SCOTUS will increase to 11 or 13 Justices

[BLADEMDA]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I don’t think Amy Barrett would completely overturn Roe vs Wade. At worst, abortion would become a state by state decision and not a federal one.

That said, I think the court would move in the direction of some protection for the unborn child after 24 weeks.

SCOTUS knows how divisive a total ban on abortion would be in this society. I don’t think they would go that far, but they could allow individual states a lot more latitude in restricting access to abortion.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm not disputing that there are a lot of details in the middle that need to be worked out. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of 30% being for unrestricted abortion, 50% for abortion with restrictions, and 20% being for total ban.......and yet the starting point for all legislation or scotus picks or anything else seems to be "total ban." It's nonsensical and antidemocratic.

That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not sure there is a middle ground that 50% of people would be able to agree to compromise on. If you can't get that, its not antidemocratic.

 

[AMEHigh]

trump continues to speak in manners similar to nazi rhetoric at the same time banning government and contractors from having trainings on racism & sexism. Yep, he’s the one for all Americans that I want to be in charge & pick our justices. RAGE.

I have no faith that he’ll be voted out of office.

Trump genes comments ‘indistinguishable from Nazi rhetoric’, expert on Holocaust says

US president has long history of praising his own genetic make-up

www.independent.co.uk

Trump Expands Ban On Racial Sensitivity Training To Federal Contractors

The president signed an executive order to combat race and sex "stereotyping" and "scapegoating." The training cited includes references to white privilege and systemic racism.

www.npr.org

 

[vector2]

That's the point I'm trying to make. I'm not sure there is a middle ground that 50% of people would be able to agree to compromise on. If you can't get that, its not antidemocratic.

No, it still is, because from a logical perspective given the polling there is no reason why the starting point isn't unrestricted abortion and then working back the other way.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

No, it still is, because from a logical perspective given the polling there is no reason why the starting point isn't unrestricted abortion and then working back the other way.

Has anyone actually tried that, like the Democrats? Honestly asking, because there's no reason they couldn't try to put forth a compromise bill in the House to see how it would go.

Also, why is having a starting point that's not that anti-democratic? I'd like that fleshed out a bit.

 

[PainDrain]

Has anyone actually tried that, like the Democrats? Honestly asking, because there's no reason they couldn't try to put forth a compromise bill in the House to see how it would go.

Also, why is having a starting point that's not that anti-democratic? I'd like that fleshed out a bit.

I should also point out that there are a sizable and vocal group of social conservatives who oppose all manner of contraception and sex education. I know, I’ve met some very influential members of the conservative movement. The idea that these folks are going sit by and be appeased when Roe is gone is laughable. They will go after all manner of things that “make them feel icky”.

 

[PainDrain]

All the uproar about abortion make no sense to me. Even if the remote possibility happened and Roe v. Wade was overturned, then things would go back to how they were before Roe v. Wade where individual states had their own laws. I do not think many states would go so far as to ban abortion. Certainly, none of the blue states and most of the red states would not ban abortion. Abortion was already legal in 20 states before Roe v. Wade in 1973 and I think that country in 2020 is a lot different than it was in 1973. I think abortion would remain legal in at least 45 states if the issue went back to the state level. The big difference is there might be more states with restrictions on late term and particularly third trimester abortions. However, I think that even among physicians abortions after viability are controversial.

The Red states and social conservatives have gotten very sneaky in the past few years. For instance, they have attempted bans before 6 weeks before some women even know they are pregnant and before birth/genetic defects can be detected, laws requiring the person to stay in state for a mandatory waiting period, laws require transvaginal US and showing the results to the women prior to her abortion. These types of laws are all likely going to get more common.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I should also point out that there are a sizable and vocal group of social conservatives who oppose all manner of contraception and sex education. I know, I’ve met some very influential members of the conservative movement. The idea that these folks are going sit by and be appeased when Roe is gone is laughable. They will go after all manner of things that “make them feel icky”.

No doubt, but I don't think that will get nearly as much traction.

