Octopus Overlords

Take everything I wondered about in the other thread and accelerate it quite a bit if that happens. We have reason to think that authoritarianism is coming but I imagine if they use their antimajoritarian power this way, it'll be 1850s America all over again.

Dogstar wrote: Sat May 07, 2022 1:28 pm Referencing a CDC report, sure, but that’s the type of language that probably shouldn’t find itself in any kind of judicial decision, even as a reference.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tense is important. They are taking about past "supply" and may well be using language from the report. It's not the best look but misrepresenting the context isn't either.

I mentioned that they’re referencing the CDC report. Specifically, they’re referencing it in that “and that a woman who puts her new-born up for adoption today has little reason to fear that the baby will not find a suitable home.” Yes, the report is older.

I don’t think it’s too much to ask Justices to consider just about every word that goes into a substantial opinion like this, especially in terms of how it may be perceived, whether that was their intention or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We can't mandate someone take a vaccine to protect themselves from hospitalization or death, but we can force a woman to carry a baby to full term along with the risks that entails. JFC.

Spoiler alert: They aren't using science to decide when life begins.

They typically use science in two ways: when it supports their agenda, or when they twist/cherry pick it so that it appears to do so (which is most of the time.)

In the latter case they rely on the ignorance of their constituents to not be able to recognize the flaws in their logic. That alone is a big chunk of why they try to cripple education. If people are uneducated, they can't tell when the truth is being distorted.

Blackhawk wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 4:04 pm They typically use science in two ways: when it supports their agenda, or when they twist/cherry pick it so that it appears to do so (which is most of the time.)

In the latter case they rely on the ignorance of their constituents to not be able to recognize the flaws in their logic. That alone is a big chunk of why they try to cripple education. If people are uneducated, they can't tell when the truth is being distorted.

Ditto Religion (forgive me if this was posted earlier):

For Jews who can become pregnant, access to abortion services is a religious *requirement*, and has been for thousands of years. Surprised? Let's dig into some of the texts

The Thread does a deep dive here...

I love the phrase: "For Jews who can become pregnant" very modern. Beautifully non-binary.

Unagi wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:35 am I love the phrase: "For Jews who can become pregnant" very modern. Beautifully non-binary.

That one is subtle and doesn’t hit me as jarring. But a lot of the non-binary language I’m hearing right now in connection with the Roe v. Wade debate produces in me an involuntary eye roll. On NPR yesterday, I heard a guest refer to the need to protect the rights of “people capable of being pregnant.” Best intentions and all, but, wow. Who talks like that?

Kurth wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 10:01 am

Unagi wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:35 am I love the phrase: "For Jews who can become pregnant" very modern. Beautifully non-binary.

That one is subtle and doesn’t hit me as jarring. But a lot of the non-binary language I’m hearing right now in connection with the Roe v. Wade debate produces in me an involuntary eye roll. On NPR yesterday, I heard a guest refer to the need to protect the rights of “people capable of being pregnant.” Best intentions and all, but, wow. Who talks like that?

I think it'll be normalized soon enough.

I'll old enough to remember when the shift away from universal male pronouns felt "woke" (avant la lettre).

Kurth wrote:

Unagi wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:35 am I love the phrase: "For Jews who can become pregnant" very modern. Beautifully non-binary.

That one is subtle and doesn’t hit me as jarring. But a lot of the non-binary language I’m hearing right now in connection with the Roe v. Wade debate produces in me an involuntary eye roll. On NPR yesterday, I heard a guest refer to the need to protect the rights of “people capable of being pregnant.” Best intentions and all, but, wow. Who talks like that?

People who have read Steel Beach and realize that in the near future medical science will probably be able to allow anyone to get pregnant and deliver and be fully reversible?

Pyperkub wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 11:44 am

Kurth wrote:

Unagi wrote: Tue May 10, 2022 9:35 am I love the phrase: "For Jews who can become pregnant" very modern. Beautifully non-binary.

That one is subtle and doesn’t hit me as jarring. But a lot of the non-binary language I’m hearing right now in connection with the Roe v. Wade debate produces in me an involuntary eye roll. On NPR yesterday, I heard a guest refer to the need to protect the rights of “people capable of being pregnant.” Best intentions and all, but, wow. Who talks like that?

People who have read Steel Beach and realize that in the near future medical science will probably be able to allow anyone to get pregnant and deliver and be fully reversible?

