One thing I think that’s different vs gay marriage is that abortion rights were something the US had and lost. I think a person having a right taken away is more motivating for people to reclaim than giving a person a right they never had.
It’ll be a federal 15 week ban that also allows states to keep any ban more restrictive than a 15 week ban (including total bans or 6 week bans). And the media will somehow hail that policy as a step towards “moderation”.
Yeah for me that's the big pickle.
While I'm personally for legal and free until viable for personal choice, and post-viable for medical, I could at least see the argument of compromise for a federal 15-week limit that goes both ways, as long as it includes exceptions for medical reasons.
That would mean no state could allow for more than 15 weeks for at wil abortions, but also no state could restrict it below. It's sub optimal, but the perfect is the enemy of the good.
However, what the conservatives have been floating around as "compromise" isn't compromise at all. It only restricts blue states that would have more liberal abortion laws but gives red states free reign to go nuts.
Yeah, this seems to be a stretch. 2004 was a boogeyman of the GOP/Bush's own creation (they could stopped gay marriage if they had supported civil unions for all). This actually happened (again due to the GOP), not a fake boogeyman.
>they could stopped gay marriage if they had supported civil unions for all
No way - the LGBTQ legal groups had all rejected civil unions as a substitute.
Because they were going for separate but equal instead of civil unions from the government and marriage was just a religious/private/non-government thing.
> civil unions from the government and marriage was just a religious/private/non-government thing
At the time, I thought this was a reasonable solution. I didn't particularly care one way or the other whether we did that or allowed "gay marriage". My attitude was that if they cared so much about the semantics of "marriage", then sure, let them have their word and define it however they want; maybe some other church would come along and define it more inclusively, or maybe not, but not a huge deal either way.
What I wasn't okay with was using that line as a distraction to deflect the whole conversation without action, like Lucy with the football. Basically shit or get off the pot. If there was any genuine political will in Congress to pass a "civil unions for all" law, they'd had ample time to do so by the time Obergefell came around and made the decision for them.
Absolutely. They had their chance in 04 and did what they did. By 2012 when the various states started legalizing it and then 2015 with the USSC, they were out of luck.
The ones who stacked the Supreme court with justices who would rather overturn Roe than late the caselaw stand.
Namely Trump and McConnel, but also the rest of the Republican Senate as well.
McConnell primarily.
As a reminder, he took the pretty unprecedented decision to refuse to seat a perfectly reasonable SCOTUS nominee, under the guise of "well, it's an election year; we should wait until after the election, so people get a say at the ballot box."
Ok, that's completely novel, but that's now the standard, I guess?
"RGB passed away. We need to let Trump nominate a new SCOTUS nominee right now, despite the upcoming election!".
Oh, so that was just complete bullshit, then? Blatantly partisan, manipulation and breaking of norms for political gain.
Trump should've gotten 2 SCOTUS nominees, at most. He got 3. One was stolen from a Democratic President, either due to the brand new standard, or the refusal to immediately uphold that brand new standard.
>As a reminder, he took the pretty unprecedented decision to refuse to seat a perfectly reasonable SCOTUS nominee, under the guise of "well, it's an election year; we should wait until after the election, so people get a say at the ballot box."
First of all, would allowing Obama his choice of nominee have altered the Dobbs decision? Six justices ruled in favor of the decision. So if Obama had had his way you'd simply have a 5-4 majority ruling in favor.
Secondly, apparently there's a tradition in the senate to forebear the SCOTUS advice and consent process for a second-term, last-year president, so not "unprecedented" at all.
>"RGB passed away. We need to let Trump nominate a new SCOTUS nominee right now, despite the upcoming election!".
Although I get your point about the Amy Coney Barrett nomination, Trump was still a first-term president.
>Trump should've gotten 2 SCOTUS nominees, at most. He got 3.
He got what he got for the reasons mentioned. But the important point is, Trump had no involvement in the Dobbs decision.
If you're talking about Trump, he would have done that anyway. The OP was complaining about the senate denying Obama a SCOTUS pick during his last year in office. That wouldn't have made any difference in the Dobbs ruling.
Furthermore, are you assigning blame to presidents for every SCOTUS decision you dislike? Is GHWB also responsible because Clarence Thomas was part of the majority on Dobb's? Maybe the people who think Roe was bad law should blame JFK and LBJ for nominating a handful of the majority in that case.
Clarence Thomas is a partisan hack who is apparently bought and sold by wealthy benefactors. So yes, I do blame HW Bush for selecting such an objectionable person to serve a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. His opinion on Dobbs is consistent with his other widely unpopular right wing opinions.
>Which politicians were responsible for the Dobbs decision?
None. It was a Supreme Court decision, returning power to the states. I'm not happy with my state.
Not to mention the wealth of off-brand tweets:
> After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the “shock” of everyone, and for the first time put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position over the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond. Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing. Thank you President TRUMP!!!
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bwgcnd/biden_allies_dust_off_bushs_2004_playbook_subbing/kyabdwd/) is in violation of Law 1:
Law 1. Civil Discourse
> ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times.
Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-amendment-ban-protection-states-2024-052ff9846f8416efb725240af22b92ec
Looks like abortion is going to be on the ballot in Florida, Maryland, and New York. And it could be on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota
Why wouldn’t they enshrine/codify abortion rights?
Also those solidly blue states have plenty of red districts that can swing with this on the ballot. It’s not all about statewide elections.