 

[DoctwoB]

The Red states and social conservatives have gotten very sneaky in the past few years. For instance, they have attempted bans before 6 weeks before some women even know they are pregnant and before birth/genetic defects can be detected, laws requiring the person to stay in state for a mandatory waiting period, laws require transvaginal US and showing the results to the women prior to her abortion. These types of laws are all likely going to get more common.

The transvaginal US law and the fact that the supreme court declined to review it is incredible and already shows you that many live in a right wing dystopia. It literally requires an unncessary, invasive procedure prior to taking a pill for an abortion for only moral, not medical reasons. It is basically legalized sexual assualt. While you can argue that "the abortion is elective" and thus the TVUS is as well, the fact that it is not medically necessary is whit it is assualt. It is quite literally the same thing as requiring men to get a transrectal ultrasound before a viagra prescription.

 

[AMEHigh]

All the uproar about abortion make no sense to me. Even if the remote possibility happened and Roe v. Wade was overturned, then it would not be the end of the world. Everything would go back to how it was before Roe v. Wade where individual states make their own laws. I do not think many states would go so far as to ban abortion. Certainly, none of the blue states and most of the red states would not ban abortion. Abortion was already legal in 20 states before Roe v. Wade in 1973 and I think that the country in 2020 is a lot different than it was in 1973. I think abortion would remain legal in at least 47 states if the issue went back to the state level. I believe only 3 states now have laws on the books completely banning abortions (Louisiana, Utah, and Alabama). There might be more states with restrictions on late term and particularly third trimester abortions. However, I think that even among physicians abortions after viability are controversial. I would also think that if there was a ban in 2 or 3 states, then Planned Parenthood would help provide access to patients by helping transport them to an adjacent state.

LOL.
That's pretty easy for you to say. I assume you're not a poor, person of color who is capable of becoming pregnant.
Abortion care is already, today, out of reach for many many people.
Yes if you are rich things will likely not change because you can pay for medical care, but for the rest/vast majority of the population that is not the case.

I mean just look at how causally you mention, oh planed parenthood will just pay to transport people to other places. Well 1) that's already happening through private funds for transportation because restrictions make it impossible for people to get care near them and 2) way to ignore the huge problem with that even needing to happen. Who pays for people to take off work, childcare, hotels, etc etc especially in states that have non-sensical waiting periods that do nothing for safety. So in order to get an abortion at 6 weeks, even just the pills you have to wait 3 days. That is not ok and that is happening right now with Roe v Wade standing.

Look at how many people lost jobs due to covid. My partner hasn't gotten an employment check since July because the system is so back logged, yet people are yelling that someone at 8 weeks shouldn't be able to get an abortion. And some people can't since they don't have the funds to travel, take off work, etc, so they bring a child in to this crappy country that doesn't offer unemployment, health care, etc to everyone. Ridiculous.

I don't want to turn this in to an abortion debate, but those are facts and that is the reality. Access is already horrible. If you're against abortion then you should be happy with how things are now because access is already trash for a lot of people and if federally things change, then health care access will decrease even further.

 

[AMEHigh]

Has anyone actually tried that, like the Democrats? Honestly asking, because there's no reason they couldn't try to put forth a compromise bill in the House to see how it would go.

Also, why is having a starting point that's not that anti-democratic? I'd like that fleshed out a bit.

To clarify, has anyone tried what?
I want to try to answer the question.

 

[dannyboy1]

All the uproar about abortion make no sense to me. Even if the remote possibility happened and Roe v. Wade was overturned, then it would not be the end of the world. Everything would go back to how it was before Roe v. Wade where individual states make their own laws. I do not think many states would go so far as to ban abortion. Certainly, none of the blue states and most of the red states would not ban abortion. Abortion was already legal in 20 states before Roe v. Wade in 1973 and I think that the country in 2020 is a lot different than it was in 1973. I think abortion would remain legal in at least 47 states if the issue went back to the state level. I believe only 3 states now have laws on the books completely banning abortions (Louisiana, Utah, and Alabama). There might be more states with restrictions on late term and particularly third trimester abortions. However, I think that even among physicians abortions after viability are controversial. I would also think that if there was a ban in 2 or 3 states, then Planned Parenthood would help provide access to patients by helping transport them to an adjacent state.