Near future?

I know that no one is surprised, but it has to be shared:

New - Manchin tells us he’s a NO on Dem bill on abortion rights. Says it’s too broad of an expansion. Says he would support a codification of Roe but says this bill goes too far. This means there is expected to be a bipartisan majority voting against advancing the plan today

Smoove_B wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:04 pm I know that no one is surprised, but it has to be shared:

New - Manchin tells us he’s a NO on Dem bill on abortion rights. Says it’s too broad of an expansion. Says he would support a codification of Roe but says this bill goes too far. This means there is expected to be a bipartisan majority voting against advancing the plan today

Are you saying Manchin might not be making a statement in good faith?



If Collins gets wind of this she might be moved to escalate to very concerned.

Yeah. He was a no literally a couple of months ago on this exact same bill. Of course he's still a no.

I guess Democrats could back the Collins-Murkowski bill. That would at least give them a majority, although unless those two are willing to dump the filibuster (color me deeply skeptical) it's still a moot point.

It's not a matter that he was a No before. The lie is that there is a way to get him to a Yes. He is not a trustworthy person.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:15 pm Yeah. He was a no literally a couple of months ago on this exact same bill. Of course he's still a no.

I guess Democrats could back the Collins-Murkowski bill. That would at least give them a majority, although unless those two are willing to dump the filibuster (color me deeply skeptical) it's still a moot point.

Also, I'm not even sure that Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin would all be a yes on that bill if it really mattered. And the odds that any of them would be willing to vote to dump the filibuster are essentially zero.

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:29 pm

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:15 pm Yeah. He was a no literally a couple of months ago on this exact same bill. Of course he's still a no.

I guess Democrats could back the Collins-Murkowski bill. That would at least give them a majority, although unless those two are willing to dump the filibuster (color me deeply skeptical) it's still a moot point.

Also, I'm not even sure that Collins, Murkowski, and Manchin would all be a yes on that bill if it really mattered. And the odds that any of them would be willing to vote to dump the filibuster are essentially zero.

Exactly. These aren't people whose word is worth anything. They are all operate in the bullshit space that the filibuster enables. Of course they wouldn't get rid of it. It is their eternal shield.

El Guapo wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:29 pm And the odds that any of them would be willing to vote to dump the filibuster are essentially zero.

The filibuster will be nuked ~30 days after the GOP takes over Congress and the Presidency in January of 2024. Perhaps the first thing they'll use it for is codifying a national ban on abortion.

The filibuster will never be nuked as long as McConnell lives. He gets way, WAY too much use out of it - against both the Democrats and his own party. He will defend it till his dying day.

But the man is 80 years old, so that day will come sooner rather than later. And not every Republican believes in the filibuster the way McConnell does.

I think there is some space between getting rid of the filibuster wholesale and tactical reduction. If the issue is important enough he'll signal everyone to get on the bus and chip away at it to get the job done.

The economy is at a critical inflection point, the workforce is in disarray, we are toeing the WWIII line in Europe and China is rattling sabres in Asia. Violent crime is rising, and, oh yeah, were still in the middle of a pandemic.

But sure, let's.expend endless time and energy on this fucking bullshit all over again. While we're at it, let's bring back the PMRC and take a look at re-segregating schools.

Abortion is now legal in Ireland. Hell, the Mexican Supreme Court deemed banning it to be unconstitutional this past September. Both countries are over 80% Christian (and over 70% Catholic). We led the way up, now let's lead the way down!

There is a line, I think, at which it will become irrelevant. When he feels that getting rid of it will allow him to ensure, through legislation, that Democrats aren't a threat anymore, he'll get rid of it. If he feels that the backlash to the obvious power play would be excessive, he'll leave it. It will be there as long as it is a useful tool, and not one session longer.

Little Raven wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 12:32 pm The filibuster will never be nuked as long as McConnell lives. He gets way, WAY too much use out of it - against both the Democrats and his own party. He will defend it till his dying day.

But the man is 80 years old, so that day will come sooner rather than later. And not every Republican believes in the filibuster the way McConnell does.

He'll nuke it when he needs to, pass all the laws Republicans immediately want, and then reinstate it with a new Senate rule asserting that it can only be waived with a vote by 60% of senators.

If you think that's picky and procedural and ridiculous, you don't know Mitch McConnell and the US Senate.

So, this is all going well.