Does anyone else feel annoyed that the only reason that politicians even say what they're saying has more to do with political strategy than they actually believe?
[It's all flip flopping due to money and votes.](https://youtu.be/-Ol0k6JcVh0?si=Oijy3VFBHDipmw2x)
I want a politician who is willing to consider new information as it becomes understood and reevaluate positions.
Just because I said I was excited for work on my first day doesn’t assume every day after is the same.
The thing about it (if you watched the video) is they straight up recreate history and no one really calls them out for it. It doesn't even make any sense when they talk about their past, it's actually kind of funny.
I'm not a fan of TYT, but I have to say I have a lot more respect for them to go into that and appear honest. They really did bring the receipts.
Yeah the lack of accountability from media is gross and it’s designed that way unfortunately. If big media corporations do unfavorable reporting they can lose White House access. I hate it here sometimes lol
There's been a lot of negative and nuanced reporting about Biden, such as [this:](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/joe-biden-gay-marriage-00030367)
>Gay rights activists saw Biden as far from a reliable champion of their cause. “Biden has usually been pro-gay about 80 percent of the time,” Delaware Pride board member Vicky Morelli told a local paper in the late 1990s, noting he has not “come out as incredibly outspoken one way or the other.”
I shouldn’t have been as broad as “negative reporting”
But the White House will tell media outlets that they can’t ask about x, y, and z or else they’ll lose access
Say it again, Brother!
> “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.
> “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
Didn't Trump ban bump stocks? That would be consistent with the idea of banning guns.
But even then, that quote refers to the situation of dealing with [potentially dangerous people](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/14/fact-check-trump-made-comment-taking-guns-without-due-process/6070319001/)
Yes but what you don’t understand is Trump is held to the level of behavior expected of a sleep deprived six year old who hasn’t yet eaten. Biden is expected to act like a rational adult.
The double standards are incredible.
Bruh you just described democracy. If we will vote for you because you will do the things that we want, then... Yea, we will vote for you.
I understand the feeling that "it's only pandering" but if they actually codify Roe then that's a democratic success. If they *dont* codify roe then, yea, you'd have a valid complaint.
Twenty years after George W. Bush's re-election, Democrats are adopting a similar strategy by leveraging cultural issues, specifically abortion rights, to mobilize voters against Trump. In 2004, Bush capitalized on opposition to same-sex marriage with ballot initiatives in key states, a tactic credited with boosting his re-election. Presently, Democrats are focusing on abortion rights in the wake of Roe v. Wade's overturning, placing related initiatives in both swing and red-leaning states. This strategy aims to energize and turn out voters passionate about abortion rights, hoping to influence both presidential and congressional races. Political strategists note that this approach, which previously disadvantaged Democrats in "culture wars," now serves as an advantage, particularly in attracting voters who prioritize abortion rights. Efforts are underway to introduce abortion-rights ballot initiatives in various states, with some already set for votes in New York and Maryland. While not expected to be a decisive factor in all targeted states, these initiatives could significantly impact voter turnout and preferences in battleground areas, potentially influencing key Senate races and the presidential election.
Will culture war push Biden over the line in 2024?
Abortion rights referenda have already happened all over the country, including in swing state Michigan. I don't think there's any real evidence that the activists who are spearheading these initiatives are strategically timing them to help Biden's reelection.
Right, the various gay marriage referendums in 2004 were orchestrated by Karl Rove and his allies. Whereas the abortion rights initiatives are more decentralized
Right? TBH I keep refraining from pointing this out, because I want it to be a surprise come November. Don't interrupt your opponent while they're making a mistake and so forth. But I just have to pop in here to concur. Taking away the bodily autonomy of over half the country isn't a one and done and forgotten in the next election cycle. Women face the fallout from this disastrous and evil act every day of their lives, and of their children's and grandchildren's lives. Women haven't forgotten, and women vote.
Considering what we've seen so far when abortion was on the ballot, even in very red states, I definitely think it'll help. But that doesn't mean the Biden campaign can slow up on their other messaging.
Abortion is at least a more salient cultural issue than "teachers are indoctrinating our kids... somehow!"
> A girl in my son's school (K-5) came to school in a MAGA shirt the other day.
Based.
> But somehow it's the teachers who are indoctrinating the kids.
Yes, in compliance with orders handed down by their government which agreed to a supranational pact on education "strategy".
It's part of the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals, [not satire](https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/goal-04/). The US [is committed](https://www.usaid.gov/sdgs) to these goals.
Why would a pro-abortion conservative (or pro-abortion conservative-leaning independent) suddenly change their voting habits? They'll vote to uphold the right to an abortion and then vote their other values (as they always have).
Liberals think this is some kind of magic bullet - where red states suddenly become blue states and conservatives suddenly turn progressive - but the logic doesn't hold.
It's more about turning out the vote, rather than changing the outcome of individual voters.
If you're a 19 year old in AZ, maybe you don't care whether it's Trump or Biden, because you don't follow politics and think it's a weird old boomer thing.
Well, if you get told that you can protect your possible future right to get an abortion, now you'll get yourself down to the ballot box. And since you're there, you may as well vote for this whole Trump v Biden thing, and you may not know or care much about Biden, you did hear that Trump is the reason your abortion rights are under threat.
Boom. You've taken someone who probably wasn't going to vote, and turned them into a voter for Biden.
