• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

AuraChannelerChris

"How did you manage to faint while standing up?"

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
I think the plan was to set up another Comey letter, but Trump messed up and got impeached for it, and they’re trying to slam it through anyway.
 

AuraChannelerChris

"How did you manage to faint while standing up?"
The final debate is going on.

Despite both men being more civil (or rather Trump not being allowed to interrupt...much), Trump's ramblings are simply painting him in a worse light.
 

oarfish

#1 Lanturn Owner
Oh no. I must turn off my outdoor cooling fan so I don't kill all the birds in my city.
 

BGMaxie

Well-Known Member
And here thinking Trump couldn't get any worse, he just said "Good" to breaking families apart. Let that sink in.

Biden was real good today.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
Trump was better behaved tonight, but he lied more, while being more racist.
 

AuraChannelerChris

"How did you manage to faint while standing up?"
And here thinking Trump couldn't get any worse, he just said "Good" to breaking families apart. Let that sink in.
I listened to the part he said that. He actually said "go ahead" to the mod though it sounded slurred.
Trump was better behaved tonight, but he lied more, while being more racist.
But he was the least racist person in the room! And he told that to the black woman!

...

Oh, right.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Seems most people in America believe Biden won the debate, according to post-debate polls. With less than two weeks away, Trump doesn't have much chances to turn this around, but given the increased turnout by the far-right, he probably won't have to.
 

PoDiRancher

Active Member
Outward Prejudice
Disagree with you on that one. People are suffering both monetarily, health care wise, lack of jobs wise and due to pollution and the 'best' the Dems could do was put up a right wing moderate centrist, ie: Biden.

Sure some independents like him and some R's and more conservative Dems do, but in the end, it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold who are tired of the same old incrementalism of inching towards any kind of remote change.

That kind of thing is ruining people's lives, let alone killing them. As for having someone who wasn't pro-choice, a lot of people would disagree with you there, since that kind of candidate would be able to affect women's lives (over their health care, etc..).

Seriously? I can say the same thing about moderates, they'd rather move further to the right just to maintain the status quo, than to ever move an inch over to the left. People on the left have been compromising for years and it's hurt them in many ways (less pay at jobs, paying more for health care, etc.).

The base may have moved over to the left, but it's not extremely over that way (and even then, moderates, centrists and conservatives on both sides hate it). People want common sense change/reforms, and the Dems, etc., don't want anything to do with it, as it would affect their bottom line, their donors and corporations.

They'll do anything to paint anyone remotely to the left of them as 'socialists, radicals, extremists', if they even dare to challenge the status quo. It's been happening for many years. Look at FDR and the R's back then, he was trying to pass the New Deal and the R's did everything in their power to try to stop him. Same game that both sides are playing now.
Well, I respect your very civil and clearly informed opinions. The things I disagree with most though: I don't think the left has compromised on much. A good current example is the current stimulus check. Pelosi isn't negotiating in good faith nor acting in the best interest of the people, and even some moderate democrats are calling her out on it (on CNN no less). Another example is a more general one, immigration. It's now mainstream to call for open borders and the abolishment of ICE--not reform, but abolishment.

The other thing is the matter of a pro-life democratic candidate. Republicans are against it anyway so if the democrats want to sway people to their side then that's the best thing they could do is present an option for voters. Is it just that there's no such thing as a pro-life democrat? I doubt that. Maybe just not prominent ones. While that kind of candidate "would be able to affect women's lives", so would a republican then. This seems like what I was talking about a bit, democrats not compromising.

I guess both sides do have their extreme behavior. I've been called SJW scum by the right because I support public education and healthcare, and also a problematic bigot by the left because I am pro-life and pro-gun. It's kind of funny.

Literally all the candidates the Dems ran were moderates at best except Warren and Sanders.

It’s kind of like how they portray AOC as a radical socialist and Omar as a literal terrorist, when really they’re just 2 average millenials on most ideas and hobbies.

Plus if being pro-choice is a deal breaker for you you’re just an asshole who has dead women’s blood on your hands because Jerry Falwell thought his segregation plans were too unpopular
That would be much better than the blood of dead babies, without a doubt, little buddy.
 

Auraninja

Try to understand.
That would be much better than the blood of dead babies, without a doubt, little buddy.
I don't think you understand.

There are a number of ways to go about this topic, but I'll say this.

To have women always carry a baby to term is unfair to women.
They are the ones that have to become pregnant, and there are a number of reasons why abortions are done.

Besides, there were times the "abortion equals murder" argument doesn't quite hold up, with cases such as:

A cuckoo Texas law proposal assigning the death penalty to women that have had abortions.
A woman charged with manslaughter when she was shot because supposedly she did this to destroy the fetus.

I leave you with this. You don't have to like abortion to think it is sometimes necessary for women to have them.
I don't think women who have abortions necessarily like having them.
If you want to prevent more abortions, then you should be for birth control, as having more birth control means less abortions.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
What’s “SJW” about education and guns? The SRA and John Brown Gun Club exist for a reason.