Agreed. I wonder why the democrats choose to die on the abortion hill time and again. Most reasonable people agree that abortions should be safe and legal but listening to the left wing, one would think that abortions are a life event to be celebrated. I don’t think the court would go so far as to completely overturn roe, and even if they did the vast majority of states would allow it. There are far more pressing issues to deal with....

 

[AMEHigh]

Agreed. I wonder why the democrats choose to die on the abortion hill time and again. Most reasonable people agree that abortions should be safe and legal but listening to the left wing, one would think that abortions are a life event to be celebrated. I don’t think the court would go so far as to completely overturn roe, and even if they did the vast majority of states would allow it. There are far more pressing issues to deal with....

Because the thing is denying access to care literally changes people's lives.
The Turnaway Study for example really highlights this. People who were turned away for abortion care were more likely to continue living in poverty, have depression, continue relationships with abusive partners, have pregnancy complications, etc.

I think it's easy for people who really don't have stake in the game to see, meh, what's the big deal. But it is a pretty big deal to deny patients access to care, especially to something that can be so life changing.

There's a reason that most people who have abortions are already parents. They realize what a huge responsibility, mentally and financially, it is to raise a child and can recognize that they can't bring another child in the world. That is the responsible decision and to deny a person that choice is a huge deal.

Even though I'm not a huge "gun fan," I absolutely understand the reason behind why people are so passionate about the right to have arms. I'm not sitting here saying meh, not a big deal. And really I do think that if people weren't allowed to buy guns they wouldn't literally die (people in other countries aren't dying left and right without guns), like what can happen when people are denied abortions.

 

[Matty44]

trump continues to speak in manners similar to nazi rhetoric at the same time banning government and contractors from having trainings on racism & sexism. Yep, he’s the one for all Americans that I want to be in charge & pick our justices. RAGE.

I have no faith that he’ll be voted out of office.

Trump genes comments ‘indistinguishable from Nazi rhetoric’, expert on Holocaust says

US president has long history of praising his own genetic make-up

www.independent.co.uk

Trump Expands Ban On Racial Sensitivity Training To Federal Contractors

The president signed an executive order to combat race and sex "stereotyping" and "scapegoating." The training cited includes references to white privilege and systemic racism.

www.npr.org

Nazi rhetoric huh? Ok. You wanna be a bit more specific?

And as far as banning trainings on racism and sexism, seems like your being just as disingenuous as the article you linked to which says Trump is banning “racial sensitivity” training. Gimme a break.

He’s saying no to the societally toxic garbage teachings of critical race theory. If you wanna argue we SHOULD have all governmental employees undergo training in critical race theory, you can argue that, but quit with the thinly veiled attempts to say Trump is banning totally reasonable training. Everyone is against racism and sexism. Critical race theory ain’t just a nice course on racial sensitivity or not being a sexist.

You know better.

 

[pgg]

Agreed. I wonder why the democrats choose to die on the abortion hill time and again.

All self-determination / civil rights hills are worth dying on. If they aren't, what hill is?

 

[AMEHigh]

This article highlights some reasons why I don't think trump is getting voted out.

"Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."

"In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity."

The Election That Could Break America

If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[DoctwoB]

Nazi rhetoric huh? Ok. You wanna be a bit more specific?

And as far as banning trainings on racism and sexism, seems like your being just as disingenuous as the article you linked to which says Trump is banning “racial sensitivity” training. Gimme a break.

He’s saying no to the societally toxic garbage teachings of critical race theory. If you wanna argue we SHOULD have all governmental employees undergo training in critical race theory, you can argue that, but quit with the thinly veiled attempts to say Trump is banning totally reasonable training. Everyone is against racism and sexism. Critical race theory ain’t just a nice course on racial sensitivity or not being a sexist.

