US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

do you realise that through out history about 40% of men have had no progeny, compared to less than 20% of women?

Interesting statistic. Would love to see where you got it. And I would say "that they know of." As an example: Gavin Rossdale had daughter that he didn't know was his until many years later.

Excluding sexual violence with is rare, access to sex has always been in the gift of women.

Such an interesting phrase. What do you mean that "access to sex has always been the gift of women?"

Yes men definitely need to take responsibility, but I can't escape the feeling that you don't seem to fully accept the responsibility and accountability of women in this tango

You might like to think so. But let's look at it: except for a man using a condom or having a vasectomy, women carry the heavy-lifting on the birth control. They don't just have to pay for it, they have to go to the doctor for it. And they have to endure the dangers of implants. And the hormonal issues, and dangers of long-term birth control use. (Which are less than they used to be, in fairness.)

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but the one who gets pregnant is the woman. She's the one with the bigger stakes in the game. She can hope that her husband or partner is on board, but when the musical chairs is over, she's still the one raising a baby. You "can't escape the feeling" that I don't fully accept the responsibility and accountability of women "in this tango." Yeah, right.

 

[Moxie]

Why do you think that all our most ‘basic human inclinations’ have to be satisfied?

Because they will. We are still biological creatures. We are meant to procreate. That's why there is, so far, no 100% effective method of birth control.

You once said it’s a right to have sex. But abstention is successful at stopping unwanted pregnancies. I would say it’s sensible, given the epidemic of deadbeat dads in the west, and particularly in America in the black communities, that women start to think about the possible outcomes of letting men have their way.

"Letting men have their way...??" Jaysus, Grampa! As if women don't like sex, too.

That’s not a defence of your position. Middle aged men also have a say in what type of community they want to live in. They want to protect future generations of middle aged men - and women - from being assaulted in the womb and denied their opportunity at life.

My point is that there were plenty of men who thought nothing of their actions in their younger years. It's easy to moralize when the hormones have calmed down.

What happens in the third world isn’t relevant to US politics. Other than that, you’re making a great case for women using their power and standing for abstention. Horny men are quick learners. If you deny them what they want, they’ll soon start to think about what you want.

I'm sure we can extrapolate politics into the wider world. I don't think that's prohibited.

As to women withholding sex, what is the great classic play? Lysistrata. But you act as if only men want sex and women just give in to it. I think this is just wrong.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Birth control is obviously the only sane solution when it comes to avoiding pregnancy. No one would ideally like to consider vasectomy or tubectomy because in a lot of cases you are hooking up with someone you don't want to be in a relationship with. People in such affairs would still have plans to give birth in the future but not with the current person. So these birth control measures of permanent nature do not make sense in this context.

Condoms help blossom the condom making companies and hurt no one in the picture. The two people in the context are engaging in consensual play and are happy to be having flings.

So why exactly does the government get to interfere with this?

(Asking American citizens for their opinions)

 

[Kieran]

Because they will. We are still biological creatures. We are meant to procreate. That's why there is, so far, no 100% effective method of birth control.

Yes but we’re also animals of reason. We can control ourselves. We can think logically. We all know where babies come from.

"Letting men have their way...??" Jaysus, Grampa! As if women don't like sex, too.

Who said they don’t? But men don’t get pregnant. Men will feck and move on very easy, and leave the woman with the problem pregnancy.

My point is that there were plenty of men who thought nothing of their actions in their younger years. It's easy to moralize when the hormones have calmed down.

Some of us had good moral sense when we were young too. Listen, I detest deadbeat dads. I know some of them and they used the girl and moved on when she got pregnant. They blamed her for being stupid. They said it’s her responsibility, she should have been careful, etc. I know men who have kids with three different women and don’t pay a dime.

They should be forced to pay. That would help put manners on them. The tax payer taking up the tab is ridiculous.

As to women withholding sex, what is the great classic play? Lysistrata. But you act as if only men want sex and women just give in to it. I think this is just wrong.

I don’t act that way, I’m saying if they don’t want to get pregnant, women need to say no sometimes. It’s not just an animal function of pleasure. There is that, but there’s also consequences that might be longer term. Thinking of abortion as a form of post factum contraception is really exercising your bodily choice many steps too late…

 

[britbox]

Well, you said that you "rested" your case, so I was wondering what it was, exactly?