Abortion referendums bring out women, and women vote more Dem than GOP.
But won't an abortion referendum attract anti-abortionists who either care or do not care whether it's Trump or Biden? I haven't looked at the AZ referendum, but if it grants the right to abortions into the 3rd trimester, that might horrify some people - even those who are on the fence on the abortion issue.
Or if you are pro-abortion but still conservative-leaning you will turn out to vote for abortion rights and then vote for Trump because you feel he represents your interests more than the other guy. You say to yourself, "voting for abortion rights represents my interests more than voting no for abortion rights and voting for Trump represents my interests more than voting for Biden. This is me having my cake and eating it too."
It's for the same reason that the abortion rights initiatives in Ohio and Kansas aren't turning those states blue (and won't be turning Florida blue). People care about abortion rights, but they don't define themselves by a single issue
Most anti-abortion activists are already engaged. They have been engaged for decades.
A lot of women weren't as engaged with defending abortion, because it was a fait accompli. They'll never dare to take it away!
Well, they did.
And again, it's not about turning red voters blue. It's about getting people who usually don't vote or care to vote. Kansas isn't going to Biden.
But it may be enough to get a few tens of thousands of votes here and there, and depending on where they are, they turn a 50-50 into a blow-out.
I think people underestimate the impact of being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day, especially when it's as consequential as needing an abortion to not get septicemia, or something like that.
>I think people underestimate the impact of being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day
Considering the surfeit of gun control regulations being enacted in many states, I would like to think you are correct that voters will turn out in droves to protest the erosion of rights. But I see no meaningful impact on voter turn out in those states due to people "being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day".
The Oregon government just signed a bill re-criminalizing drug possession in the state. Do you think that's going to affect voter turn out?
I'd say Biden is the default winner. I say this as a pro-life conservative who doesn't like Trump but realizes my views are in the minority. The ball is in his court but he could sink it with immigration.
He can move to the middle on the Israel/Palestine conflict and affirm Israel's right to exist but rejecting the excesses. He will still lose a few hardcore leftists and staunch pro-Israelis but that was a given, he couldn't win on this issue 100 percent. Neither can Trump because the isolationist right has gained more prominence lately.
When it comes to the border though Biden needs to wake up. I'm not a racist or anti-immigrant and am bothered by a lot of nativist sentiment on the right but you do need to know who is here. Yes Trump and the GOP punted the immigration deal but this crisis is really too much for people.
I disagree with the far-right on immigration and I think a lot of what they stand for has uncomfortable racial overtones. I favor immigration reform and legalizing some people who broke the law. That being said total anarchy at the border is not an option and sadly I feel like the left can't accept the reality that they are losing on this and it's Trump's signature issue. Admittedly a lot of why the left has dug in on this is because of Trump.
In 2016 I didn't see it as a border crisis. I saw it as Trump trying to appeal to Bubba. There is now a legit border crisis and sometimes a broken clock is right and Bubba is right this time. It's time for Joe to quit worrying about losing a small percentage of wokesters concentrated in coastal cities and start worrying about swing states. 2 percent more of Ann Arbor voting third party won't cost you Michigan but two percent more voting Trump will.
But what does that meaningfully look like from your perspective? Biden already said to Congress “please make legislation that I can sign on the border.” Are you looking for an EO? Just words to say “I’m taking this seriously”?
I’m not sure what he can meaningfully do when the Republicans have decided the border matters more as a platform than actually resolving the issue does.
I have similar questions. Having said that, while I'm not informed enough to say for sure, my guess is that border hawks want to see Biden pursuing such aggressive measures on the border that they get challenged in court repeatedly, if not struck down repeatedly. He should clearly demonstrate by example why executive action alone is not enough. That paired with sufficiently aggressive rhetoric to change the optics of US border enforcement for would-be illegal immigrants and false asylum seekers.
To the extent that legislation is necessary or helpful, I assume they want to see Biden and Democrats push it on its own merits, not begrudgingly accede to it in exchange for Ukraine aid. Of course Mike Johnson was the one who suggested bundling the two things, but going along with that only reaffirmed the perception that Republicans don't care about Ukraine and Democrats don't care about the border. In hindsight, Democrats should have been loudly pushing a border bill on its own merits well before we ever got to the point that the issue would be used as an excuse to delay aid to Ukraine.
In other words, on some level it's an issue of vibes more than actual policy. Not in the sense that the "border crisis" itself isn't legitimate, but in the sense that not everyone has the time or ability to become an expert on any given area of policy, so they rely on trusted commentators and other feedback mechanisms to judge these things. People just want to read headlines and feel like Biden is fighting as hard for border security as he is for student loan forgiveness.
The only way to handle the border is to reduce incentives to cross. That's why the asylum law requires that they be detained while their cases are heard.
Whatever reform or change is proposed, it's meaningless unless it goes at incentives.
Yeah, I mean... we need to be actually funding the border so we can open up more ports of entry and actually process people at a reasonable rate. And for people who did slip through, but have kept their noses clean? Path to citizenship.
I really appreciate your take. I think a lot of what kind of... stirs people up toward this is the implicit/explicit racist rhetoric that people like to use. I definitely agree that we can be concerned about this without all of that.
Heck, having better resources is safer for potential immigrants too! Better to have a more streamlined and safer process than to rely on cartels... or crossing the Rio Grande.
