Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:40 amThe scary thing is, I normally would be right there with you on this. But I never thought Roe v Wade would be overturned. I even said so years ago when Trump was elected. So at this point, all bets are off in my eyes. I honestly don’t know how far these people will go anymore.

That is the fundamental problem with policy being set by unelected, lifetime appointees. It also was why their predecessors previously acted relatively cautiously.

Their historical pattern - mistakes aside - has been nudging the nation away from instability by limiting major policy swings that don't have wide political support. That is why every one of these judges were challenged and subsequently professed support of accepted norms of judicial temperance.

They've now suddenly transformed into a junta or minicongress that is itself making major policy changes that are unpopular. They are almost acting like the old censors of Rome. Telling us what values we must have and how to be true Americans. In this, they also are certainly indicating they will have a major bias towards restraint of Democratic policy and enable mental of GOP policy. That is a major departure from norms.

Considering all this, it is only wise to recognize we don't know where the limits are because they've already far exceeded what was acceptable. We can't trust them not to continue to abuse their power. It's legitimately very scary.

Especially when big picture we havr to consider that we are looking at rapid, extreme, and unpopular change. Our system isn't designed to work that way. Things will break.

hepcat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:58 am Let’s hope the fact that a majority of citizens would be opposed to it results in a backlash. Although majority means little in our system.

A majority of citizens has been opposed to virtually everything the GOP has done for many years.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:21 am

hepcat wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:58 am Let’s hope the fact that a majority of citizens would be opposed to it results in a backlash. Although majority means little in our system.

A majority of citizens has been opposed to virtually everything the GOP has done for many years.

Yep and I'll continue to argue a lots of folks are delusional and overlook the structural problems that got us here. This is turning into something of a schism in the Democratic party. It has led to a self-defeating myth being born. It is essentially a belief in what I'm now calling the 'institutionalist' wing of the Democratic party that believes that 'Voting Harder' is the only solution.

In this belief they've accepted a framing that Republicans 'always' vote and Democrats don't show up consistently. There is a little truth there but it's misleading. That's not the problem. Democratic Presidential candidates have had more votes in the last 7 out of the last 8 Presidential elections. Two of three of the last GOP Presidential terms came from a minority share of the vote. They sat 5 of the 6 Conservative justices. The Senate has become dramatically non-representative. This isn't a new argument - it is all the usual narrative that explains the break down of the system.

Vote harder isn't going to fix structural issues like this without massive majorities which are impossible to achieve. We've started seeing a message from a faction I'll call the 'realists' that is selling a 'just 2 more Senators' strategy over the last couple of days. I think this is fairly sound. The idea is that the 2 Senators are there to break the filibuster. The major problem is it is too unfocused at present. Which races are going to be competitive? We need some focus to make this idea actionable. Ideally it'd get ordinary folks to focus their donations on those races instead of spreading $15 to every jabroni in the system. Get the dollars where they are needed. Sheesh.

Anyway - that was a major side track. The bottom line is that 'vote harder' faces massive hurdles. This is especially true when we are seeing active measures to make the system even more un-representative and make elections less competitive first and potentially less free and open as an option if voting harder happens.

IMO this is forming into a full schism that is both poorly timed and unfortunately existential for our democracy. I'm arguing it is between my so-called 'institutionalists' and 'realists'. And this has been discussed recently but I think it mostly skews generationally rather than ideologically. It is unfortunately framed by the negligent media as between centrists and progressives. Which is damaging and unhelpful but that is the MSM. They'll walk us into autocracy if they continue to act the way they are.

In any case, the institutionalists are in power and if they continue to prevail I don't see any other outcome that doesn't have the United States fall into a christofascist aligned autocracy. Very high odds. The institutionalists have no plan to deal with all the mounting issues we've seen and they haven't reacted...ever...to the mounting threat. I argue if the realists can drive effective action there might be some hope. In any case, evidence this is happening would be nice, right? I think we are seeing this playing out in the primaries we have seen this month. Also, in the outcry over the extremely inadequate responses from Biden and the leadership to Dobbs. We've been seeing 'realists' winning primaries in several races. It remains to be seen if enough critical mass is achieved to start moving Biden off the path.

