Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

[Phoenixmgs]

Can you stay on topic for like, a second?

Funny how I was one of the very few people that tried to stay on topic about the legality of Roe v Wade...

Adherence to the culture war narratives the working class are brain-washed by Fox into being triggered by, not actual liveable wages, housing regulation, job security and safety, health care.
Just 'liberals are weiiiird and want to destroy your life!' nonsense.

I don't care about that petty bullshit... I find the culture war bullshit entertaining like a bad reality show.

@3:30 Bernie says the Republicans are better for the working class now

 

[Absent]

@3:30 Bernie says the Republicans are better for the working class now

Woah. No. That's really not a honest representation of what he's saying.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Woah. No. That's really not a honest representation of what he's saying.

How?

 

[Absent]

How?

He's talking about discourses and representations. He's pointing out a paradoxical issue which actually applies way beyond the US (there's the same problem in France). Conservatives have a populist discourses that is adressed to the working class, and often to under-educated parts of the population, it's a demagoguery that appeals to them, with scapegoating (minorities such as migrants, gays, secondary religions) and cheap-and-easy solutions. Progressives tend to be more on the intellectual side, avoiding shameful fallacies such as victim-blaming and minorities scapegoating, and generally attempting to "raise" the level of public discourses instaed of adjusting it to scoop more people. But this means that there's a shift towards almost academic, well-educated discourses for well-educated listeners, and a classist contempt for those who "don't get it". The paradox comes from the fact that the left actually tries to establish a more social economy, whereas the right, for all its demagoguery, pushes for less and less social systems - cutting social services, cutting super-rich taxation, exacerbating wealth differences, preventing the sharing and redistribution of society's resources, and all under the guise of "we understand your struggle, we're on your side (go stone asylum seekers instead of us plz?)".

So in that video, Sanders doesn't claim that Republicans do objectively better things for poor people than Democrats (I was really curious about that, that's why I checked the video). But it points out that Republican do address their discourses to the working class more. Actually, he doesn't even directly says that, but points out that the working class feels that Republicans address them more, and pay more attention to them. That's indeed where the right goes fishing for votes, whereas it indeed used to be different (with the great social movements of workers in the 20th century). The left is snobishly losing touch with that, and leaves the field to populists (who are actually pursuing policies that are devastating for the economically lowest part of society).

Now of coure there is also, in Europe, some left-wing populist movements (and some would claim that Sandrs himself represents that in the US). And there's also a hypocritical left-wing trend of self-serving "bohemian bourgeoisie" (called in france the "caviar left"). So, a lot of nuances to be brought to that. But my point is that Sanders, here, is discussing communication more than policies, and at no point presents the actual republican policies as genuinely better than the democrtatic policies, for the working class that republicans (sucessfully) court.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

He's talking about discourses and representations. He's pointing out a paradoxical issue which actually applies way beyond the US (there's the same problem in France). Conservatives have a populist discourses that is adressed to the working class, and often to under-educated parts of the population, it's a demagoguery that appeals to them, with scapegoating (minorities such as migrants, gays, secondary religions) and cheap-and-easy solutions. Progressives tend to be more on the intellectual side, avoiding shameful fallacies such as victim-blaming and minorities scapegoating, and generally attempting to "raise" the level of public discourses instaed of adjusting it to scoop more people. But this means that there's a shift towards almost academic, well-educated discourses for well-educated listeners, and a classist contempt for those who "don't get it". The paradox comes from the fact that the left actually tries to establish a more social economy, whereas the right, for all its demagoguery, pushes for less and less social systems - cutting social services, cutting super-rich taxation, exacerbating wealth differences, preventing the sharing and redistribution of society's resources, and all under the guise of "we understand your struggle, we're on your side (go stone asylum seekers instead of us plz?)".

So in that video, Sanders doesn't claim that Republicans do objectively better things for poor people than Democrats (I was really curious about that, that's why I checked the video). But it points out that Republican do address their discourses to the working class more. Actually, he doesn't even directly says that, but points out that the working class feels that Republicans address them more, and pay more attention to them. That's indeed where the right goes fishing for votes, whereas it indeed used to be different (with the great social movements of workers in the 20th century). The left is snobishly losing touch with that, and leaves the field to populists (who are actually pursuing policies that are devastating for the economically lowest part of society).

