare. Muhammad too, and he institutionalized forced charity a lot better than Jesus did. The list goes on. If you give people a stake in the system, they have more to lose. And so the modern welfare state was born. Conversely, those with the most stake in the system should absolutely pay the most for its upkeep. The rich need us. We don't need them. Observe how casually a company tosses out CEOs. Now how many companies do you know that fire every single worker at once, or ban everybody from shopping there? We have the power. Not them. They should pay their say, 50% tax rate, and be grateful for the opportunity to have so much more than all of us after it's collected. A lot of people of all income levels fly at least occasionally, though. Plus it is possible Real ID could be used even for something like Amtrak. It is not that IDs are insurmountably expensive, just that there is currently low utility to dropping the $10 to $100 (depending on how many steps a person needs to go through) necessary to get one. Were it more practically useful to have one, more people would get one. Consider this: a lot of poorer people will still scrape the money together to rent a suit for a job interview; there is a high utility to that expense. Most of my family lives in poverty yet we still manage to travel. If we can't come up with the money ourselves, it is usually scraped together by other family members. Cost is less of a barrier than utility; is the cost of x worth the price? That is the question. REAL ID will, overall, raise the utility of having a photo ID. And any state that tries to say that ID is not good enough is liable to get smacked hard with the Supremacy Clause.
  9. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-for-tribal-north-dakotans-to-vote/ Heitkamp is pretty much guaranteed to get tossed out on her ass anyway. The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling protects voter ID laws in North Dakota, and basically guarantees Heitkamp will lose her seat. She won by only 3,000 votes in 2012, and she owes a lot of that to the Native American population. If the midterm enthusiasm is not strong, she will lose. The GOP is actively doing its best to weaken Democrats with these "fraud prevention" measures. Civility has no place here. They want to monopolize power. Democracy is about freely competing for power. It's really telling there is tons of evidence for voter fraud in the form of purchasing votes, but the GOP does not talk about that. I can't imagine why not. But yeah, screw civility. This is not politics anymore. This is war between an aristocracy and the public will. If one of the major parties cannot win without actively suppressing the vote and upholding undemocratic institutions, there is something wrong. The Democrats should absolutely consider doubling the size of the House of Representatives at the next opportunity, and should nuke the filibuster to get there. Make it even sweeter: invoke the 14th Amendment to cut the representation of all states with voter ID laws. On the plus side, Bush's REAL ID law might end up weakening the strength of voter ID laws. Voter ID laws rely on the low utility of having an ID to be effective. A lot of people being told they can't fly or use federal facilities will convince a lot of people to get an ID. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/trump-plans-to-back-legal-medical-marijuana-after-midterms-gop-congressman-says/ Meanwhile, Trump has said he will be discussing legalizing medical marijuana after the midterms. Other than the fact it is likely to be legalized in several jurisdictions on Election Day, the odds of Democrats making a sweep of the House will make the political climate more favorable to discussing loosening laws.
  10. I've started calling my friend who I met outside the fandom (but who became a furry later on) by his fursona's name and he's so confused on which name to prefer and it's great

    1. SaturnWolf


      You can just @ me you know :P

    2. Legosi (Tani Coyote)

      Legosi (Tani Coyote)

      @DreamSaturn WELL THIS IS AWKWARD

    3. SaturnWolf



    4. Legosi (Tani Coyote)

      Legosi (Tani Coyote)