Also the main reason to be anti-abortion is to be anti-woman. It ain’t a coincidence it only happened when divorce was made more legal and women entered the workforce in bigger numbers.

Plus I believe people should have control over their bodies, and what they do with it is 100% up to them.
 

WishIhadaManafi5

To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before.
Staff member
Moderator
My biggest worry about this election will be if the electoral college screws over candidate who won the popular vote... again! Seriously the electoral college needs to be abolished.
I'm concerned about that as well. Agreed about abolishing the electoral college. It does more harm than good.
 
lmao, Barret is going to be confirmed regardless if Trump or Biden wins election--she's too essential to what the GOP does next.

You're giving Biden too much credit if you think his would-be administration will accomplish much of anything. Unless Biden preemptively makes a power grab--stack the courts, annex DC/PR, expand voter rights, redress electoral college, outlaw gerrymandering, etc., the combination of cleaning up Trump's messes, his policies always at risk for dying in a stolen court, and his own conservative bent will make his administration stillborn. The GOP knows this, which is why they'll rush Barrett (isn't like they're likely to win the elections anyway) and hope to try again in 2022 (and 2024 for presidency specifically) under more favorable circumstances.
We're projected to win the senate, too.

Biden isn't my favorite either but the idea we won't be getting any substantial gains controlling all 3 branches of government is silly. Biden will be forced to do something about the supreme court, whether that's expanding it or introducing 18 year term limits that apply retroactively. A democratic senate and house aren't going to stand for a court that strikes down all of their policies, nor would Biden would risk the prospects for the next democratic candidate with an administration that has no achievements.

The fact he hasn't ruled out court packing despite it being unpopular should be telling. He could easily pivot right and say no and be no worse off politically.
 
Last edited:

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
The circuit courts themselves support expanding the court, and the original idea was to have as many Supreme Court justices as there were circuits, which is now 13.

A lot of SC stuff is the SC themselves in the 1800’s going “no we control this now” and the government just kind of accepting it.
 

Zora

Who dies first?
We're projected to win the senate, too.

Biden isn't my favorite either but the idea we won't be getting any substantial gains controlling all 3 branches of government is silly. Biden will be forced to do something about the supreme court, whether that's expanding it or introducing 18 year term limits that apply retroactivel. A democratic senate and house aren't going to stand for a court that strikes down all of their policies, nor would Biden would risk the prospects for the next democratic candidate with an administration that has no achievements.

The fact he hasn't ruled out court packing despite it being unpopular should be telling. He could easily pivot right and say no and be no worse off politically.
While Dems are likely win the senate, I dunno if it'll be enough for court packing to seriously be on the table. Senators like Manchin are too concerned about appearing too liberal and won't go along with court packing, so having a Dem majority per se isn't enough.

I guess what my concern is that Dems may not be aggressive enough; if they pass term limits but later have that struck down as a "good behavior clause" violation just before midterms, they may lose their only chance at court reform. The best situation I see is Dems when the senate hard (say 53+ seats) and Biden concludes that court packing is the only path forward. The reason Biden is so mum on his court reform, imo, is simply because it's going to be a political calculus based on which options have the best balance of having the senate votes and are future-proofed.
 

BGMaxie

Well-Known Member
We're projected to win the senate, too.

Biden isn't my favorite either but the idea we won't be getting any substantial gains controlling all 3 branches of government is silly. Biden will be forced to do something about the supreme court, whether that's expanding it or introducing 18 year term limits that apply retroactivel. A democratic senate and house aren't going to stand for a court that strikes down all of their policies, nor would Biden would risk the prospects for the next democratic candidate with an administration that has no achievements.

The fact he hasn't ruled out court packing despite it being unpopular should be telling. He could easily pivot right and say no and be no worse off politically.
I've talked with a lot of people about this issue, and well the SCOTUS isn't the end all of everything. Namely even if the SCOTUS decides something, the states can simply ignore them and resume business as usual because constitutionally speaking the SCOTUS isn't given actual teeth. They are made the one who decides what's right/wrong because somebody has to have final say, but all of that also rests on the court of public of opinion which if it deems the SCOTUS as being too antagonical, it loses its status of neutrality and becomes distrusted, which I'm told is something Roberts fears deeply (yeah he DOES care about the status of the SCOTUS as a institution).

This SCOTUS stunt is the GOP's way to have the last laugh pretty much because these suckers know they are on the losing end, and also dying demographically. Depending on how things turn out election wise, the GOP may lose all 3 chambers for a long while.
 

PoDiRancher

Active Member
Outward Prejudice
I don't think you understand.

There are a number of ways to go about this topic, but I'll say this.

To have women always carry a baby to term is unfair to women.
They are the ones that have to become pregnant, and there are a number of reasons why abortions are done.

Besides, there were times the "abortion equals murder" argument doesn't quite hold up, with cases such as:

A cuckoo Texas law proposal assigning the death penalty to women that have had abortions.
A woman charged with manslaughter when she was shot because supposedly she did this to destroy the fetus.