Now of coure there is also, in Europe, some left-wing populist movements (and some would claim that Sandrs himself represents that in the US). And there's also a hypocritical left-wing trend of self-serving "bohemian bourgeoisie" (called in france the "caviar left"). So, a lot of nuances to be brought to that. But my point is that Sanders, here, is discussing communication more than policies, and at no point presents the actual republican policies as genuinely better than the democrtatic policies, for the working class that republicans (sucessfully) court.

"30 years ago the Ds said 'hey, Rs getting all this corporate money, we want it too, let's go out and get it. Let's forget about the people working who are working 50 or 60 hours a week'. So you're sitting out there somewhere in the midwest; you can't afford healthcare, maybe your job went to China and you're earning half of what you used to make, your kid can't afford to go to college, and you're looking at people on TV doing all of their stuff and you are saying 'who the hell gives a damn about me? who's addressing the crises addressing my life, the pain I'm experiencing?'"

You think Bernie is only taking about the Rs just mentioning working class more in speeches and rhetoric? How are D's policies actually better for the working class than the R's policies? Black people are moving south even though according to the left media, the south is racist, so why would they move south where people don't like them if it wasn't for better opportunity? Red states offer a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. Inequality is also higher in blue states than red states.

 

[Absent]

You think Bernie is only taking about the Rs just mentioning working class more in speeches and rhetoric?

At no point in this text does Sanders praise Republican policies, the only reference to them is the Democrats' supposed "Republicans getting all this corporate money, we want it too". At most, he implies that Democrats are mimicking Republicans too much. You simply cannot go from your quote to "he says the Republicans are better for the working class now". You do realise that, right ?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

And there's also a hypocritical left-wing trend of self-serving "bohemian bourgeoisie" (called in france the "caviar left").

In the US we like to call them "limousine liberals".

 

[Absent]

In the US we like to call them "limousine liberals".

All these labels are sometimes unfair, though. Often coming from the conservative bourgeoisie who feels betrayed by their peers. "How dare you care for others when you're actually as rich as us". If political sensitivity, beliefs, values were determined by social status alone, if there was a systematic "hypocrisy" in being well-off and unhappy with our obscene differential of wealth and power, humans and their world would be still significantly worse.

I don't deny the superficiality of many rich people who appease their conscience with mere words, with emty ostensible postures. Nor the ambivalence of desires, between theoretical altruism and practical egoism. But there'ssometimes an implicit interdiction to support progressive ideas past a certain revenue, that is also questionable in itself. Both in terms of logic and intent.

Generally speaking, I don't really expect people to fight to death, or sacrifice their whole lives, for the betterment of society. Voting for less unfair models is generally sufficient for my respect.

 

[Silvanus]

In the US we like to call them "limousine liberals".

Huh, here in the UK the usual term is "champagne socialist".

 

[Thaluikhain]

I thought it was Chardonnay socialist.

 

[Cicada 5]

Texas Man Sues 3 Women Who Allegedly Helped His Ex-Wife Get Abortion Pills

The self-managed abortion was in July 2022, and the couple's divorce was finalized last month.

jezebel.com

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Texas Man Sues 3 Women Who Allegedly Helped His Ex-Wife Get Abortion Pills

The self-managed abortion was in July 2022, and the couple's divorce was finalized last month.

jezebel.com

Top notch job proving why she was justified in the divorce, I guess. Going for murder civil suit instead of the bounty hunting abortion one is wild though. The dude's lawyer being the guy who came up with the bounty hunting bill is a touch on the nose though

 

[Ag3ma]

You think Bernie is only taking about the Rs just mentioning working class more in speeches and rhetoric? How are D's policies actually better for the working class than the R's policies? Black people are moving south even though according to the left media, the south is racist, so why would they move south where people don't like them if it wasn't for better opportunity? Red states offer a higher standard of living relative to housing costs. Inequality is also higher in blue states than red states.