You know better.

Please know what you're talking about before speaking. I personally know multiple people at the VA who perform research into healthcare disparities based on race and gender. One performs research into ramifications of millitary sexual trauma. Another looks at disparities in prostate cancer care. Another looks at the prevalence of sexual discrimination in medical education. All of them are silenced and unable to present their research or findings, including the cancellation of recent VA centered conferences around these topics. Other conferences have gone on by changing their names. This isn't just "you can't teach critical race theory 101". We can and should have a discussion around this research, its' limitations (disparities doesn't = racism, they are multifactorial), Doctors are resigning from the VA over this and it is a VERY big deal and highly likely unconstitutional.

 

[Matty44]

Please know what you're talking about before speaking. I personally know multiple people at the VA who perform research into healthcare disparities based on race and gender. One performs research into ramifications of millitary sexual trauma. Another looks at disparities in prostate cancer care. Another looks at the prevalence of sexual discrimination in medical education. All of them are silenced and unable to present their research or findings, including the cancellation of recent VA centered conferences around these topics. Other conferences have gone on by changing their names. This isn't just "you can't teach critical race theory 101". We can and should have a discussion around this research, its' limitations (disparities doesn't = racism, they are multifactorial), Doctors are resigning from the VA over this and it is a VERY big deal and highly likely unconstitutional.

You’re saying the Trumps ban includes research into prostate cancer and military sexual trauma? Can you show me where that’s written or the executive order? I’ve seen nothing of the sort in relation to the training that he was targeting.


“The White House released an executive order that outlaws the teaching of "divisive concepts," such as the idea that one race or sex is superior, that the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist, that any individual should feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish" or physiological distress because of their race or sex or that an individual bears responsibility for past actions by others of the same race or sex.

"[T]raining like that discussed above perpetuates racial stereotypes and division and can use subtle coercive pressure to ensure conformity of viewpoint," the order states. "Such ideas may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars."

That’s what I’ve seen, but I’m open to learning more, and if he’s banning research into what you’re saying, that would of course be wrong.

 

[DoctwoB]

You’re saying the Trumps ban includes research into prostate cancer and military sexual trauma? Can you show me where that’s written or the executive order? I’ve seen nothing of the sort in relation to the training that he was targeting.


“The White House released an executive order that outlaws the teaching of "divisive concepts," such as the idea that one race or sex is superior, that the United States is fundamentally racist or sexist, that any individual should feel "discomfort, guilt, anguish" or physiological distress because of their race or sex or that an individual bears responsibility for past actions by others of the same race or sex.

"[T]raining like that discussed above perpetuates racial stereotypes and division and can use subtle coercive pressure to ensure conformity of viewpoint," the order states. "Such ideas may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars."

That’s what I’ve seen, but I’m open to learning more, and if he’s banning research into what you’re saying, that would of course be wrong.

Thus far there hasn’t been banning of research activity. There has been cancellation of any conferences, presentations, or trainings that touch on the topics of race, gender, or disparities. Part of this is because regardless of what Trumps press release states, his orders are translated by the VA secretary into policy. As of now that is the current policy, though it sounds like leadership is in disarray trying to suddenly implement one of Trumps ideas and it may or may not change moving forward.

 

[AMEHigh]

Thus far there hasn’t been banning of research activity. There has been cancellation of any conferences, presentations, or trainings that touch on the topics of race, gender, or disparities. Part of this is because regardless of what Trumps press release states, his orders are translated by the VA secretary into policy. As of now that is the current policy, though it sounds like leadership is in disarray trying to suddenly implement one of Trumps ideas and it may or may not change moving forward.

Yes, thank you for sharing.
This is just another example of people being like meh, no big deal, without fully realizing the repercussions.
I also know people who work for the government who have been affected by this so far as well.
And although it doesn’t include research right now, it certainly could extend to that. Could be extended to schools, etc etc. Who knows. Very rage inducing.