The biology I get. The moralizing I'm not clear on. As far as questions that you didn't answer, there is this one:

View attachment 8986

and that's the question I slinked away from? Cad??

"So everyone tries really hard, and they get pregnant anyway..."

I can't believe I'm having this conversation with a woman of your age but here goes:

1) If you absolutely under no circumstances want to get pregnant then abstain from having sex.
2) If you want to have sex but have no wish to get pregnant then use protection. It won't give you 100% protection, but it's fairly close. If both the man and the woman use forms of protection then it's highly unlikely.
3) If either man or woman use protection then it's also unlikely but with a slightly higher risk than Option 2.

There are concepts of risk and reward and causes and effects.

If I was speaking to a teenage daughter, then I'd also advise that behaving like a pin cushion attracts men who will treat you like one. If you make a mistake, own it and make the best out of the circumstances. But if you really want to bring a child into the world, understand what it entails, the advantages of a strong family unit and a loving environment to give it the best start in life. Learn self-control and self-respect.

 

[Federberg]

So Congress passed a law to make it impossible for a President to unilaterally pull out of NATO. I'm so relieved. Apart from Trump being incompetent and an all round freak show that was perhaps my greatest concern about a possible return of a Trump Presidency. I still think Biden wins going away. I don't trust these polls. I think that things are going in Biden's favour generally speaking. Immigration and real incomes remain his main vulnerabilities. But if the economy keeps chugging along and the housing market improves it's hard to see how voters won't be feeling good about themselves in 11 months time..

 

[Federberg]

is it just me or is this Colorado banning of Trump's candidacy one of stupidest political mistakes the Dems could make?? Jeez! One of the key Dem arguments is Trump's tendency towards anti-democratic practices. Talk about brand destruction

These people are so busy trying to be right they do really really stupid things

 

[Kieran]

is it just me or is this Colorado banning of Trump's candidacy one of stupidest political mistakes the Dems could make?? Jeez! One of the key Dem arguments is Trump's tendency towards anti-democratic practices. Talk about brand destruction

These people are so busy trying to be right they do really really stupid things

Stupid - and wrong.

 

[Moxie]

is it just me or is this Colorado banning of Trump's candidacy one of stupidest political mistakes the Dems could make?? Jeez! One of the key Dem arguments is Trump's tendency towards anti-democratic practices. Talk about brand destruction

These people are so busy trying to be right they do really really stupid things

Stupid - and wrong.

I do think it's wrong in the sense that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection. It's arguable, but not clear. I get, I think, why you both think it's stupid. But my question is...does it even matter anymore? Trump's supporters are as entrenched as they will ever be. Is this one more insult going to move the needle? For whom?

 

[Kieran]

I do think it's wrong in the sense that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection. It's arguable, but not clear. I get, I think, why you both think it's stupid. But my question is...does it even matter anymore? Trump's supporters are as entrenched as they will ever be. Is this one more insult going to move the needle? For whom?

Is this a serious question? Colorado can do what it likes because Trump supporters are as entrenched in just exactly the same way you are with the Democrats?

How’s about they don’t do partisan things like this?

 

[Federberg]

I do think it's wrong in the sense that Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection. It's arguable, but not clear. I get, I think, why you both think it's stupid. But my question is...does it even matter anymore? Trump's supporters are as entrenched as they will ever be. Is this one more insult going to move the needle? For whom?

this is where I think you miss the point about the politics. Do I think Trump was guilty of insurrection and should therefore be disqualified? Hell yes! But it's not the point. And it does matter. One of the contrasts that Team Biden has been working on is that Trump is anti-democratic. Even if one can argue legally that this Colorado decision is a constitutionally tenable position, it's the emotion that matters. You can't on the one hand claim to hold the democratic process in the highest regard and on the other hand try to frustrate the democratic aspirations of virtually half the country. This has effectively neutered that Biden campaign argument.

Furthermore... Trump is NOT the GOP candidate yet. Even if this succeeds and Republican voters dump Trump and go for someone else, what does that do for the Democrats?? Biden's chances against anyone not named Trump fall dramatically. How on earth is that good politics?

 

[Federberg]

I'm so happy they're doing this. I hope they do this properly and not for political points. The whole DEI thing has to end, and she seems to be one of the major figures. Flush out the rats and clean the Western elite education system up!

 

[Moxie]

Is this a serious question? Colorado can do what it likes because Trump supporters are as entrenched in just exactly the same way you are with the Democrats?