It is true that the right wing, and in many places other than the USA, have effectively found a way to communicate with a lot of the working classes. On the other hand, talk is cheap. What that's rarely accompanied with is actual policy. But this is one of the tricks of politics. A lot of people vote not with a politician that will do more for them, but a politician who most successfully appeals to them. Imagine, if you like, a test of "Would I like to have a chat over a pint with that person?" This does have a limited lifespan because eventually people will notice that for all the talk, nothing has actually happened to improve their lives. But you might be talking well over 10 years, and that's plenty of time to find a new angle to appeal to them with: plus, of course, it's usually the sort of timespan that a national leader will usually end, and a fresh face tends to get a fresh chance. Nevertheless, Sanders makes a very good point that the Democrats have increasingly failed to offer that much to the poor, whilst not really speaking to them either (the white poor, at any rate). And the Republicans would be able to step into that gap, even though policy-wise they are even worse.

The issue of state economies in the USA doesn't really tell us anything much. Some states will flourish, others less so, for a variety of reasons. One of the things that will encourage investment is that it's cheaper to set up operations there, so we would often expect (all else being roughly equal) that lower income states would experience more growth and job creation, so it is likely people would move to them. These are generally red states.

As to inequality, I don't think there's a meaningful rule here. Besides, again, it's the characteristics of the state likely to predominate. For instance, NY is going to be very high because for one obvious reason: it's the nation's main city and economic centre, so way over the normal percentage of very rich. On the other hand, some of the southern states will be high up because they have particularly severe poverty.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

At no point in this text does Sanders praise Republican policies, the only reference to them is the Democrats' supposed "Republicans getting all this corporate money, we want it too". At most, he implies that Democrats are mimicking Republicans too much. You simply cannot go from your quote to "he says the Republicans are better for the working class now". You do realise that, right ?

"Here's the point. The point that I was making is when FDR was president, when Truman was president, even when JFK was president, you're out on the street and you say to people which party represents the working class of America? Most people I think agree would have said the democratic party. Today, you go out on the street and that is not the sentiment. In fact, the republican party has more adherence than the democratic party."

So when Bernie says that he's ONLY talking about merely the republicans mentioning the working class in speeches and rhetoric, and not policy at all? If you think that, then I don't even know.

It is true that the right wing, and in many places other than the USA, have effectively found a way to communicate with a lot of the working classes. On the other hand, talk is cheap. What that's rarely accompanied with is actual policy. But this is one of the tricks of politics. A lot of people vote not with a politician that will do more for them, but a politician who most successfully appeals to them. Imagine, if you like, a test of "Would I like to have a chat over a pint with that person?" This does have a limited lifespan because eventually people will notice that for all the talk, nothing has actually happened to improve their lives. But you might be talking well over 10 years, and that's plenty of time to find a new angle to appeal to them with: plus, of course, it's usually the sort of timespan that a national leader will usually end, and a fresh face tends to get a fresh chance. Nevertheless, Sanders makes a very good point that the Democrats have increasingly failed to offer that much to the poor, whilst not really speaking to them either (the white poor, at any rate). And the Republicans would be able to step into that gap, even though policy-wise they are even worse.

The issue of state economies in the USA doesn't really tell us anything much. Some states will flourish, others less so, for a variety of reasons. One of the things that will encourage investment is that it's cheaper to set up operations there, so we would often expect (all else being roughly equal) that lower income states would experience more growth and job creation, so it is likely people would move to them. These are generally red states.

As to inequality, I don't think there's a meaningful rule here. Besides, again, it's the characteristics of the state likely to predominate. For instance, NY is going to be very high because for one obvious reason: it's the nation's main city and economic centre, so way over the normal percentage of very rich. On the other hand, some of the southern states will be high up because they have particularly severe poverty.

You know that's why I don't like the democrats because of their bullshit talk, right? They never do anything they promise to do but then blame republicans for blocking them. But when you look at almost completely blue states with no republicans blocking the democrats, they still don't do any of the shit they promise. Republicans are more straight overall.

 

[Kwak]

So when Bernie says that he's ONLY talking about merely the republicans mentioning the working class in speeches and rhetoric, and not policy at all? If you think that, then I don't even know.

Is this policy pro working class or no?
-

On Wednesday, the former White House press secretary signed the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, which says that children under 16 do not need to get permission from the Division of Labor to work or obtain an employment certificate verifying their age, work schedule, and written consent from a parent or guardian. In explaining Sanders’s thinking, her communications director claimed that previous permit requirements put an “arbitrary burden on parents.“ (It’s not actually clear how any of this was “arbitrary.”) Speaking to NBC News, Andrew Collins, an Arkansas state House Democrat, said by removing the parental-consent condition, the bill will “increases the risk that there will be abuses and violations of other child labor laws.” Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League, told the outlet that the new law “increases the likelihood that kids will end up in dangerous jobs,” adding that a current increase in reported instances of child labor law infractions makes it a “very odd time” for Arkansas to erode protections.