And unfortunately this schism also imposes all sorts of risks. Progressives are easy to tar by the old standard GOP smear book as socialists. I think we'd be best served if they could back off the more left-wing ideas policy wise and instead pivot to talking truth to the existential crisis. I unfortunately don't think that'll happen. However, if they could it'd involve being able to talk about solutions for the crisis without playing into the propaganda that these folks will be enrolling folks into the brotherhood of Soviets. It is a really tricky balance that I'm not seeing even being a glimmer in anyone's eye. Worse the people in power are a bad combination of useless and clueless.

That why I'm personally handicapping the odds of autocracy at well over 50% right now. Mid-terms might bring us closer to certain. But we shall see.

States say abortion bans don't affect IVF. Providers and lawyers are worried anyways.

It only takes one Evangelical asshole to bring a lawsuit claiming that the frozen embryos are people (because life begins at fertilization) and the entire IVF service comes to a screeching halt.

You know it's coming.

You can also forget embryonic stem cell research.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 8:58 am We've started seeing a message from a faction I'll call the 'realists' that is selling a 'just 2 more Senators' strategy over the last couple of days. I think this is fairly sound. The idea is that the 2 Senators are there to break the filibuster. The major problem is it is too unfocused at present. Which races are going to be competitive? We need some focus to make this idea actionable.

“We [need to] get two more senators on the Democratic side, two senators who are willing to protect access to abortion and get rid of the filibuster so that we can pass it,” Warren said. “John Fetterman, I’m looking at you in Pennsylvania. Mandela Barnes, I’m looking at you in Wisconsin. We bring them in, then we’ve got the votes, and we can protect every woman no matter where she lives.”

Now if only all the Dems will sing from the same hymnal.

Well, Biden called for restricting the filibuster to allow for a Roe codification. Feels a day late and a dollar short, but it's progress at least.

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:23 am Well, Biden called for restricting the filibuster to allow for a Roe codification. Feels a day late and a dollar short, but it's progress at least.

He probably had to dragged by his knuckles to do it by people telling him that it looked like a complete surrender by him. This is as good a compromise with his anachronistic institutionalist instincts as we'll likely get. In this, he can say he maintains a hard line on preserving the filibuster which might calm some (probably mostly fictional) moderates. But the reality is there is little chance of a successful path that saves our democracy that is built on only eliminating the filibuster for codifying Roe.

He'll get credit from me when it's done and not a minute before. This should have been moving the day after the first opinion leaked.

Zaxxon wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:46 am He'll get credit from me when it's done and not a minute before. This should have been moving the day after the first opinion leaked.

No argument here. He has a lot of NEGATIVE CREDIT on my books. I consider him a disaster at this point. If we was the only man who could beat Trump then our fate was probably sealed.

New study out yesterday:

We should all be terribly disturbed.

Maternal deaths estimated to rise 14% in 26 states expected to ban abortion.

If a total US abortion ban took hold, expect 24% more maternal deaths; 39% more maternal deaths among Black people.

All is necessary as long as we have the lord's favor!

More black maternal deaths you say?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

YellowKing wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:39 pm More black maternal deaths you say?

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

And as Rep. Miller would say, "A victory for white life!"

Jesus christ the rapidness of this downward spiral is horrifying. I legit do not want to be a part of this country anymore. We're a disgusting mess.

It is disturbing. This is what happens when you unleash chaos. They are justified being cautious. You have to think that some zealot wants to make a case quickly. Perhaps once things settle down maybe they'll return to normal operations.

The only positive I have is that they are done dropping bombs on us for a few minutes. I really need to bow out of reading the news daily. It's really starting to impact my daily life as this is so depressing.