Thread:

Holman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:21 pmHe'll nuke it when he needs to, pass all the laws Republicans immediately want, and then reinstate it with a new Senate rule asserting that it can only be waived with a vote by 60% of senators.

It doesn't work that way, and you know it. There's no such thing as a rule that requires 60 Senators to change, and McConnell can't simply wish such a method into existence. He knows darn well that the only thing that protects the filibuster is the respect it hold among the Senate at large, which is why he guards it so jealously. The Democrats employed the filibuster over and over under Trump, and McConnell was content to let it happen, despite having enough Republican votes to overturn it. I honestly don't think he'll ever let it go.

But like I said, McConnell won't be around all that much longer, and plenty of Republicans think the filibuster needs to go. Between that and the fact that Democrats are now all but committed to ending it, it does seem likely to fall within a decade.

As a "they" in this thread, I have no objections to anyone aborting all the future democrats they want. Without Roe vs. Wade you guys would have had total control with actual honest to goodness votes for the last twenty years at least. No need to even import voters. So, I'm on your side.

Having not seen it, I am going to make a wild guess that the post above mine is pure garbage.

Just his usual pizza cutter contribution to any discussion.

All edge, no point.

Edit: not worth lowering myself to their level

Some people feel 'powerful' when they discover that they have the ability to get other people to react. It's kind of sad, really, as it's usually the people who are completely powerless in their own lives.

Little Raven wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:02 am

Holman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:21 pmHe'll nuke it when he needs to, pass all the laws Republicans immediately want, and then reinstate it with a new Senate rule asserting that it can only be waived with a vote by 60% of senators.

It doesn't work that way, and you know it. There's no such thing as a rule that requires 60 Senators to change, and McConnell can't simply wish such a method into existence. He knows darn well that the only thing that protects the filibuster is the respect it hold among the Senate at large, which is why he guards it so jealously. The Democrats employed the filibuster over and over under Trump, and McConnell was content to let it happen, despite having enough Republican votes to overturn it. I honestly don't think he'll ever let it go.

You're forgetting that the GOP normally doesn't care about legislation. Everything they need done can usually be done through budgets and the courts. When the filibuster became a threat to the only thing they need the Senate for, they chucked it into the trash.

Now that they can count on the Supreme Court backing them up, they'll do the same for a national ban on abortion and to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and whatever. You'll see.

Holman wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:38 am

Little Raven wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 12:02 am

Holman wrote: Wed May 11, 2022 7:21 pmHe'll nuke it when he needs to, pass all the laws Republicans immediately want, and then reinstate it with a new Senate rule asserting that it can only be waived with a vote by 60% of senators.

It doesn't work that way, and you know it. There's no such thing as a rule that requires 60 Senators to change, and McConnell can't simply wish such a method into existence. He knows darn well that the only thing that protects the filibuster is the respect it hold among the Senate at large, which is why he guards it so jealously. The Democrats employed the filibuster over and over under Trump, and McConnell was content to let it happen, despite having enough Republican votes to overturn it. I honestly don't think he'll ever let it go.

You're forgetting that the GOP normally doesn't care about legislation. Everything they need done can usually be done through budgets and the courts. When the filibuster became a threat to the only thing they need the Senate for, they chucked it into the trash.

Now that they can count on the Supreme Court backing them up, they'll do the same for a national ban on abortion and to "protect the sanctity of marriage" and whatever. You'll see.

I don't see how there is even an argument against this. They've already done this. The GOP has IMO recently started to innovate in chaos on legislation now too. They've shown a blatant disregard recently for legislative norms. The Texas social media law does blatantly unconstitutional things and an appellate court signed off. The Texas abortion law has similar contours. They've broken 200 years of jurisprudence on this one issue alone (i.e., they decided to deputize and incentivize private citizens to be censors and prosecutors!) The draft LA abortion law has provisions literally threatening judges with impeachment if they rule against it. The GOP is radicalized and somehow folks want to talk about how McConnell wants to preserve norms. It's bonkers to me.

Like...he still brags about making sure Obama didn't get to seat a Supreme Court Justice. You don't think for five minutes he'd nuke the filibuster to pass national abortion restrictions? I'm guessing he'd love to retire knowing that's his legacy.

He is just a GOP in DEM clothing.

If anyone knows about the hypocrisy in the GOP over sex, it would be Jeri Ryan.

This is a good video on how to talk about abortion with those who are against it.