      @DreamSaturn But like


    5. SaturnWolf



    6. Polkadi~☆
  11. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/trump-midterms-travel-final-four-weeks-strategy/index.html The GOP's midterm strategy: "Trump people to death." Their plan is to drag him from state to state to try and turn out Republican voters, with even Trump asking supporters to pretend he is at the top of the ballot. His ability to pursue his agenda is heavily tied to his majorities, so it is hoped he will whip up enough support to prevent huge losses. It is expected this strategy will work best in the Senate, allowing the GOP to unseat Senators like Heitkamp and McCaskill. The House is being fought in more swingy, suburban districts where he has lost popularity, so it would not work as well there. Democrats are not scared, however. Whenever Trump visits somewhere, Democrats raise a lot more money. This money can be turned into ads and get out the vote efforts. In addition, the American ideal of divided government is rearing its head even in red states: a lot of conservatives would still prefer power shift a little to make the government more balanced. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/heidi-heitkamp-hillary-clinton-response-cnntv/index.html Heidi Heitkamp has rebuked Clinton's "no civility" message. With only a few weeks left, she's naturally eager to piece back together her image as a moderate considering she voted against Kavanaugh. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/mitt-romney-family-separations/index.html Mitt Romney has said he considers the separation of families at the border shameful. Considering he is likely to be the Senator from Utah in 3 months, we shall see if he puts his money where his mouth is with his votes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/kevin-mccarthy-border-wall-bill/index.html As another election tactic, Kevin McCarthy is going to introduce a bill that would provide $23 billion in funding for Trump's border wall. It will not be considered until after the midterms are over. It would most likely never pass the Senate, but it is undoubtedly an attempt to try and turn out the GOP base.
  12. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/408786-centrists-pledge-to-withhold-support-for-speaker-unless-house-rules-change Some more background on the rules changes House members are seeking. The proposed rules package would give any bill an automatic markup (that is, increased priority) if it has one cosponsor from the other Party, would make it easier to add amendments to legislation, would require a bipartisan meeting at the start of every session, and would protect the Speaker from being ousted by a small minority. Ironically, the way the Problem Solvers' Caucus is ramming this through is pledges from its membership - Democrats and Republicans - to withhold their votes for Speaker unless the candidate promises rules changes. As the Democrats are simultaneously mulling over a party rules change that would prevent the Speaker candidacy from going to anyone who could not command a majority in the full House, and the House is quite likely to be narrowly divided after the midterms, this could be a quite powerful threat. The message that the moderate Republicans are sending with the Democrats is clear: if the Democrats really want to oppose Trump, they need to be a party for real, lasting change and not return to business as usual. Not just in policy, but in how they conduct business. They need to toss out Pelosi, then rebuild the House from the ground up to encourage partnership and cooperation. The Hastert Rule and leadership rules have both made it so fringe caucuses, or majorities in the majority caucus, can obstruct meaningful legislation from passing. As the Senate gradually becomes more partisan, maybe the House can ironically become the most respected branch of government as it redistributes power towards its ordinary members.
  13. At age 46, it's highly unlikely Haley is finished with politics, yes. I would not be surprised if we see her running for a Senate position or otherwise being considered for the Vice Presidency or Cabinet later on. She has been seen as a possible Presidential and VP candidate in the past, so she will most likely surface in one of those races over the next several elections. The Senate is unlikely, because Graham will be 65 in 2020 and there are plenty of 80+ GOP Senators. The other SC Senator is even younger. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/nikki-haley-replacement-congress-republicans/index.html Meanwhile, there is discussion of appointing retiring Senator Bob Corker to the position. Considering Corker's position as one of Trump's larger in-party critics, that would be quite surprising. There was even talk of putting Ivanka Trump in, but Trump has said he would no do it because it would be seen as nepotism. ...I find it strange he would care. https://jalopnik.com/uber-and-lyft-are-offering-discounted-rides-to-get-peop-1829600559 Citing 15 million people who could not vote in 2016 due to transportation issues, Lyft and Uber are offering discounted rides on Election Day. Meanwhile, the GOP's low key voter suppression continues with this gem from Eric Trump. He claims it is the "last day," but it's actually just the last day to register by mail. He even erased the part of the original image that specified some states had alternate ways to register. Of course he forgot to mention that key part... would not want high registration rates. That favors Democrats.