In February, the Department of Labor said it had uncovered more than 3,800 instances in the last fiscal year of children working in US companies in violation of the law, with more than 100 kids, as young as 13, employed in hazardous jobs cleaning slaughterhouses overnight for Packers Sanitation Services Inc. (Ten of them were in Arkansas.)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Thinks Child Labor Laws Have Been Working a Little Too Well

Republicans like the Arkansas governor care so deeply for kids that they want to make it easier for companies to exploit them.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[Ag3ma]

You know that's why I don't like the democrats because of their bullshit talk, right? They never do anything they promise to do but then blame republicans for blocking them. But when you look at almost completely blue states with no republicans blocking the democrats, they still don't do any of the shit they promise. Republicans are more straight overall.

And yet you're citing a video where Bernie Sanders explains that the Republicans spout rhetoric for the working class, but don't follow it up with policy. So do you think Bernie is wrong when you claim the Republicans are more straight overall?

In the end, it overwhelmingly is the Democrats providing the working classes with healthcare, income support, better salaries and work conditions. They might not be doing as much as much of it as you might like and they might still be too much in the pocket of the rich and big business maintaining a system that disproportionally works for the rich over the poor, but there's nothing complicated about the fact that in the USA if you want to better the lot of the poor, you vote Democrat.

Take the ACA: whatever its plentiful flaws and that it fell well short of many leftists' hopes, it has still provided vastly improved access to healthcare for poor Americans, and thus is still a massive accomplishment.

 

[Kwak]

Republicans are more straight overall.

Yeah at least they are up front about making life harder for any outliers from straight white christian religious culture - that's what makes them worth giving them more political power, over the wishy-washy alternative who consider catering to the actual complexity of the various competing interests which make up modern society.

 

[Absent]

"Here's the point. The point that I was making is when FDR was president, when Truman was president, even when JFK was president, you're out on the street and you say to people which party represents the working class of America? Most people I think agree would have said the democratic party. Today, you go out on the street and that is not the sentiment. In fact, the republican party has more adherence than the democratic party."

So when Bernie says that he's ONLY talking about merely the republicans mentioning the working class in speeches and rhetoric, and not policy at all? If you think that, then I don't even know.

Yes, he is talking about sentiment and adherence. It's pretty explicit.

And, again, he's not the only one. It's not an outside revelation. It's been a recurring observation and concern on the left for decades. And it's a concern because, technically, ideologically, the left is much more concerned about the status of the lower class than the right is, by definition. By policy. The left is pushing for what is called social policies, the right tries to destroy them to the profit of higher weath for the super rich. In practice, conservatives are "anti-poor" (and not "anti-poverty"). If their projects reduced inequality and reduced the burden of the lower classes, then the left would support them and appropriate them. If the progressive projects were benefitting the super rich (tax cuts, reduction of redistribution, privatizations, de-regulations) then the right would support them and appropriate them. It's the very thing that splits the political continuum, in terms of actions and policies (and intents and ideology). The only thing that is "pro-poor" in the conservative discourse is the trickle down fantasy, which is essentially "let us become even more rich and even more rich at your expense, and have even more power over you, it will eventually benefit you accidentally". Well, that, and the efficient populist "we are those who understand and represent the real people's minimalist easy simple common sense", which is historically proclaimed, with varying degrees of success, by absolutely every dictator in the world aswell.

 

[Kwak]

Wyoming Becomes First State to Outlaw the Use of Pills for Abortion (Published 2023)

The law is the only one in the nation to prohibit the use separate from an overall abortion ban and is part of a growing effort by conservative states to target the pills.

www.nytimes.com

...
“I have acted without bias and after extensive prayer, to allow these bills to become law,” Mr. Gordon wrote in a letter to Wyoming’s secretary of state released on Friday evening.
...