How’s about they don’t do partisan things like this?

The case that led to the decision was brought on behalf of some Republican and non-affiliated voters in Colorado, FYI. But it's impossible for it not to look partisan, and I agree that that is a problem.

this is where I think you miss the point about the politics. Do I think Trump was guilty of insurrection and should therefore be disqualified? Hell yes! But it's not the point. And it does matter. One of the contrasts that Team Biden has been working on is that Trump is anti-democratic. Even if one can argue legally that this Colorado decision is a constitutionally tenable position, it's the emotion that matters. You can't on the one hand claim to hold the democratic process in the highest regard and on the other hand try to frustrate the democratic aspirations of virtually half the country. This has effectively neutered that Biden campaign argument.

Furthermore... Trump is NOT the GOP candidate yet. Even if this succeeds and Republican voters dump Trump and go for someone else, what does that do for the Democrats?? Biden's chances against anyone not named Trump fall dramatically. How on earth is that good politics?

It wasn't my full opinion on the issue. You guys misunderstood me. I was asking if it was your point that it further entrenched the Trumpies, which I didn't think it did. I barely expressed an opinion. No need to say that I "miss the point about politics." But I appreciate you both clarifying your thoughts on it.

Turns out, he doesn't have to be convicted of insurrection to be ineligible for office, which is what I said above. There is a constitutional argument that he is, in fact, ineligible for office based on his acts. However, SCOTUS will overturn the CO decision, and it has to. In any case, because you can't have Trump on the ballot in some states, and not in others. I completely agree that Trump will have to be outvoted, and it's the only way. It is a shame that we have actual safeguards against those who would incite insurrection, and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists, but we can't use them, because of partizan politics.

 

[Kieran]

The case that led to the decision was brought on behalf of some Republican and non-affiliated voters in Colorado, FYI. But it's impossible for it not to look partisan, and I agree that that is a problem.

It wasn't my full opinion on the issue. You guys misunderstood me. I was asking if it was your point that it further entrenched the Trumpies, which I didn't think it did. I barely expressed an opinion. No need to say that I "miss the point about politics." But I appreciate you both clarifying your thoughts on it.

Turns out, he doesn't have to be convicted of insurrection to be ineligible for office, which is what I said above. There is a constitutional argument that he is, in fact, ineligible for office based on his acts. However, SCOTUS will overturn the CO decision, and it has to. In any case, because you can't have Trump on the ballot in some states, and not in others. I completely agree that Trump will have to be outvoted, and it's the only way. It is a shame that we have actual safeguards against those who would incite insurrection, and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists, but we can't use them, because of partizan politics.

Yes and this is becoming a problem everywhere. Tonight we were at a gig - a very good one - but the singer couldn’t help but make a political statement on stage which was not unexpected, the audience became rowdy with applause, except for me and the missus. It’s not even that I minded that the singer was wrong and typically modish in his view, but it irritated me that this tribal brainlessness invades everywhere and demands a round of applause. Why can’t we go to a gig and the singer doesn’t feel the need to intrude on our enjoyment with his topical worldview? I remember Paul Simon came to Ireland in the 90’s and he was asked about the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and he said, who cares what I think? I sing pop songs.

He was right.

In this situation tonight, I thought it was actually dangerous, too, given the way the singer phrased his views. I think we’ve stopped thinking, in the west. I think we’ve stopped examining the big issues thoughtfully. We’ve fossilised into tribes, left-right, moronically following a cue. The insurrection in America actually happened. But it happened decades ago, and it infects all your institutions. We see that every time your universities send spokespeople to Congress, and to the senate, regardless of the reason. Watching the president of Harvard struggle to condemn anti-semitism, watching them all struggle, watching how the universities act as breeding grounds for bad ideologies, we can see that the revolution happened.

Now watching the Democrat-appointed judges in Colorado’s top court make ruling like they did, the sense of entitlement and correctness - even though it’s obviously incorrect and will be surely overthrown by the Supreme Court - shows that law doesn’t really matter to the left, because when they think their ideology is under threat, squashing that that is all that matters..

 

[Moxie]

Now watching the Democrat-appointed judges in Colorado’s top court make ruling like they did, the sense of entitlement and correctness - even though it’s obviously incorrect and will be surely overthrown by the Supreme Court - shows that law doesn’t really matter to the left, because when they think their ideology is under threat, squashing that that is all that matters..