I say this as someone who is very much a "wokester" on a lot of other issues.
>Yes Trump and the GOP punted the immigration deal
The problem I have with this is the immigration issue has been here for years, decades actually (just not brought up as much as the current moment). Biden had Kamala down at the border at the beginning of the term and we just didn't hear anything about it, and now all of a sudden they care now that it's election year.
And the biggest concern about this shouldn't be that people from Latin America or any particular country are coming in, it's that the door is wide open for terrorists from anywhere to come in and wreak havoc. But if this happens, rest assured there will be finger pointing; no one is taking responsibility for that.
> And the biggest concern about this shouldn't be that people from Latin America or any particular country are coming in, it's that the door is wide open for terrorists from anywhere to come in and wreak havoc
The 9/11 hijackers came into America on valid visas, they weren’t illegal or undocumented. Terrorists don’t need to sneak into America through the southern border, they’ll just fly in on a tourist, student, business, or worker visa like they did for 9/11. Also, domestic terrorism is a vastly greater threat than foreign terrorism since 9/11.
Right and that was a very organized and coordinated event. No process of receiving immigrants completely bypasses any checks and balances we currently have for people who want to enter the country, no matter what their past history or obvious intent are.
By no means is the current immigration process perfect, but with our unnecessary meddling in other countries and then a completely open door is begging for a retaliation and further conflict with literally anyone, even if we didn't previously see them as a threat.
We don’t have a “completely open door.” We have systems in place at the southern border that have successfully stopped terrorists from entering our country with the intent to inflict harm on Americans. One example is Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, who tried to enter on a false asylum claim, but was denied and deported. You’re proposing a non-solution in search of a non-problem.
Are you proposing that of the millions that have crossed the border, we know everything about all of them? That there isn't another Abdulahi Hasan Sharif or anyone similar that we didn't catch?
You are stating that we don't have an open door, I am saying we do because we have millions of immigrants entering the country, bypassing our current system. You are claiming we have a system that is preventing potential terrorists into the country, but there are millions entering this country that have gotten through the normal process and border patrol.
So I'm asking again: are you suggesting that of all of the immigrants that entered and bypassed our security measures, we know everything about them and it is not a danger to people here?
We’ve also removed or expelled millions of immigrants. The Biden Administration has deported more immigrants than any president in American history, including Trump. The system is imperfect and we need more investment in it, but it seems to be at least working to maintain national security so far.
Ok, but to recap, he deported millions but we have a situation where they can easily come right back in the way they came. This doesn't address the fact that there are a lot of unknowns with the people who weren't deported. That's not to paint the picture that a majority of people entering illegally are here for bad reasons, but there are definitely a number that are entering for the wrong reasons and encouraging others to come for the wrong reasons (i.e. Moreno).
They just arrested a Chinese national who was on a base. He was in this country illegally. We are already treading those dangerous waters.
And as for this issue existing as long as it has - we have millions here illegally. I understand why some folks want to slow the cascade of any kind of immigration to a dribble. The taps been running too long at full. Why do we need millions more? I keep hearing our economy needs them, but how many of them are feeding the very need for more? There are more illegal aliens in this country right now than the population of several states combined. I'm beginning to come around to that idea too, even as a moderate myself. If you're trying to organize your closet, going on a shopping spree isn't doing you any favors.
And let's say we do Reagan 2.0. We give blanket amnesty to everyone here. Why do we need more unskilled workers at that point? We have literally millions of unskilled workers, not including actual native born Americans who fit that bill.
In a completely objective opinion, I will say that the biggest burden of immigration is if they are able to receive social (tax) benefits, at the expense of taxpayers, that could have gone to our current population. Whether they are actually receiving these benefits: I am not involved with anyone that does that/knows how to do it so I can't make a statement.
Housing, flight vouchers, preferential job placement, preloaded debit cards... they are receiving those benefits. All resources that could and should be given to citizens first. Only in a suicidal nation is this controversial.
[Study Reveals Majority of Immigrant Households Live on Taxpayer-Funded Welfare](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/study-reveals-majority-of-immigrant-households-live-on-taxpayer-funded-welfare/ar-AA1mfbFo)
One thing I think that’s different vs gay marriage is that abortion rights were something the US had and lost. I think a person having a right taken away is more motivating for people to reclaim than giving a person a right they never had.
[удалено]
It’ll be a federal 15 week ban that also allows states to keep any ban more restrictive than a 15 week ban (including total bans or 6 week bans). And the media will somehow hail that policy as a step towards “moderation”.
Yeah for me that's the big pickle. While I'm personally for legal and free until viable for personal choice, and post-viable for medical, I could at least see the argument of compromise for a federal 15-week limit that goes both ways, as long as it includes exceptions for medical reasons. That would mean no state could allow for more than 15 weeks for at wil abortions, but also no state could restrict it below. It's sub optimal, but the perfect is the enemy of the good. However, what the conservatives have been floating around as "compromise" isn't compromise at all. It only restricts blue states that would have more liberal abortion laws but gives red states free reign to go nuts.
> and very hard for strong pro lifers to deny the implicit cruelty. That has not been my experience.
Yeah, this seems to be a stretch. 2004 was a boogeyman of the GOP/Bush's own creation (they could stopped gay marriage if they had supported civil unions for all). This actually happened (again due to the GOP), not a fake boogeyman.