  14. I would add, in particular, that using the word "bitch" to describe a woman is in poor taste. It is a heavily gendered insult (observe how the word is used differently depending on which gender it is referring to, and even then, when calling men the term, there's a strong implication of being effeminate). Even if she's unpleasant, that's no more grounds to call her it than it would be to call a black person the n-word or purposely misgender a transgender person. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/mitch-mcconnell-hillary-clinton-civility/index.html Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell criticizing Clinton for saying Democrats should stop being civil with the GOP. I'm sorry but "fuck you" can't even begin to capture my reaction to this guy having the nerve to say that. His partisan hackery over the judicial system aside, he's the kind of guy who masks all the terrible policies that could kill millions of people and his Party's open attempts to rig elections with "civility." Screw civility. This is a struggle for survival at this point. If the Democrats gain the majority, they must do everything they can to shut the GOP out of power, because there is no chance in Hell the GOP would not do the same. They made their position known when they gerrymandered the House after 2010. Democrats should try to build bridges with conservative and moderate voters, to try and make them part of a populist coalition. But not the GOP itself. Especially so long as McConnell is the face of it. It is legitimately polarized yes. But it's basically the fact Trump does not have the same finesse as prior Republican politicians. Trump agrees with other Republicans on most of their policies. But at least someone like Bush or Reagan could give it some nice window dressing. Trump is just unapologetic about mocking the mentally disabled, women, sexual assault victims, racial minorities, the list goes on. He ran such a disgusting campaign that many people just could not fathom the idea of someone else voting for him. There was this sense that if you let him in, you were signing off on everything he stated. Unfortunately, people tend to ignore that if you live in one of the economically depressed, drug-destroyed areas he visited, his ideas were sounding a lot more appealing than Clinton's "ehhhh, just get retrained and move to a new area for a lesser paying job, yo." Liberal outlets dedicate themselves to proving racism, sexism, etc. rather than homing in on the fact yes, there is a statistically significant group of Trump voters who do fit the working class white argument. Trump won the key states by less than 1% each. That tiny group matters. This is important to remember, yes. Trump had a lot more reluctant voters than Clinton. They did not like his style or some of his ideas like building a wall. But they did like that he would be another conservative, if a really caustic one. The 2016 election really highlights the need to reform our general elections, but also our primaries. Imagine what could have happened if Democrats could vote in the Republican primaries and bolster Kasich, then go back to the Democratic primaries and vote for Clinton. Then imagine what would have happened if Republicans could cross over and support Trump in one primary but Sanders in the other. Moderates would also be participating as well. We would get increasingly more moderate, reasonable, likeable candidates. Our current system divides the electorate upon itself, and then rewards the extreme elements. Then come general election time, everyone has to pick between candidates chosen by a smaller subset of the population.
  15. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley announced her resignation today, despite being one of the most popular politicians in America. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/09/politics/women-trump-kavanaugh-midterms/index.html Interesting discussion on the impact Trump has had on women's political participation. Not only has Trump seen a massive drop in support among women for the GOP, he's also prompting them to volunteer and run for office in record numbers. Women generally participate less than men in midterms... this midterm looks like it will change that. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/heidi-heitkamp-kavanaugh-cnn-interview/index.html Heidi Heitkamp's decision to vote against Kavanaugh is given some light. As one of the most vulnerable red state Democrats, Heitkamp had instructed her staff to draw up a statement praising Kavanaugh and giving her reasons for supporting him, as she did with Gorsuch. Then the sexual assault allegations came forward. Heitkamp believed Ford was assaulted, but was still willing to see if Kavanaugh had been mistakenly identified. Heitkamp watched Kavanaugh's interview... then watched it with the sound off to pay attention to his body language. Guilty or not, the way his emotions gripped him disqualified him from the Court in Heitkamp's eyes. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/politics/democrat-house-majority-women/index.html Some further elaboration on the 69 most competitive House districts. These districts have a lean of 50-46 towards the Democrats. They were 56-41 towards the GOP in 2016. That's a 19 point swing away from the GOP in 2 years. Women prefer Democrats by 14 points, while men choose the Republican candidate 51 to 46. That's an enormous gender gap of 19 points. CNN did a sly statistic mixup here because it omitted how many women answered don't know/no preference (notice how the men are given numbers that add up to 97, whereas the women are just given a 14 point lead), but it does indicate considerable anti-Republican sentiment in the House seats that will carry the balance of power.
  16. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/10/2018-midterm-polls-democrats-leading-house-battlegrounds-senate-republicans-forecast.html Bad news for the GOP. Despite their surge of enthusiasm, when one looks district by district, the Democrats have the advantage in most of the swing districts. The House is still very in reach. Considering that Republican enthusiasm is concentrated towards red areas, however, the Democrats' Senate chances are dampened a little, though. But it is still not entirely impossible. There are so many races on the ballot this year it is very possible someone going to cast a vote for their House rep or Governor could give a needed vote to a Senate candidate to win. The polling is especially telling: while an overwhelming majority of people feel the economy is doing great, the majority still feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Trump has officially broken another trend: people are not giving the party in power credit for economic growth. With less than a month to go until the long-awaited midterm election, the next few weeks are likely to be quite anxiety-inducing. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/marijuana-poll-support/2018/10/08/id/885384/ Pew's latest poll on legal marijuana is out, and it has 62% of Americans in favor. That's up from 61% last year and double the 31% it was in 2000. This cause is getting stronger by the day. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/pennsylvania-lawmakers-to-vote-on-marijuana-decriminalization-this-week/ Pennsylvania's lawmakers will vote on a marijuana decriminalization bill this week, which will eliminate the criminal penalties for possessing up to one ounce. Some legalization advocates are angry it is not a full on legalization, but I honestly think they should take what they can get. It eliminates the jail time and is a good compromise considering the circumstances. If Democrats (who are generally more lenient on ending marijuana prohibition) can increase their clout in the state next month, maybe they can add on to the bill with further legalization efforts.
  17. Indigenous is basically being picked up because "native American" could technically refer to anyone born here. Indigenous exclusively would refer to the first peoples of a region. It is essentially the most neutral, accurate term one can use. I remember when people from several different indigenous groups were asked their thoughts on "Indian" or "Native American." While most disliked Indian, they did not see it as a slur or anything. They were less concerned about being called Native American and more about being recognized as Navajo, Cherokee, Sioux, etc. The debate over using indigenous versus Native American versus Indian basically is arguing over whether to call people from Germany European or Asian, rather than calling them German. There's a distinct loss of identity involved in the current discourse. Not terribly surprising, considering the left tends to have its own variations of racial insensitivity. History, regardless of whether it was written from a perspective hostile or sympathetic towards the indigenous people, has often had a tendency to treat them as a single group, rather than as numerous distinct cultures whose sole trait in common was the fact they were all on the losing side in a centuries-long conflict. For comparison, a lot of Mexicans demonize Malintzin/Malinche, an indigenous woman who aided Cortez in his conquest of Mexico. She is often depicted as having betrayed the native peoples. Except... the native peoples were not united. They were all various different groups with their own cultures and politics and rivalries. She was just a member of one of them and was navigating the circumstances. She literally would not be able to understand the concept of "betraying" Mexico's indigenous peoples.
  18. Happy Indigenous Peoples Day, everyone!