 

[Matty44]

Thus far there hasn’t been banning of research activity. There has been cancellation of any conferences, presentations, or trainings that touch on the topics of race, gender, or disparities. Part of this is because regardless of what Trumps press release states, his orders are translated by the VA secretary into policy. As of now that is the current policy, though it sounds like leadership is in disarray trying to suddenly implement one of Trumps ideas and it may or may not change moving forward.

Have you read the executive order?

Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrat

www.whitehouse.gov

I haven’t seen anything in there that seems too concerning. Perhaps various things were put on hold to review their content before proceeding forward? But freaking out about something and likening Trump to Hitler is just a tad hyperbolic (and I know that wasn’t you). If anyone can point out something problematic from the executive order I’d be curious what part one might take issue with specifically.

 

[DoctwoB]

Not copy pasting, but among other things basically it states in multiple places that any teaching or grants for research based on the idea that an individual of a specific race or gender may carry bias (conscious or unconscious) towards others of a different race or gender is banned. Basically the concept of unconscious bias can’t be discussed or researched using grant money.

 

[AMEHigh]

Not copy pasting, but among other things basically it states in multiple places that any teaching or grants for research based on the idea that an individual of a specific race or gender may carry bias (conscious or unconscious) towards others of a different race or gender is banned. Basically the concept of unconscious bias can’t be discussed or researched using grant money.

Yep.
And it’s also important to look at this among the big picture.
Example after example of the president and this administration not being for all Americans.
Steven Miller, a known white supremacist based on his works & emails, is one of the top advisors.
Come on now.

 

[AMEHigh]

Trump is going to sign a "born alive" executive order.
So now if a child is born with anencephaly for example, they’ll have to be "full-code." I mean I guess we’ll wait to see what the EO actually says, it’s just pandering to his base, but omg this is horrific to meddle in how we care for patients.

Trump says he’ll sign order aimed at protecting premature babies in appeal to religious voters

President Trump on Wednesday announced he will sign an executive order he says would ensure all babies born alive, including those born prematurely or that survive abortions, receive…

thehill.com

 

[PainDrain]

Trump is going to sign a "born alive" executive order.
So now if a child is born with anencephaly for example, they’ll have to be "full-code." I mean I guess we’ll wait to see what the EO actually says, it’s just pandering to his base, but omg this is horrific to meddle in how we care for patients.

Trump says he’ll sign order aimed at protecting premature babies in appeal to religious voters

President Trump on Wednesday announced he will sign an executive order he says would ensure all babies born alive, including those born prematurely or that survive abortions, receive…

thehill.com

This is pathetic. Talk about desperate measures for a failing campaign.

 

[Matty44]

I’m sorry, you guys are so funny. Do you literally think everything this guy does is an act of pure evil? Is this is a political move? Sure. Mostly. It’s just in response to crazy statements from people like Northam and trying to gain some points by saying he will protect babies. But you fly off the handle with OMG, this is so pathetic and horrific.

Don’t you get tired of being outraged at the evil orange man?

He literally just said "Today I am announcing that I will be signing the born alive executive order to assure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,"

If you tweak it just a bit....


"Today I am announcing that I will be signing the ‘equal care’ executive order to assure that all people, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,"

Would you have any problem with that?

What really upsets you about a statement that all babies born should receive appropriate care?

 

[AMEHigh]

This is pathetic. Talk about desperate measures for a failing campaign.

Do we really think his campaign is failing?!
He seems to still have a ton of support and I'm sure he's going to get more and more as the election gets closer and more and more shenanigans aka lies get thrown around. I guess he might not win the popular vote again, but definitely the electoral college.

 

[Matty44]

Do we really think his campaign is failing?!
He seems to still have a ton of support and I'm sure he's going to get more and more as the election gets closer and more and more shenanigans aka lies get thrown around. I guess he might not win the popular vote again, but definitely the electoral college.

So you think Trump will definitely win, and Blade thinks Trump will definitely lose. Interesting.