Smoove_B wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 8:55 pm Whoa, whoa, whoa - they're running the risk of being too divisive with those kinds of policies. Aren't they running them through focus groups first?

You know, maybe Drazzil is right. Sleep now in the fire.

What we are experiencing is not leadership. It is complicity masquerading as helplessness.

Wrong "C" word. The word she's looking for is "collusion" Collusion is active. The Democratic party is actively working with the Republicans, to feign helplessness to achieve the rest of this fascist coup, at the national level. Complicity is doing nothing. Even at this late stage in the game the Democrats have a whole host of tools both within the realm of legality and outside it. They refuse to use any of them.

An example. Say I am a neighbor of someone I know will be murdered. I decline to let anyone else know. I take a bribe to keep quiet and not call the cops while the criminal(s) go upstairs and do the deed. When I hear the screams and the disturbance, I yawn and go take a nap in my bedroom.

When asked why I did or heard nothing I say "Oh gee I'm sorry about that, my radio must've been on. I didn't hear anything!"

Collusion would be taking a bribe beforehand, meeting the murderers, keeping lookout and helping the mobsters dispose of a REAAAAAALLLLY heavy rolled up carpet in some thick plastic that's starting to seep through. I help the murderers pitch the whole thing into the harbor. Then I disassemble the guns, cut em to pieces and drop em in five or six paces along the harbor.

See the difference? The former is passive, the latter is active.

And no. Biden and the Dem's aren't passive. You guys forget that these ghouls have been in office *FOREVER* They don't all have alzhimers! They can read the writing on the wall. They're just safe and comfortable, and they want to stay that way.

.

I would say don't put down to evil what incompetence will explain. I would say though that like the rise of the Nazis and Putin those who supported their rise generally get jailed or sidelined.

People say Biden reminds them of Carter. I disagree. He reminds me of Yeltsin.

Either way the tech and health billionaires run the Democrats and the oil and gas and real estate moguls run the Republicans. State capture has already occurred in most Western democracies.

GWB and the Tea Party was just the beginning. Now they are going full Putin.

I just noticed that waitingtoconnect joined back in 2006. I'm glad you finally got through, but you might need a better modem.

Republicans are evil and Democrats are incompetent. So has it ever been. Turns out Americans prefer evil.

Kraken wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:32 am I just noticed that waitingtoconnect joined back in 2006. I'm glad you finally got through, but you might need a better modem.

Republicans are evil and Democrats are incompetent. So has it ever been. Turns out Americans prefer evil.

In my country in 2006 a 2.4kb internet connection was considered by the government to be a satisfactory internet speed thus the name.

It fairly obvious that Democrats are incompetent. I believe another poster said continually snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Zarathud wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:21 pm I’ll complain once we know what Biden got in return. The custom is to ask a Senator in the state about candidates. With KY, both Senators are asshats.

We now know. He got little more than jack shit. In return for an extremist lifetime appointment he got a ... US Attorney. Cool story.

In the end, to be blunt this isn't that bad in abstract. It wasn't like Biden was going to get much. This is just another case where he seems to have no sense of optics. If Biden refuses to play ball, then a seat opens up and KY has 2 Acting AUSAs. It isn't much of a story. Instead Biden makes a deal that makes McConnell look strong and reinforces that Biden is an extremely weak President. And he fails to consult with two people in his party who are pretty pissed now I expect. I don't get it.

JFC, OHIO:

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:23 pm JFC, OHIO:

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?

Question here. How the heck do you get the accuracy of the pregnancy down to 6 weeks, 3 days? Or is this more like close enough to 6 weeks that I ain't risking it.

You calculate based on last period start date. So most women would know they are pregnant at ~6 weeks.

Days since start of last menstrual period ÷ 7 = # of weeks pregnant

Satire or not? I truly, honestly cannot tell any more.