Excuse me the fuck what? Those are incompatible by definition you evil fucking moron.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Is this policy pro working class or no?
-

On Wednesday, the former White House press secretary signed the Youth Hiring Act of 2023, which says that children under 16 do not need to get permission from the Division of Labor to work or obtain an employment certificate verifying their age, work schedule, and written consent from a parent or guardian. In explaining Sanders’s thinking, her communications director claimed that previous permit requirements put an “arbitrary burden on parents.“ (It’s not actually clear how any of this was “arbitrary.”) Speaking to NBC News, Andrew Collins, an Arkansas state House Democrat, said by removing the parental-consent condition, the bill will “increases the risk that there will be abuses and violations of other child labor laws.” Reid Maki, director of child labor advocacy at the National Consumers League, told the outlet that the new law “increases the likelihood that kids will end up in dangerous jobs,” adding that a current increase in reported instances of child labor law infractions makes it a “very odd time” for Arkansas to erode protections.

In February, the Department of Labor said it had uncovered more than 3,800 instances in the last fiscal year of children working in US companies in violation of the law, with more than 100 kids, as young as 13, employed in hazardous jobs cleaning slaughterhouses overnight for Packers Sanitation Services Inc. (Ten of them were in Arkansas.)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Thinks Child Labor Laws Have Been Working a Little Too Well

Republicans like the Arkansas governor care so deeply for kids that they want to make it easier for companies to exploit them.

www.vanityfair.com

Again, neither party is pro working class, that's not what I'm saying. One is obviously best of the worst though.

And yet you're citing a video where Bernie Sanders explains that the Republicans spout rhetoric for the working class, but don't follow it up with policy. So do you think Bernie is wrong when you claim the Republicans are more straight overall?

In the end, it overwhelmingly is the Democrats providing the working classes with healthcare, income support, better salaries and work conditions. They might not be doing as much as much of it as you might like and they might still be too much in the pocket of the rich and big business maintaining a system that disproportionally works for the rich over the poor, but there's nothing complicated about the fact that in the USA if you want to better the lot of the poor, you vote Democrat.

Take the ACA: whatever its plentiful flaws and that it fell well short of many leftists' hopes, it has still provided vastly improved access to healthcare for poor Americans, and thus is still a massive accomplishment.

Where is any of what you claimed in the video?

What does Bernie have to do with me saying republicans are more straight?

But red states have higher standard of living relative to housing costs. Also, democrat covid policy was HORRIBLE for the working class.

And the ACA isn't just Romneycare?

Yeah at least they are up front about making life harder for any outliers from straight white christian religious culture - that's what makes them worth giving them more political power, over the wishy-washy alternative who consider catering to the actual complexity of the various competing interests which make up modern society.

Then why are black people moving to the South? What about all the democrats voting against building affordable housing all the fucking time?

Yes, he is talking about sentiment and adherence. It's pretty explicit.

And, again, he's not the only one. It's not an outside revelation. It's been a recurring observation and concern on the left for decades. And it's a concern because, technically, ideologically, the left is much more concerned about the status of the lower class than the right is, by definition. By policy. The left is pushing for what is called social policies, the right tries to destroy them to the profit of higher weath for the super rich. In practice, conservatives are "anti-poor" (and not "anti-poverty"). If their projects reduced inequality and reduced the burden of the lower classes, then the left would support them and appropriate them. If the progressive projects were benefitting the super rich (tax cuts, reduction of redistribution, privatizations, de-regulations) then the right would support them and appropriate them. It's the very thing that splits the political continuum, in terms of actions and policies (and intents and ideology). The only thing that is "pro-poor" in the conservative discourse is the trickle down fantasy, which is essentially "let us become even more rich and even more rich at your expense, and have even more power over you, it will eventually benefit you accidentally". Well, that, and the efficient populist "we are those who understand and represent the real people's minimalist easy simple common sense", which is historically proclaimed, with varying degrees of success, by absolutely every dictator in the world aswell.

Which includes policy to some degree.

The left cares about the social policies because it doesn't upset the status quo. And, of course, there has to be a push back for it to be a fight and waste time. Both of the parties are very bad for the people. It's not like republicans have caused say 90% of harm and democrats 10%, it's probably 60-40 at best and actually arguable of who is actually worse. If you say the republicans are driving us off the cliff at like 100mph and saying how bad they are and how everyone should vote for the democrats, but why when they democrats are doing the same but only say 80mph?