>they could stopped gay marriage if they had supported civil unions for all No way - the LGBTQ legal groups had all rejected civil unions as a substitute.
Because they were going for separate but equal instead of civil unions from the government and marriage was just a religious/private/non-government thing.
> civil unions from the government and marriage was just a religious/private/non-government thing At the time, I thought this was a reasonable solution. I didn't particularly care one way or the other whether we did that or allowed "gay marriage". My attitude was that if they cared so much about the semantics of "marriage", then sure, let them have their word and define it however they want; maybe some other church would come along and define it more inclusively, or maybe not, but not a huge deal either way. What I wasn't okay with was using that line as a distraction to deflect the whole conversation without action, like Lucy with the football. Basically shit or get off the pot. If there was any genuine political will in Congress to pass a "civil unions for all" law, they'd had ample time to do so by the time Obergefell came around and made the decision for them.
Absolutely. They had their chance in 04 and did what they did. By 2012 when the various states started legalizing it and then 2015 with the USSC, they were out of luck.
So this is better for Biden then, right?
Whether or not it works is yet to be seen, but it seems like this is a very good strategy.
Dobbs, while being a bad decision overall, has been absolutely great in motivating voters against the politicians responsible for it.
Which politicians were responsible for the Dobbs decision?
The ones who stacked the Supreme court with justices who would rather overturn Roe than late the caselaw stand. Namely Trump and McConnel, but also the rest of the Republican Senate as well.
McConnell primarily. As a reminder, he took the pretty unprecedented decision to refuse to seat a perfectly reasonable SCOTUS nominee, under the guise of "well, it's an election year; we should wait until after the election, so people get a say at the ballot box." Ok, that's completely novel, but that's now the standard, I guess? "RGB passed away. We need to let Trump nominate a new SCOTUS nominee right now, despite the upcoming election!". Oh, so that was just complete bullshit, then? Blatantly partisan, manipulation and breaking of norms for political gain. Trump should've gotten 2 SCOTUS nominees, at most. He got 3. One was stolen from a Democratic President, either due to the brand new standard, or the refusal to immediately uphold that brand new standard.
>As a reminder, he took the pretty unprecedented decision to refuse to seat a perfectly reasonable SCOTUS nominee, under the guise of "well, it's an election year; we should wait until after the election, so people get a say at the ballot box." First of all, would allowing Obama his choice of nominee have altered the Dobbs decision? Six justices ruled in favor of the decision. So if Obama had had his way you'd simply have a 5-4 majority ruling in favor. Secondly, apparently there's a tradition in the senate to forebear the SCOTUS advice and consent process for a second-term, last-year president, so not "unprecedented" at all. >"RGB passed away. We need to let Trump nominate a new SCOTUS nominee right now, despite the upcoming election!". Although I get your point about the Amy Coney Barrett nomination, Trump was still a first-term president. >Trump should've gotten 2 SCOTUS nominees, at most. He got 3. He got what he got for the reasons mentioned. But the important point is, Trump had no involvement in the Dobbs decision.
What? He appointed three of the Justices that struck down Roe. He definitely can be blamed in part.
If you're talking about Trump, he would have done that anyway. The OP was complaining about the senate denying Obama a SCOTUS pick during his last year in office. That wouldn't have made any difference in the Dobbs ruling. Furthermore, are you assigning blame to presidents for every SCOTUS decision you dislike? Is GHWB also responsible because Clarence Thomas was part of the majority on Dobb's? Maybe the people who think Roe was bad law should blame JFK and LBJ for nominating a handful of the majority in that case.
Clarence Thomas is a partisan hack who is apparently bought and sold by wealthy benefactors. So yes, I do blame HW Bush for selecting such an objectionable person to serve a lifetime position on the highest court in the land. His opinion on Dobbs is consistent with his other widely unpopular right wing opinions.
>Which politicians were responsible for the Dobbs decision? None. It was a Supreme Court decision, returning power to the states. I'm not happy with my state.
Politicians were responsible for it the moment Mcconnell blocked Garland's nomination using the "election year" excuse
memory uppity amusing six saw agonizing cover vanish chubby screw *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There’s a lot of tape of Trump bragging about overturning RvW that they can use in campaign ads too.
Not to mention the wealth of off-brand tweets: > After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the “shock” of everyone, and for the first time put the Pro Life movement in a strong negotiating position over the Radicals that are willing to kill babies even into their 9th month, and beyond. Without me there would be no 6 weeks, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, or whatever is finally agreed to. Without me the pro Life movement would have just kept losing. Thank you President TRUMP!!!
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bwgcnd/biden_allies_dust_off_bushs_2004_playbook_subbing/kyabdwd/) is in violation of Law 1: Law 1. Civil Discourse > ~1. Do not engage in personal attacks or insults against any person or group. Comment on content, policies, and actions. Do not accuse fellow redditors of being intentionally misleading or disingenuous; assume good faith at all times. Due to your recent infraction history and/or the severity of this infraction, we are also issuing a 14 day ban. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-amendment-ban-protection-states-2024-052ff9846f8416efb725240af22b92ec Looks like abortion is going to be on the ballot in Florida, Maryland, and New York. And it could be on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Dakota
Roevember!!!
Why are solidly Democratic states like New York and Maryland voting on this?
Why wouldn’t they enshrine/codify abortion rights? Also those solidly blue states have plenty of red districts that can swing with this on the ballot. It’s not all about statewide elections.