The chief justice of the Colorado Supreme court is a Republican. Three of the justices are Democrats, and the other 3 are listed "unaffiliated."

 

[Kieran]

The chief justice of the Colorado Supreme court is a Republican. Three of the justices are Democrats, and the other 3 are listed "unaffiliated."

I said they’re Democrat-appointed. The chief justice voted against it, but the four who voted for it are almost certainly Democrats. On Ballotpedia for instance, they rate between strong and mild Democrat, based on their judgements. The other 3, including the Chief Justice (who may not be still registered as Republican), based on their actions as judges, their political affiliation is “Indeterminate.”

Now you might say that this isn’t reliable, but show me anything that tells me the three judges who voted in favour of this aren’t from the left…

 

[Federberg]

The case that led to the decision was brought on behalf of some Republican and non-affiliated voters in Colorado, FYI. But it's impossible for it not to look partisan, and I agree that that is a problem.

It wasn't my full opinion on the issue. You guys misunderstood me. I was asking if it was your point that it further entrenched the Trumpies, which I didn't think it did. I barely expressed an opinion. No need to say that I "miss the point about politics." But I appreciate you both clarifying your thoughts on it.

Turns out, he doesn't have to be convicted of insurrection to be ineligible for office, which is what I said above. There is a constitutional argument that he is, in fact, ineligible for office based on his acts. However, SCOTUS will overturn the CO decision, and it has to. In any case, because you can't have Trump on the ballot in some states, and not in others. I completely agree that Trump will have to be outvoted, and it's the only way. It is a shame that we have actual safeguards against those who would incite insurrection, and those who give aid and comfort to insurrectionists, but we can't use them, because of partizan politics.

you're probably right about what SCOTUS will do. But it's not a certainty, and I don't see why they 'have' to. At the very least Roberts knows what a threat to democracy Trump is. It would only take another couple of GOP Justices to seal the deal. I was fascinated by George Conway's perspective. He focused on the dissent and he was stunned that they couldn't come up with a viable argument against the decision. Trump's legal team will have to work hard to find something!

 

[Moxie]

you're probably right about what SCOTUS will do. But it's not a certainty, and I don't see why they 'have' to. At the very least Roberts knows what a threat to democracy Trump is. It would only take another couple of GOP Justices to seal the deal. I was fascinated by George Conway's perspective. He focused on the dissent and he was stunned that they couldn't come up with a viable argument against the decision. Trump's legal team will have to work hard to find something!

By "they have to," I mean that they won't want to see Trump excluded from up to 24 more states that have similar law suits pending. It would be pretty chaotic, if nothing else. That would be practical, and arguably political, not the legal argument for overturning it, but let me point out that you, and Kieran, assumed that was the Supreme Court of CO did was essentially the bidding of the Democrats, rather than make their way through a judicial process, and find on the merits. If you assume that SCOColorado is partisan and extrajudicial, then why not assume the same about SCOTUS? Three of the justices were appointed by Trump, and SCOTUS ceased to be apolitical long ago.

I read The Atlantic piece by George Conway that you alluded to. It IS very interesting. It seems to have changed your mind about how the CO case was decided? (I don't know, but I'd be curious.) He talks about it in terms of the law, and the Constitution, not the politics. You're right...he doesn't find grounds for Trump's case, even reading the dissent. (He makes very interesting points about why reading the dissent is so informative, and why he always starts there, as an aside. Useful.) But he did say that the dissenting opinion didn't make any effort to claim that Trump wasn't excludable from office under the insurrection clause. And, as he said, "nor could they." I'm not sure that SCOTUS won't decide to go that route, anyway. They turned themselves into pretzels to overturn Roe. (IMO.) They could rule that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump and move on. Would they be right? Maybe not, but it would be done. That would be risking stripping the amendment of all meaning, but they could also declare this a one-off, setting no precedent, as in Bush v. Gore, and then pretend they can still sleep well at night. They seem to sleep the sleep of the just anyway, because they have the robes to prove it.

The Colorado ballots get printed on Jan 5th, so Conway is right that Trump's lawyers, and SCOTUS, for that matter, are going to have to think, and act, fast.

I pulled this out from the article because it's informative, and also kind of funny. (My bolded.)