 

[PainDrain]

Do we really think his campaign is failing?!
He seems to still have a ton of support and I'm sure he's going to get more and more as the election gets closer and more and more shenanigans aka lies get thrown around. I guess he might not win the popular vote again, but definitely the electoral college.

He has basically blown all his money advantage. To the point they are actually pulling TV ad time in key battleground states, ex AZ.

I am not saying he won’t pull it off somehow but if he wins it’s likely to be a blowout on the popular vote for Biden while coming down to less than a few hundred thousand Trump votes in battleground states. The electoral system is going to look even more like a joke.

 

[AMEHigh]

He has basically blown all his money advantage. To the point they are actually pulling TV ad time in key battleground states, ex AZ.

I am not saying he won’t pull it off somehow but if he wins it’s likely to be a blowout on the popular vote for Biden while coming down to less than a few hundred thousand Trump votes in battleground states. The electoral system is going to look even more like a joke.

Yeah it doesn’t seem he’d now all of a sudden win the popular vote since he didn’t win it in 2016. I just think we’re going to have a repeat of 2016 with people staying home, voting 3rd party and more people voting for him in swing states, hence the electoral college win. And if anything is contested like I posted in the article above I think that tips the scales towards him staying in the White House because he’s not going to give up easily, plus the Supreme Court and senate will likely be in his favor.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Trump will win on election night then lose once all the absentee ballots are counted. He will then claim the election was "stolen" from him and the absentee ballots were mostly fraudulent. I never claimed he was going to leave like a gentleman. But, he will be forced out of office and even a right wing SCOTUS will agree that Trump lost the election. Despite what many of you on here believe about "right wingers" most of the GOP and certainly SCOTUS will obey the law. If the state counts the absentee ballot as valid then that vote counts period. So, once the states certify the election Trump is out of office. At this point Trump is neck and neck with Biden in Florida so Bloomberg is paying the legal bills of former felons so they can vote for Biden. Bloomberg may yet pull this off.

Bloomberg pays fines for 32,000 felons in Florida so they can vote

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated …

thehill.com

40,000 votes in Florida are probably enough to swing the election to Biden. These are 40,000 BIDEN votes that would not have occurred without Bloomberg. Brilliant move on his part.

 

[NontradCA]

I just think we’re going to have a repeat of 2016 with people staying home

There’s no reason to think this after seeing VA. Just common sense would lead a reasonable person to believe we will see record voting on this election amongst all groups. I actually believe mail in voting is not going to be as big of a deal as people think. If you actually look at recent polls the people planning to vote by mail has decreased..people are basing their Trump voter v. Biden voter % of mail in voters on months old data. I predict decisive victory for Biden on Election Day.

 

[NontradCA]

40,000 votes in Florida are probably enough to swing the election to Biden. These are 40,000 BIDEN votes that would not have occurred without Bloomberg. Brilliant move on his part.

The strategy here is give leeway to focus on other battleground states, not to win Florida.

 

[AMEHigh]

There’s no reason to think this after seeing VA. Just common sense would lead a reasonable person to believe we will see record voting on this election amongst all groups. I actually believe mail in voting is not going to be as big of a deal as people think. If you actually look at recent polls the people planning to vote by mail has decreased..people are basing their Trump voter v. Biden voter % of mail in voters on months old data. I predict decisive victory for Biden on Election Day.

I hope so. I still don’t think we’ll see voter turn out like we should do to a variety of reasons, but yes agree that turn out will be higher. I wasn’t saying turn out wouldn’t be higher, just that still a lot of people won’t vote. Everyone regardless of their position should be allowed to vote without barriers in the way.

 

[NontradCA]

I hope so. I still don’t think we’ll see voter turn out like we should do to a variety of reasons, but yes agree that turn out will be higher. I wasn’t saying turn out wouldn’t be higher, just that still a lot of people won’t vote. Everyone regardless of their position should be allowed to vote without barriers in the way.