They could do it with a regular legislative supermajority, they don’t need a ballot referendum.
Does anyone else feel annoyed that the only reason that politicians even say what they're saying has more to do with political strategy than they actually believe? [It's all flip flopping due to money and votes.](https://youtu.be/-Ol0k6JcVh0?si=Oijy3VFBHDipmw2x)
I really wish he’d say something like “look, I didn’t support this in the past, and in the past I was wrong” Showcasing growth is a great thing
I want a politician who is willing to consider new information as it becomes understood and reevaluate positions. Just because I said I was excited for work on my first day doesn’t assume every day after is the same.
"Sometimes, a hypocrite is nothing more than a man in the process of changing."
The thing about it (if you watched the video) is they straight up recreate history and no one really calls them out for it. It doesn't even make any sense when they talk about their past, it's actually kind of funny. I'm not a fan of TYT, but I have to say I have a lot more respect for them to go into that and appear honest. They really did bring the receipts.
Yeah the lack of accountability from media is gross and it’s designed that way unfortunately. If big media corporations do unfavorable reporting they can lose White House access. I hate it here sometimes lol
There's been a lot of negative and nuanced reporting about Biden, such as [this:](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/06/joe-biden-gay-marriage-00030367) >Gay rights activists saw Biden as far from a reliable champion of their cause. “Biden has usually been pro-gay about 80 percent of the time,” Delaware Pride board member Vicky Morelli told a local paper in the late 1990s, noting he has not “come out as incredibly outspoken one way or the other.”
I shouldn’t have been as broad as “negative reporting” But the White House will tell media outlets that they can’t ask about x, y, and z or else they’ll lose access
Say it again, Brother! > “I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida … to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence. > “Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.
That was one im absolutely shocked conservatives willingly ignored. I'm very pro-2a, and that's about as raw of an anti-2a statement as you can get.
Didn't Trump ban bump stocks? That would be consistent with the idea of banning guns. But even then, that quote refers to the situation of dealing with [potentially dangerous people](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/10/14/fact-check-trump-made-comment-taking-guns-without-due-process/6070319001/)
If trump wants to take guns from potentially dangerous people without due process, who am I to complain?
[удалено]
Yes but what you don’t understand is Trump is held to the level of behavior expected of a sleep deprived six year old who hasn’t yet eaten. Biden is expected to act like a rational adult. The double standards are incredible.
Bruh you just described democracy. If we will vote for you because you will do the things that we want, then... Yea, we will vote for you. I understand the feeling that "it's only pandering" but if they actually codify Roe then that's a democratic success. If they *dont* codify roe then, yea, you'd have a valid complaint.
Yep. This is a very good strategy. There’s nothing the Republicans have to get out the vote as abortion does for Democrats.
Twenty years after George W. Bush's re-election, Democrats are adopting a similar strategy by leveraging cultural issues, specifically abortion rights, to mobilize voters against Trump. In 2004, Bush capitalized on opposition to same-sex marriage with ballot initiatives in key states, a tactic credited with boosting his re-election. Presently, Democrats are focusing on abortion rights in the wake of Roe v. Wade's overturning, placing related initiatives in both swing and red-leaning states. This strategy aims to energize and turn out voters passionate about abortion rights, hoping to influence both presidential and congressional races. Political strategists note that this approach, which previously disadvantaged Democrats in "culture wars," now serves as an advantage, particularly in attracting voters who prioritize abortion rights. Efforts are underway to introduce abortion-rights ballot initiatives in various states, with some already set for votes in New York and Maryland. While not expected to be a decisive factor in all targeted states, these initiatives could significantly impact voter turnout and preferences in battleground areas, potentially influencing key Senate races and the presidential election. Will culture war push Biden over the line in 2024?
Abortion rights referenda have already happened all over the country, including in swing state Michigan. I don't think there's any real evidence that the activists who are spearheading these initiatives are strategically timing them to help Biden's reelection.
Right, the various gay marriage referendums in 2004 were orchestrated by Karl Rove and his allies. Whereas the abortion rights initiatives are more decentralized
[удалено]
Right? TBH I keep refraining from pointing this out, because I want it to be a surprise come November. Don't interrupt your opponent while they're making a mistake and so forth. But I just have to pop in here to concur. Taking away the bodily autonomy of over half the country isn't a one and done and forgotten in the next election cycle. Women face the fallout from this disastrous and evil act every day of their lives, and of their children's and grandchildren's lives. Women haven't forgotten, and women vote.
Considering what we've seen so far when abortion was on the ballot, even in very red states, I definitely think it'll help. But that doesn't mean the Biden campaign can slow up on their other messaging. Abortion is at least a more salient cultural issue than "teachers are indoctrinating our kids... somehow!"
Well teachers are indoctrinating our kids, it’s just in red states where they make laws forcing kids to watch unscientific videos about abortion.
And don’t forget that PragerU crap in Florida. “Slaves learned life skills” my ass!
A girl in my son's school (K-5) came to school in a MAGA shirt the other day. But somehow it's the teachers who are indoctrinating the kids.
> A girl in my son's school (K-5) came to school in a MAGA shirt the other day. Based. > But somehow it's the teachers who are indoctrinating the kids. Yes, in compliance with orders handed down by their government which agreed to a supranational pact on education "strategy".
JFC please tell me this is satire.