I leave you with this. You don't have to like abortion to think it is sometimes necessary for women to have them.
I don't think women who have abortions necessarily like having them.
If you want to prevent more abortions, then you should be for birth control, as having more birth control means less abortions.
The issue is best focused on starting from the beginning, ironically enough. Pro-choice advocates always jump straight to the woman (who herself was not aborted, as a side point; everyone pro-choice was allowed to live but refuse to extend that same right). The subject is about the baby though and if it should be legal to kill it. "It's not a baby" is where the first and most important disagreement often begins and typically why the two sides disagree imo. I'm sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on this because it's not just a clump of cells, but at least I think we have already found common ground on several aspects; death penalty for women who have abortions is not appropriate since the women who have them sadly buy into the notion that they're just having the moral equivalent of a tumor or parasite removed, and thus cannot be charged with any intent to commit a crime. Also what we agree in is birth control, it may not be ideal but it's the most realistic solution.

However, you say "women have to get pregnant" and that's not true. Birth control and abstinence are both very successful preventative measures. You also say women don't like abortions. That's seems to be true often enough and a commonly expressed sentiment. I'm inclined to agree. But that actually supports why abortion is not good. Women can have lifelong regrets and be saddled with lingering doubt. This raises another concern in the logic of supporting abortion; why have regret, doubt, and/or dislike of having the moral equivalent of a tumor or parasite removal? Because of the inherent knowledge that it may not actually be true. Nobody who truly and completely believes that stuff would such a regret or doubts. Vegans who choose the lifestyle out of ethical concerns are people who have find a great deal of intrinsic value in animal life, but us meat eaters value them less. I have no regret, doubt, nor dislike of eating animals because their value is not high enough to me, I do not at all believe it's wrong. With the scale of human life weighing in the balance though, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and not support abortion outside of extreme cases? Humans are valued much higher to most normal and healthy people than animals, if vegans can champion animal rights so vehemently then I think we should reconsider whether that growing life deserves a fair chance.

Of course, there's a minority who openly agree that it's human life and don't care. Some people are vegans and pro-choice. I wouldn't even know where to begin a fruitful or meaningful discussion of the topic them them, honestly. It'd be a learning experience at least.

What’s “SJW” about education and guns? The SRA and John Brown Gun Club exist for a reason.


Also the main reason to be anti-abortion is to be anti-woman. It ain’t a coincidence it only happened when divorce was made more legal and women entered the workforce in bigger numbers.

Plus I believe people should have control over their bodies, and what they do with it is 100% up to them.
To me, there's nothing SJW about free education, it's a net gain for society. As for guns, both sides like to complicate it, but the Constitution was clear so there honestly shouldn't be any debate about that imo.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "anti-woman". It's not a term I'm familiar with and seems like the statement containing it is very generalized, would you elaborate? I don't know how divorce factors into this either, if you could explain that.

I agree about people having full control of their bodies but surely you know the opposing argument is that the baby is a distinct entity, it is not the mother; being located within her does not constitute being her.

My biggest worry about this election will be if the electoral college screws over the candidate who won the popular vote... again! Seriously the electoral college needs to be abolished.
I honestly don't know how that even functions, but it certainly doesn't seem fair to override the popular vote. I assume it's a method of attempting to solve the issue of two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch, but I'm just guessing really.
 

Auraninja

Try to understand.
I never said "women have to be pregnant". Expecting women and women only to control when they have intercourse doesn't bode well with many people, and for good reason. I'll spare you the birds and the bees for the most part, but some couples like to have a good sexual relationship.

Pro-choice advocates always jump straight to the woman (who herself was not aborted, as a side point; everyone pro-choice was allowed to live but refuse to extend that same right).
Women can't choose what happens to their bodies, but at least they're not dead. :/

Of course, there's a minority who openly agree that it's human life and don't care. Some people are vegans and pro-choice. I wouldn't even know where to begin a fruitful or meaningful discussion of the topic them them, honestly. It'd be a learning experience at least.
Veganism is a choice, much like what you choose to do with your body. I'll be honest with you, this is a very asinine take.
 

bobjr

EVERYONE WANTS THE BIG CHAIR MEG
Staff member
Moderator
God forbid we focus on the person who has to live and deal with a problem instead of someone forcing no option on her. If you don't want to have an abortion fine, and it's not like you even have any tax dollars used on it, but being anti-abortion as a law is literally anti-woman, you cannot work your way around that. Forcing a group of people to be persecuted and not given a choice in their actions is that.

What's funny is there is a rise in women regretting having kids, but in a time where most people live paycheck to paycheck and we have a serious climate crisis that will effect any child's future greatly, it's no wonder people don't have kids as much now, and those that do regret it more.

Also the constitution was written 250 years ago by slaveowners and rapists who couldn't even give equal rights themselves, something the courts confirmed in Marbury v Madison, sometimes you have to think how something affects society today. Again, I am a gun owner myself, and we seriously need some changes, starting with general law enforcement demilitarization.
 
Last edited:
Top