If anything Republican turnout will be lower. The irony in this is that Trump is actively sabotaging his election. He’s telling his voters not to mail and that the election is a scam. They believe him. Democrats don’t believe him. In fact, they believe that he is trying to rig the election and that the only way to overcome this is by voting. How do you think that’s going to impact voter turnout?

 

[pgg]

Please define for us what the hill you are talking about is?
Abortion allowed under all circumstances up until time of delivery?
Aoortion allowed until viability? If so, what EGA is viability?
Hard to have an intelligent debate about civil rights with people who will not even state what these "rights" are.

I didn't think the post I was replying to required that level of detail, but here's my my argument, grounded in ethics and science, in favor of unlimited access to abortion prior to 20 wks gestational age, for any reason at all:

Will Trump win again???

@Matty44 1) The term is pro-choice, not pro-abortion. So again, please don't spread false information/talking points. Do you call hospice and palliative care doctors pro-death? I'm not a fan of either term really. Pro-life implies that the other side is not supportive of life in general, which...

forums.studentdoctor.net

Beyond 20 wks access to elective abortions should be limited to cases where there are health risks to the mother or fetal defects incompatible with life.

Regarding who's foolishly dying on which hills, to the detriment of their respective parties and their overall platforms, I'd call it a tie between Democrats stupidly losing votes over gun control and Republicans stupidly losing votes over abortion.

 

[Matty44]

Bloomberg may yet pull this off.

Bloomberg pays fines for 32,000 felons in Florida so they can vote

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg has reportedly raised more than $16 million in an effort to help convicted felons in Florida register to vote. The Florida Rights Restoration Coalition estimated …

thehill.com

40,000 votes in Florida are probably enough to swing the election to Biden. These are 40,000 BIDEN votes that would not have occurred without Bloomberg. Brilliant move on his part.

Brilliant indeed. Illegal, but brilliant.

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG, Vector 2 and Southpaw this is truly scary stuff. I recommend you read this article and see how close to the brink things can get over the next 4 months.

The Election That Could Break America

 

[T-burglar]

The US should just Balkanize. These are irreconcilable differences.

Make our last 10-20 years before our first blue ocean event and climate annihilation tolerable

Please define for us what the hill you are talking about is?
Abortion allowed under all circumstances up until time of delivery?
Aoortion allowed until viability? If so, what EGA is viability?
Hard to have an intelligent debate about civil rights with people who will not even state what these "rights" are.

You’re pretty fvcking stupid, huh ?

 

[vector2]

He’s referring to mail-in ballots, which is still fcking baffling considering how many of his voters vote by mail.

 

[vector2]

And before anyone starts scoffing, just FYI, another one of the many, many failings of the electoral college system is that no federal law or constitutional statute binds an elector's vote to anything, and only 33 states have laws against faithless EC electors. Further, only half of those states actually have an enforcement mechanism. It’s another one of those “we’ll, we’re all a bunch of reasonable people who follow century+ -old norms so why would we need to codify it in rock solid language” blunders

 

[pgg]

That is a coherent response. However, I do not think there is anything close to universal agreement about your position among either anti-abortion or pro-choice proponents.

I'm aware there isn't universal agreement on my opinion on abortion. 😉

 

[Ezekiel2517]

And before anyone starts scoffing, just FYI, another one of the many, many failings of the electoral college system is that no federal law or constitutional statute binds an elector's vote to anything, and only 33 states have laws against faithless EC electors. Further, only half of those states actually have an enforcement mechanism.

Nothing can be assumed or taken lightly at this point imo. I’d like to believe this nation’s military leadership would take a coup attempt and the peaceful transfer of power seriously. I’d like to believe Roberts and Gorsuch won’t just blindly play along in the plot of an insane man to destroy democracy. But we’re talking about a man who has proven that he is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives for his re-election. The worst needs to be prepared for.

 

[radsisrad]

trump continues to speak in manners similar to nazi rhetoric at the same time banning government and contractors from having trainings on racism & sexism. Yep, he’s the one for all Americans that I want to be in charge & pick our justices. RAGE.

I have no faith that he’ll be voted out of office.