    Remember, if a coyote crosses your path, be sure to turn the other way!

    (Or don't, if you're feeling adventurous)

  19. That's basically politics, yes. It's almost inherently a utilitarian institution because you have to weigh the best ways to spend finite political capital. In Edwards' case, he has made it harder for some women to receive an abortion. But he has also given healthcare to countless people who otherwise would not have it. I ran a rough estimate (using half of Louisiana's population and the approximate number of women who request an abortion each year, a crude measure, but useful enough) and basically, it would take about 50 years for the number of denied abortions to match up with the number of people who now have healthcare. From a purely utilitarian standpoint and considering the circumstances, it was the best option. A pro-choice Democrat would not be in that seat, and guys like Bobby Jindal would instead be free to defund Planned Parenthood, ban abortions, and keep poor people from getting healthcare. Edwards is very supportive of Planned Parenthood's non-abortion services, on that note, so it makes his strict policies seem far less cruel. In a bluer area, it is easy to run on both expanding healthcare as well as increased access to abortion. But sadly, in a lot of other areas, it will be an "us or them" situation. While there should naturally be limits on how far one will go with a utilitarian analysis, it is still a good metric to use in situations where one's hands are tied. While this is going on, of course, people on the ground should be working to try and change opinions on abortion; there has been enormous success in this regard, considering over two-thirds of people believe in the right to one during the first trimester (and indeed, Edwards' abortion ban, as tough as it is, excludes the first trimester). Meanwhile, Steve King is boasting about the possibility of overturning Roe with Kavanaugh's confirmation, and he got this savage response that shows how bullshit the GOP's combination of economic libertarianism with social conservatism is. Just one of many comments like that, though. An abortion ban without huge socioeconomic changes is amputating a leg and refusing to stop the bleeding.
  20. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/mcconnell-scotus-2020-nominee-trump-senate/index.html Mitch McConnell has left open the possibility he would confirm a Supreme Court nominee if there's a vacancy in 2020. He says that his precedent only applies when the President and Senate are from different parties. So basically, as we all knew, he's a partisan hack. It is really important to vote next month. If one is scared about a conservative majority now, just imagine what it will look like if the GOP still controls the Senate in 2019 and gets a chance to replace a retiring Thomas or a (God forbid) passed away Ginsburg. Flipping the Senate is a longshot, but it is possible. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/how-millennials-could-kill-politics-as-we-know-it/index.html Discussion on how millennials could change the face of American politics. Millennials have stronger independent streaks than any other group, and are less likely to see differences between the two parties. They tend to get involved in politics on issues relevant to them, rather than broad ideologies. As millennials move into politics and are poised to displace the Baby Boomers as the largest voter group between now and 2020, they could shift American politics to be more about issues than party. The great polarization of the last few decades might actually die down a little. The Democrats need to win the House, honestly. If they can pass that rules change that allows bipartisan bills to get through, it is going to be a huge incentive for millennials to run for office: they won't need to tow the party line to get things done. Under current rules, party leaders can hold a Congressperson's agenda hostage if they are not cooperative. The rules change would solve that. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/politics/republicans-trump-democrats-mob-kavanaugh/index.html In a chilling reminder of Nixon's 1976 campaign of "Law and Order" that was used to stoke racist sentiment, prominent Republicans are increasingly using the word "mob" to refer to Democrats. It harkens back to Trump's speech not too long ago where he said Democratic victories would lead to a breakdown of stability and lawlessness would be freely embraced. This is all based on liberal protests. Presumably the GOP has become so fixated on the Second Amendment that they forget to read the First (except when it involves wealthy people donating lots of money, of course).
  21. Considering how much demand for abortion stems from lack of economic justice, I'm not so sure. As economic justice expands, the demand will go down, and the issue becomes increasingly moot. This is actually what the Casey decision kind of foretold, that at some point in the future, requesting an abortion would become incredibly rare. Same thing goes for gun violence. We will probably see considerable declines in it as economic justice increases and crime rates drop. The all or nothing approaches to abortion and guns strike me, quite frankly, as tools the capitalist class uses to keep us from seeing who the real problem in our society is. As Donald Trump uses the Presidency to expand his company's profit margins and Cory Booker and his buddies take enormous amounts of Wall Street money, we should rethink whether it's the social issues they like to argue about that are really the problem. Should social justice be completely eschewed? Of course not. But I don't think the all-or-nothing approach (often from those in solid blue districts) is going to be a net gain for society as a whole. They're probably more focused on going home and getting those early ballots mailed in. Honestly, the dissipation of overt rage is probably a good thing. The more visible Democrats' supporters are, the more likely Republicans will feel inclined to turn out themselves. So seeming to drop the outrage is actually a strategic decision. It means no one will expect the snake strike on November 6th. There's no way the Democrats will ever get to 67 seats. 60 seats alone would be amazing. I say Democrats because no sane Republican would vote to remove, as that would practically guarantee an electoral loss. Jeff Flake had nothing to lose this year since he's retiring, and he still voted to put him in the seat. Brett's here to stay.
  22. Re: Manchin. I get that it's annoying, but I would rather have him than a West Virginia Republican. If the Democrats are to stay in power, they will need red state partners, many of whom are liable to be more conservative than desired on some topics. However, compare Louisiana's John Bel Edwards to his Republican opponents. He suddenly looks like the best option. Yeah, he signed a tough abortion law. But he also extended Medicaid to countless people. That would not have happened with any of the Republicans. Here's a gem from Susan Collins' Twitter last year. Meanwhile, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska might have an interesting election in 2022: I'm not sure whether to laugh or be terrified. However, Murkowski was primaried for being too liberal in 2010 by the Tea Party, and she ran a write-in campaign to become the second Senator elected by write-in in US history. Hoping Murkowski tears Palin apart when that day comes. She's proven she's the only Republican politician left who cares about women.
  23. I was referring to the Frieza arc in Super. Of course the force had not fallen by the time of the Namek saga.
  24. https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/midterms-early-voting/index.html Early voting opens this week in several states, everyone. Monday: California, Iowa Tuesday: Montana, Nebraska Wednesday: Arizona, Indiana, Ohio Many states close their registration in the next few days. Be sure to check with your Secretary of State!
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.