Mississippi legislators openly discuss using dogs at airports to sniff women leaving the state.

The dogs can tell if a woman is pregnant.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 3:29 pm You calculate based on last period start date. So most women would know they are pregnant at ~6 weeks.

Days since start of last menstrual period ÷ 7 = # of weeks pregnant

From a practical standpoint, it may be convenient but is wildly inaccurate. It was certainly never meant to be used as a legal basis of anything.

Yeah, that's true. I've honestly never been a position to argue "legally pregnant", only trying to educate on how to figure out when/how far along. It's a fair distinction.

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:02 pm Yeah, that's true. I've honestly never been a position to argue "legally pregnant", only trying to educate on how to figure out when/how far along. It's a fair distinction.

That was what I was getting at. I knew the rough estimation method but 6 weeks, 3 days? That sort of precision? And for a 10-year old? Come on. There is no way anything there is accurate. They were straddling a line and didn't want to take the risk. I get it but it just stood out as very artificial.

Being a father of daughters, there is an app for that and it wouldn't surprise me if it was accurate (in terms of knowing the start of a cycle).

And that app can be used in a investigation into them if a "concerned member of the public" reports them. That's why women need to delete them.

Or the designers will create a “flush data” option.

malchior wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:23 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:02 pm Yeah, that's true. I've honestly never been a position to argue "legally pregnant", only trying to educate on how to figure out when/how far along. It's a fair distinction.

That was what I was getting at. I knew the rough estimation method but 6 weeks, 3 days? That sort of precision? And for a 10-year old? Come on. There is no way anything there is accurate. They were straddling a line and didn't want to take the risk. I get it but it just stood out as very artificial.

Presumably they calculate from the date she was raped to get that type of accuracy.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:23 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:02 pm Yeah, that's true. I've honestly never been a position to argue "legally pregnant", only trying to educate on how to figure out when/how far along. It's a fair distinction.

That was what I was getting at. I knew the rough estimation method but 6 weeks, 3 days? That sort of precision? And for a 10-year old? Come on. There is no way anything there is accurate. They were straddling a line and didn't want to take the risk. I get it but it just stood out as very artificial.

Presumably they calculate from the date she was raped to get that type of accuracy.

That was my assumption.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:23 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 4:02 pm Yeah, that's true. I've honestly never been a position to argue "legally pregnant", only trying to educate on how to figure out when/how far along. It's a fair distinction.

That was what I was getting at. I knew the rough estimation method but 6 weeks, 3 days? That sort of precision? And for a 10-year old? Come on. There is no way anything there is accurate. They were straddling a line and didn't want to take the risk. I get it but it just stood out as very artificial.

Presumably they calculate from the date she was raped to get that type of accuracy.

It doesn't say she was raped.

Recent polling on what the American public stands on abortion. Hint - it’s not where either party stands - less restrictive than the Republicans but more restrictive than where Democrats stand. Rack party has taken maximalist positions:

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:23 am Well, Biden called for restricting the filibuster to allow for a Roe codification. Feels a day late and a dollar short, but it's progress at least.

All you people wanting to break the filibuster do realize that with a Republican Senate and President, you get a nationwide ban on abortion, right? Do you really want to go there?

Grifman wrote:

El Guapo wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:23 am Well, Biden called for restricting the filibuster to allow for a Roe codification. Feels a day late and a dollar short, but it's progress at least.

All you people wanting to break the filibuster do realize that with a Republican Senate and President, you get a nationwide ban on abortion, right? Do you really want to go there?

This exactly. Democrats need to think ahead to plan a path to change even if they lose the vote in 2024. Because of all those saying voting won’t solve anything.

Grifman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:08 am All you people wanting to break the filibuster do realize that with a Republican Senate and President, you get a nationwide ban on abortion, right? Do you really want to go there?

You're right - we can count on the GOP to stick with established norms and protocols once they regain power. I'm sure they would never completely subvert the process in some magical way.