Trump genes comments ‘indistinguishable from Nazi rhetoric’, expert on Holocaust says

US president has long history of praising his own genetic make-up

www.independent.co.uk

Trump Expands Ban On Racial Sensitivity Training To Federal Contractors

The president signed an executive order to combat race and sex "stereotyping" and "scapegoating." The training cited includes references to white privilege and systemic racism.

www.npr.org

Those "trainings" amount to "white people bad." We've all sat through them, so this is no secret.

 

[Matty44]

But we’re talking about a man who has proven that he is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives for his re-election. The worst needs to be prepared for.

I really do feel some sympathy for you. It blows my mind that we are in a place in our world today where grown ups, like full on functioning adults, believe that our president is an evil super villain

 

[AMEHigh]

Has anyone heard talks about what it means in practical terms that trump has declared certain cities anarchy jurisdictions and the memo says federal funding will be withheld?

Memorandum on Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients That Are Permitting Anarchy, Violence, and Destruction in American Cities | The White House

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET SUBJECT: Reviewing Funding to State and Local Government Recipients

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[NontradCA]

I really do feel some sympathy for you. It blows my mind that we are in a place in our world today where grown ups, like full on functioning adults, believe that our president is an evil super villain

He’s not a evil super villain, he’s a dumb narcissist. That’s all there is to him, I wish it was different, but it is what it is. He will obviously do anything he can to stay in power. If he were an evil super villain he wouldn’t be so brazen and foolish about it. What super villains you know reveal their plot in the first act?

 

[qwerty89]

Fair point

You're kind of close to the "both sides are bad" argument that has been used a lot lately to minimize the badness of bad behavior on the speaker's side. I don't believe there's an even split of wrong decisions. Majority opinions and dissents from the left often hinge on arguments like "this is bad" or "this is wrong" or "it'd be better for the country if we did this" - and those things may even be true. But I do try hard to split my own wants and ideology from my assessment of what the legally correct ruling should be.

For example, I think Citizens United was a bad outcome but the correct ruling per the Constitution and the law. As a supporter of abortion rights, I think Roe vs Wade was a good outcome, but a bad ruling on its legal merits. (Incidentally, RBG felt the same way.) Brown vs Board of Education was a good outcome and a good ruling. And of course obviously these aren't all hard black and white issues else we wouldn't need 9 highly educated, highly experienced, wise people to argue and vote on the answer. It just appears undeniable to me that the left and right approach these contentious issues with different values and a different process. The Constitution is a living document but it shouldn't be a flexible one, and I favor the right's more rigid reading of and application of it.

 

[Southpaw]

PGG, Vector 2 and Southpaw this is truly scary stuff. I recommend you read this article and see how close to the brink things can get over the next 4 months.

The Election That Could Break America

@BLADEMDA people here, @vector2 leading the charge, have been saying this for months. This isn’t news to me.

Yes, the president will lose this election. There’ll be no fraud but he’ll have you believe otherwise. I don’t believe the popular vote will be close. Honestly at this point I’m not sure the electoral will either. People are tired of the constant chaos of this malignant narcissist/psychopath.

The president will not admit defeat on election night. He will never admit defeat as it’s beyond him to do so. He continues to maintain there were 3 million illegal votes in 2016. I hope @pgg is correct in that there’ll be a peaceful transfer of power. However, I worry about worsening chaos, riots, violence, and a constitutional crisis.

Some people, for whatever reason, just can’t see what is plainly clear. Donald Trump doesn’t care about America. He cares only about Donald Trump. Americans will pay the price.

 

[PainDrain]

And before anyone starts scoffing, just FYI, another one of the many, many failings of the electoral college system is that no federal law or constitutional statute binds an elector's vote to anything, and only 33 states have laws against faithless EC electors. Further, only half of those states actually have an enforcement mechanism. It’s another one of those “we’ll, we’re all a bunch of reasonable people who follow century+ -old norms so why would we need to codify it in rock solid language” blunders

This is tyranny and the tactics of a pathetic strongman.