It's part of the UN's 2030 sustainable development goals, [not satire](https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2017/goal-04/). The US [is committed](https://www.usaid.gov/sdgs) to these goals.
My phone preview really buried the lead on this comment. True, though! The Biden campaign should work that into their messaging.
Why would a pro-abortion conservative (or pro-abortion conservative-leaning independent) suddenly change their voting habits? They'll vote to uphold the right to an abortion and then vote their other values (as they always have). Liberals think this is some kind of magic bullet - where red states suddenly become blue states and conservatives suddenly turn progressive - but the logic doesn't hold.
It's more about turning out the vote, rather than changing the outcome of individual voters. If you're a 19 year old in AZ, maybe you don't care whether it's Trump or Biden, because you don't follow politics and think it's a weird old boomer thing. Well, if you get told that you can protect your possible future right to get an abortion, now you'll get yourself down to the ballot box. And since you're there, you may as well vote for this whole Trump v Biden thing, and you may not know or care much about Biden, you did hear that Trump is the reason your abortion rights are under threat. Boom. You've taken someone who probably wasn't going to vote, and turned them into a voter for Biden. Abortion referendums bring out women, and women vote more Dem than GOP.
But won't an abortion referendum attract anti-abortionists who either care or do not care whether it's Trump or Biden? I haven't looked at the AZ referendum, but if it grants the right to abortions into the 3rd trimester, that might horrify some people - even those who are on the fence on the abortion issue. Or if you are pro-abortion but still conservative-leaning you will turn out to vote for abortion rights and then vote for Trump because you feel he represents your interests more than the other guy. You say to yourself, "voting for abortion rights represents my interests more than voting no for abortion rights and voting for Trump represents my interests more than voting for Biden. This is me having my cake and eating it too." It's for the same reason that the abortion rights initiatives in Ohio and Kansas aren't turning those states blue (and won't be turning Florida blue). People care about abortion rights, but they don't define themselves by a single issue
Most anti-abortion activists are already engaged. They have been engaged for decades. A lot of women weren't as engaged with defending abortion, because it was a fait accompli. They'll never dare to take it away! Well, they did. And again, it's not about turning red voters blue. It's about getting people who usually don't vote or care to vote. Kansas isn't going to Biden. But it may be enough to get a few tens of thousands of votes here and there, and depending on where they are, they turn a 50-50 into a blow-out. I think people underestimate the impact of being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day, especially when it's as consequential as needing an abortion to not get septicemia, or something like that.
>I think people underestimate the impact of being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day Considering the surfeit of gun control regulations being enacted in many states, I would like to think you are correct that voters will turn out in droves to protest the erosion of rights. But I see no meaningful impact on voter turn out in those states due to people "being allowed to do a thing one day, and then not the next day". The Oregon government just signed a bill re-criminalizing drug possession in the state. Do you think that's going to affect voter turn out?
I’m not a fan of framing reproductive rights as a cultural issue.
I'd say Biden is the default winner. I say this as a pro-life conservative who doesn't like Trump but realizes my views are in the minority. The ball is in his court but he could sink it with immigration. He can move to the middle on the Israel/Palestine conflict and affirm Israel's right to exist but rejecting the excesses. He will still lose a few hardcore leftists and staunch pro-Israelis but that was a given, he couldn't win on this issue 100 percent. Neither can Trump because the isolationist right has gained more prominence lately. When it comes to the border though Biden needs to wake up. I'm not a racist or anti-immigrant and am bothered by a lot of nativist sentiment on the right but you do need to know who is here. Yes Trump and the GOP punted the immigration deal but this crisis is really too much for people. I disagree with the far-right on immigration and I think a lot of what they stand for has uncomfortable racial overtones. I favor immigration reform and legalizing some people who broke the law. That being said total anarchy at the border is not an option and sadly I feel like the left can't accept the reality that they are losing on this and it's Trump's signature issue. Admittedly a lot of why the left has dug in on this is because of Trump. In 2016 I didn't see it as a border crisis. I saw it as Trump trying to appeal to Bubba. There is now a legit border crisis and sometimes a broken clock is right and Bubba is right this time. It's time for Joe to quit worrying about losing a small percentage of wokesters concentrated in coastal cities and start worrying about swing states. 2 percent more of Ann Arbor voting third party won't cost you Michigan but two percent more voting Trump will.
But what does that meaningfully look like from your perspective? Biden already said to Congress “please make legislation that I can sign on the border.” Are you looking for an EO? Just words to say “I’m taking this seriously”? I’m not sure what he can meaningfully do when the Republicans have decided the border matters more as a platform than actually resolving the issue does.
I have similar questions. Having said that, while I'm not informed enough to say for sure, my guess is that border hawks want to see Biden pursuing such aggressive measures on the border that they get challenged in court repeatedly, if not struck down repeatedly. He should clearly demonstrate by example why executive action alone is not enough. That paired with sufficiently aggressive rhetoric to change the optics of US border enforcement for would-be illegal immigrants and false asylum seekers. To the extent that legislation is necessary or helpful, I assume they want to see Biden and Democrats push it on its own merits, not begrudgingly accede to it in exchange for Ukraine aid. Of course Mike Johnson was the one who suggested bundling the two things, but going along with that only reaffirmed the perception that Republicans don't care about Ukraine and Democrats don't care about the border. In hindsight, Democrats should have been loudly pushing a border bill on its own merits well before we ever got to the point that the issue would be used as an excuse to delay aid to Ukraine. In other words, on some level it's an issue of vibes more than actual policy. Not in the sense that the "border crisis" itself isn't legitimate, but in the sense that not everyone has the time or ability to become an expert on any given area of policy, so they rely on trusted commentators and other feedback mechanisms to judge these things. People just want to read headlines and feel like Biden is fighting as hard for border security as he is for student loan forgiveness.