"Yet even the dissenters’ contentions about state law made little sense. Chief Justice Brian Boatright argued that, while Colorado law requires its secretary of state to examine the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates, it doesn’t allow her to consider whether they are constitutionally disqualified.

Nothing in the state statute suggests that’s the case, and it’s plainly illogical. Every qualification necessarily establishes a disqualification. If the Constitution says, as it does, that you have to be 35 years of age to serve as president, you’re out of luck—disqualified—if you’re 34 and a half. By the same token, if you’ve engaged in an insurrection against that Constitution in violation of your oath to it, you’ve failed to meet the ironclad (and rather undemanding) requirement that you not have done that."

 

[Federberg]

By "they have to," I mean that they won't want to see Trump excluded from up to 24 more states that have similar law suits pending. It would be pretty chaotic, if nothing else. That would be practical, and arguably political, not the legal argument for overturning it, but let me point out that you, and Kieran, assumed that was the Supreme Court of CO did was essentially the bidding of the Democrats, rather than make their way through a judicial process, and find on the merits. If you assume that SCOColorado is partisan and extrajudicial, then why not assume the same about SCOTUS? Three of the justices were appointed by Trump, and SCOTUS ceased to be apolitical long ago.

I read The Atlantic piece by George Conway that you alluded to. It IS very interesting. It seems to have changed your mind about how the CO case was decided? (I don't know, but I'd be curious.) He talks about it in terms of the law, and the Constitution, not the politics. You're right...he doesn't find grounds for Trump's case, even reading the dissent. (He makes very interesting points about why reading the dissent is so informative, and why he always starts there, as an aside. Useful.) But he did say that the dissenting opinion didn't make any effort to claim that Trump wasn't excludable from office under the insurrection clause. And, as he said, "nor could they." I'm not sure that SCOTUS won't decide to go that route, anyway. They turned themselves into pretzels to overturn Roe. (IMO.) They could rule that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Trump and move on. Would they be right? Maybe not, but it would be done. That would be risking stripping the amendment of all meaning, but they could also declare this a one-off, setting no precedent, as in Bush v. Gore, and then pretend they can still sleep well at night. They seem to sleep the sleep of the just anyway, because they have the robes to prove it.

The Colorado ballots get printed on Jan 5th, so Conway is right that Trump's lawyers, and SCOTUS, for that matter, are going to have to think, and act, fast.

I pulled this out from the article because it's informative, and also kind of funny. (My bolded.)

"Yet even the dissenters’ contentions about state law made little sense. Chief Justice Brian Boatright argued that, while Colorado law requires its secretary of state to examine the constitutional qualifications of presidential candidates, it doesn’t allow her to consider whether they are constitutionally disqualified.

Nothing in the state statute suggests that’s the case, and it’s plainly illogical. Every qualification necessarily establishes a disqualification. If the Constitution says, as it does, that you have to be 35 years of age to serve as president, you’re out of luck—disqualified—if you’re 34 and a half. By the same token, if you’ve engaged in an insurrection against that Constitution in violation of your oath to it, you’ve failed to meet the ironclad (and rather undemanding) requirement that you not have done that."

Not sure where you got that from any comment I made. I voiced no opinion about the State Justices. I merely observed that the politics weren’t necessarily in Democrats favour

 

[Moxie]

I said they’re Democrat-appointed. The chief justice voted against it, but the four who voted for it are almost certainly Democrats. On Ballotpedia for instance, they rate between strong and mild Democrat, based on their judgements. The other 3, including the Chief Justice (who may not be still registered as Republican), based on their actions as judges, their political affiliation is “Indeterminate.”

Now you might say that this isn’t reliable, but show me anything that tells me the three judges who voted in favour of this aren’t from the left…

Forgive me if I misquoted you. But please read my above to Federberg, because it covers a lot of what we're discussing. You're assuming that the Colorado Supreme court didn't go through a judicial process and come to an independent conclusion. It's your right to think so, but it's a pretty cynical take on the US Judiciary. You should be able to read that Atlantic article for free. And don't bother to look him up: George Conway is no leftist. He was married to Kelly Anne Conway. (Surely you remember her?) He is avowedly anti-Trump now, but he's still a Republican, and he's a lawyer.

I'm glad there are still Republicans out there that hold up the old GOP standards. We don't agree on a lot of smaller issues, but I think we had the same kind of idealism for this country. It's this new Trumpian wing that I don't recognize, at all.