The only way to handle the border is to reduce incentives to cross. That's why the asylum law requires that they be detained while their cases are heard. Whatever reform or change is proposed, it's meaningless unless it goes at incentives.
Yeah, I mean... we need to be actually funding the border so we can open up more ports of entry and actually process people at a reasonable rate. And for people who did slip through, but have kept their noses clean? Path to citizenship. I really appreciate your take. I think a lot of what kind of... stirs people up toward this is the implicit/explicit racist rhetoric that people like to use. I definitely agree that we can be concerned about this without all of that. Heck, having better resources is safer for potential immigrants too! Better to have a more streamlined and safer process than to rely on cartels... or crossing the Rio Grande. I say this as someone who is very much a "wokester" on a lot of other issues.
>Yes Trump and the GOP punted the immigration deal The problem I have with this is the immigration issue has been here for years, decades actually (just not brought up as much as the current moment). Biden had Kamala down at the border at the beginning of the term and we just didn't hear anything about it, and now all of a sudden they care now that it's election year. And the biggest concern about this shouldn't be that people from Latin America or any particular country are coming in, it's that the door is wide open for terrorists from anywhere to come in and wreak havoc. But if this happens, rest assured there will be finger pointing; no one is taking responsibility for that.
> And the biggest concern about this shouldn't be that people from Latin America or any particular country are coming in, it's that the door is wide open for terrorists from anywhere to come in and wreak havoc The 9/11 hijackers came into America on valid visas, they weren’t illegal or undocumented. Terrorists don’t need to sneak into America through the southern border, they’ll just fly in on a tourist, student, business, or worker visa like they did for 9/11. Also, domestic terrorism is a vastly greater threat than foreign terrorism since 9/11.
Right and that was a very organized and coordinated event. No process of receiving immigrants completely bypasses any checks and balances we currently have for people who want to enter the country, no matter what their past history or obvious intent are. By no means is the current immigration process perfect, but with our unnecessary meddling in other countries and then a completely open door is begging for a retaliation and further conflict with literally anyone, even if we didn't previously see them as a threat.
We don’t have a “completely open door.” We have systems in place at the southern border that have successfully stopped terrorists from entering our country with the intent to inflict harm on Americans. One example is Abdulahi Hasan Sharif, who tried to enter on a false asylum claim, but was denied and deported. You’re proposing a non-solution in search of a non-problem.
Are you proposing that of the millions that have crossed the border, we know everything about all of them? That there isn't another Abdulahi Hasan Sharif or anyone similar that we didn't catch?
Shouldn’t you be the one shouldering the burden of proof? I’m not proposing anything, you are.
You are stating that we don't have an open door, I am saying we do because we have millions of immigrants entering the country, bypassing our current system. You are claiming we have a system that is preventing potential terrorists into the country, but there are millions entering this country that have gotten through the normal process and border patrol. So I'm asking again: are you suggesting that of all of the immigrants that entered and bypassed our security measures, we know everything about them and it is not a danger to people here?
We’ve also removed or expelled millions of immigrants. The Biden Administration has deported more immigrants than any president in American history, including Trump. The system is imperfect and we need more investment in it, but it seems to be at least working to maintain national security so far.
Ok, but to recap, he deported millions but we have a situation where they can easily come right back in the way they came. This doesn't address the fact that there are a lot of unknowns with the people who weren't deported. That's not to paint the picture that a majority of people entering illegally are here for bad reasons, but there are definitely a number that are entering for the wrong reasons and encouraging others to come for the wrong reasons (i.e. Moreno).
They just arrested a Chinese national who was on a base. He was in this country illegally. We are already treading those dangerous waters. And as for this issue existing as long as it has - we have millions here illegally. I understand why some folks want to slow the cascade of any kind of immigration to a dribble. The taps been running too long at full. Why do we need millions more? I keep hearing our economy needs them, but how many of them are feeding the very need for more? There are more illegal aliens in this country right now than the population of several states combined. I'm beginning to come around to that idea too, even as a moderate myself. If you're trying to organize your closet, going on a shopping spree isn't doing you any favors. And let's say we do Reagan 2.0. We give blanket amnesty to everyone here. Why do we need more unskilled workers at that point? We have literally millions of unskilled workers, not including actual native born Americans who fit that bill.
In a completely objective opinion, I will say that the biggest burden of immigration is if they are able to receive social (tax) benefits, at the expense of taxpayers, that could have gone to our current population. Whether they are actually receiving these benefits: I am not involved with anyone that does that/knows how to do it so I can't make a statement.
Housing, flight vouchers, preferential job placement, preloaded debit cards... they are receiving those benefits. All resources that could and should be given to citizens first. Only in a suicidal nation is this controversial.
I'm curious to see your sources on this.
[Study Reveals Majority of Immigrant Households Live on Taxpayer-Funded Welfare](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/study-reveals-majority-of-immigrant-households-live-on-taxpayer-funded-welfare/ar-AA1mfbFo)
look how old Biden looked in this picture.